It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ATS: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Host Debate on Holocaust.

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   


And he didn't come to that microphone and say the Holocaust didn't happen. He said he wanted to host a conference to review the historical record.

He had PREVIOUSLY stated the obnoxious, he didn't state that this time.

If David Duke came to the podium and said he thought he needed to revisit his position and wanted people to set down and have a good old fashion bible reading - I'd be willing to give him a shot.

That sounds like at least half a retraction. It still isn't an apology. But the Iranian prez isn't even going that far.


What's your answer? Do you propose we spit in their face today and invade them tomorrow?

Just wondering - because you're pretty bellicose right now.

My answer to this is to ignore him, as we should have done after he made his first incendiary, racist statement about the Jews. Right after we publicly condemned him. I don't believe in invading Iran just because their president is a moonbat.

And I'm being bellicose?
Nice try, Val, but no cigar. I think you're just a bit hypersensitive.


[edit on 15-1-2006 by jsobecky]




posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
why is it that Iran has a problem with Zionists? Zionism is nothing more than the call for a Homeland for Jews - Israel. Why would a nation in Persia have a problem with that?
Furthermore, Iran has not all of a sudden developed this problem; if you recall, an Iranian ship full of weapons headed for the PLO was caught a few years back.

They have a problem because the land that was appropriated by the UN at the behest of the Zionists was taken from muslims. Whether you, or I, agree with that viewpoint does not (or should not) change the fact that that is the Iranian position on the matter. I have never read anything aimed at Jewish people from the Iranian leaders (mullahs), quite the contrary infact.


"We distinguish between the Jewish community and the Zionists; the Jewish community and other communities which live in Iran belong to this nation and Islam treats them in the same manner which it treats others,"

That is from the horses mouth, Ayatollah Khomeini the leader of the Iranian Islamic revolution.


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Historically, Iran hasn't had a problem. Times also change, don't they? The U.S. doesn't use slaves anymore, so one can't call it a slave nation (in the traditional sense, anyway), and Iran can change as well.

Times do change but the post-revolutionary Iranian position on Israel has not. Again, I must reiterate that this is because of the actions of the Zionists, not Jews et al. We blame the Nazi's for what occured in WW2, not the Germans. Why is this position we all take not questioned? Why are we capable of holding the Nazis responsible for their actions and not also be classed as rabid German haters?


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The Jews haven't been looking to get mileage from the slaughter of 6 million family members.

Correct! They most certainly damn well have not. What I posted is that some zionist leaders in the 1940's did. Completely different.


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
People are still alive who lost family members in those death camp Hell holes. Iam not sure what kind of mileage one would try to get, but I find such an assertion to be a tad insulting. I'm sure you've gone to one of these camps, I'm sure you've seen the bullet marks in the concrete, the ovens, and the very short wooden bunks. You've also probably seenthe pitiful clothing they wore, and read about how they were treated much worse than animals. It was truly heartbreaking to me. I'm sure I wasn't the only young, strong and well-trained soldier on the tour who was crying, we just showed enough respect to not catch each otehrs' eyes.

I know the horrors that occured in WW2. I planned to visit Poland during my last visit to Britain but was unable to go. I intend to go this Christmas and view first hand the places of horror that we as a human race are capable of inflicting on innocent men, women and children. I really should'nt have to defend myself from anything here, I have never denied the holocaust occured. I've been to the Melbourne Holocaust museum and talked first hand to a survivor of the holocaust.

This issue can be discussed without having to feel the need to trounce any discussion with hatefilled invective and insults, which I hope will be the case.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
well empty vessels make the most noise!, this being the iran pie prez.
but i do feel that one is testing the water.
i feel the real question is how many weak minded mugs will get sucked in?

where do you draw the line in the sand? iran is a big place



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   
*Valhall makes note that being hypersensitive may lead to less global tension than being bellicose*

learn something new every day!



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Subz, you are dquite wrong in some things, and in others, duped by the same old lie that is no longer even laughable.

What is Palestine is not Arab, that assumption is incorrect. To say that Palestine is Arabic is to say that the Jews have as much claim to the rest of the region that is given to the Arabs, but I hear nobody claiming that.
What is left of Israel is not even all that was first partitioned to the Jews, and I hear nobody crying any tears over that. All religious views are protected in Israel like in no other country in the region, but it is always Zionism that is viewed with suspicion, while the obvious truth is that Islam is the belief on the march.

It is nothing new that a leader, political or religious, to claim that teh struggle is against Zion and not Judaism or the Jewish people, but the result is the same. When the same man calls for the destruction of Israel, do you think he will mysteriously destroy "Zionism" and leave the people unscathed? Please. Save the symantics for those who play in that game, I look at reality.

I am well aware of how Iran has been in the past, in regard to Judaism. but, as I stated above, today's actions and today's talk is much different. The weapons shipped to the PLO destroys the lives of men, women and chioldren alike, they are indescriminate and are not talking "Zionism", unless you feelthat a group of young Israelis meeting at a pizzaria are Zionism.

What it boils down to is that if one were to mindlessly absorb meaningless words and ridiculous claims, one could swallow that poison without getting nauseous. I am not able to do that.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   
TC, first of all thanks for facilitating an intelligent debate thats free from vicious insults


One of the reasons some people interpret criticism of Zionism, the terrorist/political movement, as criticism of Judaism is because Zionists have sought to link thenselves solidly with the Jewish faith. Zionists have also fostered a belief, even amongst Israelis, that criticism of Zionism is an attack on Judaism itself. Netanyahu is prime example of this behaviour. No wonder Sharon split his party to get away from such entrenched dogmas.


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
What is Palestine is not Arab, that assumption is incorrect. To say that Palestine is Arabic is to say that the Jews have as much claim to the rest of the region that is given to the Arabs, but I hear nobody claiming that.

I said that the Iran problem with Zionism stems from the fact that "muslim" land was appropriated. Again, that is the Iranian position not my own.


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
It is nothing new that a leader, political or religious, to claim that teh struggle is against Zion and not Judaism or the Jewish people, but the result is the same. When the same man calls for the destruction of Israel, do you think he will mysteriously destroy "Zionism" and leave the people unscathed? Please. Save the symantics for those who play in that game, I look at reality.

Im on the ATSNN record as disagreeing with Ahmadinejad's comments which you are refering to. This thread is about holding a debate on the "scale and consequences" of the holocaust, not previous Ahmadinejad rhetoric.

I have not posted anything to the effect of supporting previous Ahmadinejad comments. I've posted examples of how some Zionists in the 30's and 40's used the holocaust to further their goals. As yet no one has posted any evidence that proves I am wrong in what I wrote. I've been personally attacked and insulted by a couple of people who should know better but thats about it.

It truly is a shame that a wide, intelligent and reasoned debate of this topic is impossible, even in the likes of a site such as this which aims to deny ignorance.

[edit on 15/1/06 by subz]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Valhall, hopefully I'm misreading you, but it sure sounds like you're willing to really scrape the bottom of the barrel in a feeble attempt at appeasement. This iranian fool doesn't need you to make excuses for his actions and words, and if that is what you are attempting to do, you only lessen your own credibility because I doubt anyone is buying your argument that this is some face saving move.

Like I said, I hope I'm reading you wrong ...



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Hi Guys,

I hope you don't mind me shoving my tuppence worth in?

It appears to me that the Iranian's stance on Israel has been made clear and that no apology can change the fact that their hand has been shown. They garnered no real Middle-East support with that diatribe; and I believe Iran have now gone back to the drawing board and view an attack via the back door as their best bet to draw Israel out into open play. Afterall what could be more upsetting and controversial than the Holocaust and the State of Israel's right to exist.

I am very concerned at Iran's sudden vocal anti-Israel stance and their indifference to the World's abhorence at their uninhibited rhetoric. The verbal attacks allied with the highly publisized restarting of their 'Nuclear Programme' has all sorts of alarm bells ringing in my head. They are sticking two fingers (not the Churchill kind!) up to the rest of the world and have initiated the same rocky road to destruction we witnessed with both Afghanistan and Iraq.

I also fear that there are too many similarities with the Taliban/Afghan situation; the Muslim Fundamentalists who held sway over the Taliban leaders and were dictating the policy decisions made by their leaders eventually led to the Taliban's fall from power; could the nation of Iran be under the same influence of those nomadic 'Muslim Fundamentalists' who travel from nation to nation in there thirst for war against Israel and the West?

I look at recent history and fear that peace in the Middle-East will be unattainable for many years to come and that Iran has been viewed as the next best bet for conflict with Israel and the West. Thankfully the reaction thus far of the World leaders would suggest some serious heat landing at the Iranian's front door real soon. Let's all hope that any sanctions taken are immediately successful and that this can be put to bed before it takes off and further compounds the tensions already being felt right across the Middle-East.

Just my thoughts,

Best Wishes

J



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
If David Duke came to the podium and said he thought he needed to revisit his position and wanted people to set down and have a good old fashion bible reading - I'd be willing to give him a shot.


You are a better person than I am. I'd just consider his past behavior
and figure that tigers don't change stripes into spots. I'd figure his
offer was just 'bait' of some type ... bait to get his ego more attention,
his cause more attention, whatever. I would also figure that even
when he got beat, which he would, he wouldn't admit it. I'd also
consider it to be nothing more than a distraction from something
else that he was trying to hide.

I'm an untrusting cynic. I admit it.
However, I admire your being open to other possibilities in this area.
It's something that I'm not capable in the case of David Duke
... or the President of Iran.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Ok, Subz, and thank you for not trying to make a discussion that is nothing more than responding to small segments of total thoughts.

Zionism is about the Jews, Subz. Zionism is not about anything else. It is the movement that Jews, like any other nation, are entitled to a homeland.
There is no terrorist/political movement to confuse anything with the Jews, so that particular statement is invalide, baseless and merits no rational response because there is no way to connect logic with it. Therefore, I will leave it alone. Sure, there are those who do not agree with everything, even in Israel. There are people in my own country who, regaardless of the negative impact it would have on their own lives, are more than willing to destroy the constitution. That does not mean that the constitution is worthy of destruction. This doesn't mean that the constitution, or Zionism, is bad.

Subz,again, no Muslim land was appropriated for Israel. The "problem" is nothing more than mere fabrication in order to justify violent acts of hatred against Israel. Israel is the people, and the hatred and violence manifests itself against the people.

Subz, denying ignorance also means one doesn't entertain ignorance as if it has the right for contemplation. When one writes in a manner to where it appears that the thought or assertion is one's own, maybe one is doing just that - NOT denying ignorance.
Just a thought.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Ahmadinejad is a complete nutjob.


When an aircraft crashed in Teheran last month, killing 108 people, Mr Ahmadinejad promised an investigation. But he also thanked the dead, saying: "What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow."



Western officials said the real reason for any open-eyed stares from delegates was that "they couldn't believe what they were hearing from Ahmadinejad".
Their sneaking suspicion is that Iran's president actually relishes a clash with the West in the conviction that it would rekindle the spirit of the Islamic revolution and - who knows - speed up the arrival of the Hidden Imam.

source

This guy sounds like a David Koresh/ Jim Jones/ Heaven’s gate wannabe.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

They have a problem because the land that was appropriated by the UN at the behest of the Zionists was taken from muslims. Whether you, or I, agree with that viewpoint does not (or should not) change the fact that that is the Iranian position on the matter. I have never read anything aimed at Jewish people from the Iranian leaders (mullahs), quite the contrary infact.


subz, that statement of yours is wrong, and if you believe it it shows your contempt for the people of Israel.

It is a fact that Palestine was never considered a state, because it did not fulfill the international requisites to be a State, until the UN put forth a resolution which recognized both, the State of Israel, and the State of Palestine, and the authorities in Palestine decided to refuse this and other resolutions which would have given them a State.

Israeli people have been living in there for as long as Palestinians have. It is true that the majority of Israelis living there today migrated, but the same can be said of the Palestinians.




Originally posted by subz

"We distinguish between the Jewish community and the Zionists; the Jewish community and other communities which live in Iran belong to this nation and Islam treats them in the same manner which it treats others,"

That is from the horses mouth, Ayatollah Khomeini the leader of the Iranian Islamic revolution.


When the Iranian president proclaimed that they want to "wipe Israel off the map" and then gave another speech in which he stated" Israel should be moved to another land," you think, if any of what he said would happen that they would allow Israelis to live in Palestine free, with their respect intact and without any repression?.... Please subz, I think you are smarter than that....



Originally posted by subz
Times do change but the post-revolutionary Iranian position on Israel has not. Again, I must reiterate that this is because of the actions of the Zionists, not Jews et al. We blame the Nazi's for what occured in WW2, not the Germans. Why is this position we all take not questioned? Why are we capable of holding the Nazis responsible for their actions and not also be classed as rabid German haters?


When the regime of Iran has called for not one Israeli to be in Palestinian lands, I think we all know they are referring to "all Israeli people".....not just what you call zionists.



Originally posted by subz
Correct! They most certainly damn well have not. What I posted is that some zionist leaders in the 1940's did. Completely different.


And there have been groups of different people from other races who have also tried to cash in what has happened in the past, and some have gotten paid, but I don't see anyone trying to claim that "slavery is overrated and the numbers have been exagerated, let's just make a debate on this and prove this is so."

You think because some people are trying to cash in on history that these events didn't happen?

All that this is is an attempt by the Iranian president to rally other Muslims who think like him, and to try to rise the ire of the Muslim community. That's all it is.

As another member showed, this "debate", if it can be called that, is probably going to be another try to "deny the holocaust."

I can think of at least a couple of other "holocaust type events" that have happened in history yet noone tries to claim "they were only exagerations and lies."


[edit on 16-1-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Zionism is about the Jews, Subz. Zionism is not about anything else. It is the movement that Jews, like any other nation, are entitled to a homeland.

Zionism is a political movement, not a religious one. I am trying to show that the Iranians are not anti-semetic, they are against Zionism. There is a difference, look I'll prove it.


Zionism
a political movement which had as its original aim the creation of a country for Jewish people, and which now works to help the development of Israel

dictionary.cambridge.org...


Zionism
A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

dictionary.reference.com...


Zionism
an international movement orig. for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel

www.m-w.com...

You can be a zionist and not be Jewish, you can be Jewish and not be a zionist. I have a couple of Jewish friends and they both are not zionists, hence they live in Australia.

So when the Ayatollah said:


"We distinguish between the Jewish community and the Zionists; the Jewish community and other communities which live in Iran belong to this nation and Islam treats them in the same manner which it treats others,"


That is irrefutable evidence that shows the Iranian leadership is not anti-semetic. Zionism does not equate to Judaism, one is a political movement and the other is a religion. They are not mutually exclusive but they do not equate to one and other.

Here let me give you another example of why Zionism is not a religious movement. When the Zionist group, Irgun, bombed the British Headquarters in Palestine killing 91 people (mostly civilians) and injuring 45, it was a terrorist attack and Judaism was not at fault. If you insist in linking Zionism with Judaism then that would mean Judaism was to blame for this terrorist attack which killed 91 people.


King David Hotel bombing by Zionist group, Irgun, July 22nd 1946

Thats a nice thank you to the British nation who lost thousands of men fighting the Nazis. Make no mistake, Judaism played no role in the terrorist actions of the Zionist movement. They would do anything to establish a Jewish state, including negotiating and trying to form an alliance with the Third Reich.


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
There is no terrorist/political movement to confuse anything with the Jews, so that particular statement is invalide, baseless and merits no rational response because there is no way to connect logic with it.

Well I beg to differ, its a well known fact actually that the Zionist movement became militant in the 1930's/1940's. I provided evidence to back that up above.


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Sure, there are those who do not agree with everything, even in Israel. There are people in my own country who, regaardless of the negative impact it would have on their own lives, are more than willing to destroy the constitution. That does not mean that the constitution is worthy of destruction. This doesn't mean that the constitution, or Zionism, is bad.

I dont understand what you mean there, sorry.


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Subz,again, no Muslim land was appropriated for Israel. The "problem" is nothing more than mere fabrication in order to justify violent acts of hatred against Israel.

The land that is now Israel was part of the Islamic Caliphate from the 7th century (the birth of Islam) until 1924. I really dont know how you can say that the land was never muslim land when it was ruled by muslims for the best part of 1300 years.

The land that is now Israel was muslim controlled until the break up of the Islamic Ottoman Empire following the end of WW1. The transitionary period of the British mandate of Palestine was meant to be in effect until the inhabitants of the land could govern themselves. In 1924 the population of the area was overwhelmingly muslim, the mandate therefore was to facilitate the transfer of sovereignty to the muslim inhabitants. Just because you choose to only recognize sovereignty of the land from 1924 onwards, i.e. non-muslim controlled, does not erase 1300 years of muslim control of the land that is now Israel.

Unless you have some evidence to dispute these facts I think I have provided incontrovertable proof that Israel was created on muslim territory.


The Islamic Caliphate


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Israel is the people, and the hatred and violence manifests itself against the people.

Then Iraq is the Iraqi people, Afghanistan is the Afghani people? Does that mean the US military action against those countries equated to military action against its people? I dont buy that correlation, sorry.


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Subz, denying ignorance also means one doesn't entertain ignorance as if it has the right for contemplation. When one writes in a manner to where it appears that the thought or assertion is one's own, maybe one is doing just that - NOT denying ignorance.

With all due respect I'm not the one making assertions here. I have provided sourced evidence for every point I have made whereas you have not.

[edit on 17/1/06 by subz]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
It is a fact that Palestine was never considered a state, because it did not fulfill the international requisites to be a State, until the UN put forth a resolution which recognized both, the State of Israel, and the State of Palestine, and the authorities in Palestine decided to refuse this and other resolutions which would have given them a State.


A State by who? By the "International Community"? The same community, who cut up Africa and decided where each Nation was? The people lived on that land, to them it was a State, they had no choice in how it was cut up and we are seeing the after effect on this all around the World.

Palestine was historically a State in the eyes of the people, its bounders existed since Pre-Christian times, under the name of Rechenu by the Egyptians binding it between the Mediterranean Sea and the banks of the Jordan River. The Western World, deicded to change the bounderies and force people off of the Land not just Muslim's but during that period they were the majority and the problems we see are the same ones we see in Africa...



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Exactly who has the right to scrutinize historical paradigms; and, more importantly, exactly who does not have that right?

It seems that American think tanks deontologicaly administer clout in history in a regular basis, but Iranians are not allowed to?

The very same Americans on this site that elect thier country as the sole precentors of freedom of speech and opinion around the world should take a step back and let these Iranians talk.

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Personally I relish the idea of a debate regarding the holocaust...

let the truth shine, or in absence of the truth, let a blantant disinfranchising statement be made, that distances Iranian muslims from any other islamic sect, with obvious hate propaganda...

it is a win win...

if they are honest, then they will see that the holocaust did indeed happen, and perhaps give more respect to that part of israeli history
(maybe not 6 million, but perhaps 3 million were killed- but the truth is better than an exagerated figure that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.)

Or else, their lies and propaganda will be so obvious, that any moderate islamic nation will support the removal of the iranian extremist president, to avoid being embarressed by him...

Either way... israel wins...
the best option, would be to admit, right up front, that some form of genocide happened, then moderate over the actual number... that way, both sides save face, and a true proveable number is finally known (probably not accurate, but proveable)



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Zionism is a political movement, not a religious one.


No, that is wrong.


The word "Zionist" derives from the word "Zion" (hebrew: ����, Tziyon), the name of a stronghold of Jerusalem, as mentioned in the Torah. Zionism has always had both religious and secular aspects - some of the founders of the State of Israel were atheists.


"Zionism" has several different meanings. It includes, for example,


  • political Zionists (Theodore Herzl)
  • socialist Zionists (Ber Borochov, Moses Hess)
  • religious Zionists ( Rabbi Kook)
  • extreme nationalists ( Jabotinski)
  • cultural Zionists (Ahad Ha'am)
  • ....


Zionist ideas evolved over time and were influenced by many circumstances.

Accordingly, no single person, publication, quote or pronouncement should be taken as embodying "official" Zionist ideology. After the establishment of the Jewish state, the Zionist organization has helped to bring millions of new immigrants to Israel.

In 1975 UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, branded Zionism as racism. The rationale for this idea was that Zionism is a colonialist movement that assumes that the racial superiority of the Jews gives them the right to dispossess the Arabs of Palestine.
But Zionist ideology is not based on racial notions and didn't assume superiority of the Jews. So this UN-Resolution 3379 was repealed in 1991

More: The State of Israel: Lexicon of Zionism

Today, decades after the actual founding of a Jewish state, Zionism continues to be the guiding nationalist movement of the majority of Jews around the world who believe in, support and identify with the State of Israel.

Most of all Israelis - or Jews in general - refer themselves as Zionists, since Zionism is also defined as a movement to support the development and defense of the State of Israel.

Only a very small minority of Jews oppose Zionism on either political or religious grounds.
Neturei Karta (Aramaic: "Guardians of the City") is a small group (~ 5,000 members) of right-wing Orthodox Jews which rejects Zionism.

They
  • claim that the Holocaust was divine punishment for the sins of secular Jews

    and

  • reject the establishment of the State of Israel.

Although Neturei Karta reject the Jewish State of Israel (and those who live in Israel [in Mea Shearim] don't work or pay taxes), they take the social and human benefits the State offers.

All other Orthodox (and of course Non-Orthodox) Jews support the existence of the State of Israel as a homeland for all Jews (even though it is not the theological state of Israel that will be brought about by the Massiach).





Originally posted by subz

the Iranians are not anti-semetic, they are against Zionism.



No. That is wrong.

The destruction of Israel has been an Iranian policy for quite some time.

Ahmadinejad is only saying what has been and still is the current policy of the Mullahs, who run and govern Iran

Here is a link to times and dates of some Iranian mentions since 2000 up to 2003:
Israeli Intelligence & Terrorism Information Center: Iran Calls for the Destruction of Israel, “ISRAEL MUST BE ERADICATED FROM THE ANNALS OF HISTORY”

Israel being "wiped off the map or or relocated to Alaska or Bavaria" is the same thing as a "The World without Zionism". Both, Zionist Jews and what-ever-Jew, in general, will be fighting and dying to protect their nation, the nation they live in, Israel.

  • As such, those Jews who do not profess themselves as being "Zionist" are excluded in this destruction of Israel, where exactly?

  • Does Ahmadinejad has a list of who are Zionist Jews and who are not in the nation of Israel?
  • What do you think, does Ahmadinejad has a divining rod that can separate the two when it comes to an actual attack on the nation of Israel, itself?



  • posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 10:45 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by subz
    When the Zionist group, Irgun, bombed the British Headquarters in Palestine killing 91 people (mostly civilians) and injuring 45, it was a terrorist attack


    I already explained this to you here:


    Myths & Facts

    MYTH

    "The Irgun bombed the King David Hotel as part of a terror campaign against civilians."

    FACTS

    The King David Hotel was the site of the British military command and the British Criminal Investigation Division. The Irgun chose it as a target after British troops invaded the Jewish Agency June 29, 1946, and confiscated large quantities of documents. At about the same time, more than 2,500 Jews from all over Palestine were placed under arrest. The information about Jewish Agency operations, including intelligence activities in Arab countries, was taken to the King David Hotel.

    A week later, news of a massacre of 40 Jews in a pogrom in Poland reminded the Jews of Palestine how Britain's restrictive immigration policy had condemned thousands to death.

    Irgun leader Menachem Begin stressed his desire to avoid civilian casualties.

    In fact, the plan was to warn the British so they would evacuate the building before it was blown up.

    Three telephone calls were placed,

    one to the hotel,

    another to the French Consulate,adjacent to the hotel, to open their windows to prevent blast damage.

    and a third to the Palestine Post, warning that explosives in the King David Hotel would soon be detonated.


    On July 22, 1946, the calls were made.

  • The French Consulate staff opened their windows as they had been told to by the anonymous woman who telephoned them, and this was further evidence of the warning.

  • The Palestine Post telephone operator attested on oath to the police that, immediately after receiving the telephone message, she had telephoned the duty officer at the police station.

  • The call into the hotel was apparently received and ignored.
    Begin quotes one British official who supposedly refused to evacuate the building, saying: "We don't take orders from the Jews."



    As a result, when the bombs exploded, the casualty toll was high: a total of 91 killed and 45 injured. Among the casualties were 15 Jews.

    Few people in the hotel proper were injured by the blast.

    sources:

  • Etzel
  • jewishvirtual library



  • posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 10:46 AM
    link   
    Riwka, are you fine with the attacks on military targets by terrorist groups?



    posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 12:32 PM
    link   
    Riwka, the only thing you did with your posts was back up what I wrote. You basically showed that Zionism does not equate to Judaism. If it did there would be no need for the word "Judaism" any more because Zionism would cover it. You showed that there are many forms of Zionism and your pearler of a comment that:


    Originally posted by Riwka
    "some of the founders of the State of Israel were atheists"


    simply confirms my stance that anti-Zionist does not equate to anti-semetic! If these Zionist founders of Israel were atheist then hating them would not be anti-Jewish!

    With regards to your blatant apologist posts surrounding the Zionist terrorist attack which murdered 91 people, the British invaded nothing. They were controlling Palestine at the time, not the Jewish Agency. That's like saying the PLO is justified in bombing Israel because the Israeli's invaded Palestinian offices. As far as you are concerned Palestinians have no authourity or sovereignty so they are not permitted to retaliate. Well newsflash, the Jewish Agency of of 1946 had no business retaliating violently against the British! They were not a recognized, sovereign entity so they weren't "invaded" and they bombed and killed innocent civilians!




    top topics



     
    3
    << 1    3  4 >>

    log in

    join