It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mazzroth
I find it very pertinent to ask you my freind are you of/from Israel ?
Blind Freddy can see what is going on there and why the Palestinians broke down the Barricades imprisoning them to get food for their families and children. Who fenced them in ? why do they struggle to get aid ? It seems you are very reticent to believe that attrocities are committed on the Palestinian People by the Israeli forces.
Perhaps you are sympathetic to one kind of Holocaust from long ago but fail to see under your very nose one occurring here and now ?
The complicit parties in the USA I referred to are none other than the very same parties that Lobby to keep the USA in the middle east my freind. I feel it would be a waste of your and my time if I had to name them as if you are unfamiliar with them then you have not done your homework.
I just find it disgusting that'd you'd attempt to downplay a terrible event by comparing it to other atrocities and claim that it's because of Jewish influence that the Asian atrocities are ignored. Prove it.
We're talking about free will now?
Anyone who wants to learn about WWII will eventually come to other atrocities that happened in that period. If they want to learn about it, the material is there. Any real student who has studied the Holocaust would realise it's not only Jews that died in it.
To claim that people who don't think like you can't think for themselves reeks of sheer arrogance.
I just find it disgusting
Bias? I can reel off the names of a couple of prominent historians who have written extensively on the Holocaust subject. Raul Hilberg, Lucy S Dawidowicz, Martin Gilbert, all suffering from bias? Hell, I have a couple of their books right now, and they are well researched, differing only in number of Jews dead. Of course, they might be Zionists further spreading disinformation as one would throw confetti at a wedding.
Originally posted by italkyoulisten
I am talking about the creating of bias. For example, using patriotism to generate bias that is beneficial to the state, or, by giving the term "conspiracy" a negative connotation through it's use in the MSM (e.g. "conspiracy nut"), bias is generated against those who question authority. Or the fact that we always learned about how great the US was (up until probably late high school) that generates bias which prevents us from perceiving our country as a possible evil even though evidence toward such claims are not hidden (9/11 Commission Report anyone?) This is the bias that causes most people to reject the possibility a Reichstag type event. So is it not possible that bias toward the Holocaust be generated through the use of trauma ("I saw those horrible images, therefore it must be the worst atrocity ever.. those poor Jews who were killed.. and I will never ever question anything about it because only anti-semites do that.") I mean you have to admit, Anne Frank's Diary is pretty scary for an elementary audience and many parts of it will probably be forever embedded into your memory if you've read it. This is the same for the pictures. I think the first time I saw gruesome Holocaust pictures was either 5th or 6th grade, and had general knowledge of the event prior to that (general knowledge being 6 million Jews died and concentration camps).
Anchoring is a neuro-linguistic programming term for the process by which memory recall, state change or other responses become associated with (anchored to) some stimulus, in such a way that perception of the stimulus (the anchor) leads by reflex to the anchored response occurring. The stimulus may be quite neutral or even out of conscious awareness, and the response may be either positive or negative. They are capable of being formed and reinforced by repeated stimuli, and thus are analogous to classical conditioning.
Basic anchoring involves in essence, the elicitation of a strong congruent experience of a desired state, whilst using some notable stimulus (touch, word, sight) at the time this is most fully realized. In many cases, repetition of the stimulus will reassociate and restore the experience of the state.
There are refinements offered by setting anchors this way, and subtleties involved in order to both set them with precision, and to avoid accidentally neutralizing them in the process of setting them up.
I think we've covered this matter already, haven't we? If you look at a dictionary, the definition of holocaust is given as "sacrifice by fire". There is in all of the dictionary definitions we found online a "common useage" definition of "the Holocaust", usually written with a definite article and a capital H - to describe the specific event in the 1940s. It's not uncommon for temporary etymology like this to evolve, and there are any number of non-conspiratorial reasons why it does.
But to be honest I don't really see where this line of argument leads. We have multiple words for genocide - even if "holocaust" has been "claimed" by Jewish victims - what difference does that make to our wider understanding and knowledge of genocides across the world? It's true that I tend to hear the atrocities in Darfur referred to as "genocide" rather than as "holocaust" - but if anything the word itself has a more pertinently severe meaning - since it literally translates as the murder of a genus - a whole race of people - whereas "holocaust" could technically refer to an individual.
Fair enough - but let's be clear, you suggested in your previous post that there were American parties that were complicit in supporting a genocide in Palestine. Offering no evidence for that claim on the basis of a supposed greater reservoir of knowledge than I have does very little to support that claim. I would venture to suggest that such sympathies amongst powers in the US are not widely known, and certainly not proven, and that many reading the above will feel your reticence is based on the fact that you don't know and can't prove it either.
But thanks for your post.
Originally posted by neformore
If we're talking about the law of diminishing returns as far as relevance within time and in comparison to other atrocities, then I wonder - does 9/11 pale into total insignificance?
Should that even be talked about at all?
Originally posted by NeedToNo
Of course it matters, and I am not sure why you are ignoring the most pertinet point of this thread all together here, when the notion of "overrated" is only in comparison to other genocides. What wider understanding are you talking about, when the point of the limited awareness of Asian atrocities have been made aplenty, and therfore the original post..
If the objective is to prevent genocides of all shapes and forms, and not just the jewsish holocaust, would the good folks mind dedicating at least say 10 % of the ubuquitous holocaust museums to be dedicated to the American Native Indian holocaust ? How about just one of them dedicated to the cause of expanding awareness of the Armenian holocaust, which not many are aware..
However, I would say that the horror of jewish holocaust recurring is zero, given all of the attention to the matter, job well done, and now let us move on to educating and preventing other genocides, using some of this disproportionate energy, front and center, prime time, because it is about time.
Here is a developing story of ethnic cleansing developing in Kenya as we discuss:
Originally posted by Mazzroth
Originally posted by Apolon
So why this kind of atrocities and extermination is not a genocide except if they involved a Jew?
Anyone care to explain or am I being a paranoid and hurt for no reason?
I am not anti-Semite just wish that everyone gets same treatment for good or bad.
I am looking forward to your further comments.
[edit on 1-2-2008 by Apolon]
Jewish falsified documents and multiplied numbers to serve their own agenda.
Shameful to use your own blood to justify rip of and gain anything by it.
I spit on those animals.
In Nirenberg process of 100+ Lawyers majority was of Jewish origin and they falsified many statements kicking the # out of German officers, crushing their balls just to make them sign their version of the story. That is documented too.
Originally posted by Apolon
I find it amazing the way you reply! You write a lot of pages but do not answer any of questions directly or at all!
Secondly I would like to get the answer finally on why there is no museums in USA of other MORE horrific atrocities when it comes to numbers and slaughter then Auschwitz if we go by rule of thumb then many others take a crown to put it that way.
If I am called anti-Semite because I dare to ask questions that screams at me to be heard then I am anti-Semite if you want to label me that way. Anything just to get to the truth.
Am I imaging Zionist conspiracy to cash in on Holocaust, why there was no reparations to Russia who lost 50 times more people then Jews? What about 7 million Poles, Serbs, Gypsies...
Are we non-human as stated by Hitler or is there much simpler answer to that like we don't hold 80% of most influential positions in White House, Senate, Congress?
If you need proof of that for the past 60 years USA was run by Zionists, I will paste the list with the names around every president in USA.
Originally posted by Apolon
"Are we non-human as stated by Hitler or is there much simpler answer to that like we don't hold 80% of most influential positions in White House, Senate, Congress?"
Your answer to that was:
"Americans hold 100% of influential positions in America - that's where the agenda ends"
That is very wrong answer and it shows where you stand and who's side you are covering here.
I can't prove black in white with documents (none of us posses) but just look at the foreign and domestic policy and who is writing for that illiterate baboon is enough proof for me and others.
Etc.. Good read for everyone. I do not imagine things. They are staring me in the face. Prove it to me that such disproportionate number of Jewish oppose to others in a White House and percentage in a Congress and Senate is not a Zionist plan for a NWO but well deserved place.
If you go by politically correct wisdom you should have roughly same number of representatives everywhere. I am sure you can find good, literate and educated black adviser, vice president, foreign secretary... Where is a single Chinese, Mexican, Black, Russian-American in a powerful and influential position next to a president?
Nowhere! They are not American-end of a story as you said, but Jewish-American. Big difference!