I agree with whoever said reperations should be paid to American Indians, but since the united states and its settlers continue to colonize them (meaning that the usa and her settlers failed to exterminate them as per the plan), its safe to say that native americans will never get their reperations as demanded by international law. first of all, the united states would have to be dismantled as nazi germany was, and the sovereign nations of american indians would have to be decolonized. since the united states is the satellite government in charge of funding israel's military, i guess the chosen people are the only holocaust USA will ever acknowledge. The romani are neglected and they suffered greater proportional losses of their people during the same holocaust!
but anyway, US corporations did directely benefit from the Holocaust - IBM eugenics code numbers tattooed on holocaust victim flesh comes to mind as proof. The recruitment of top nazi human testers and rocket scientists by the US military (project paperclip) also goes to show that the US military ultimately benefited from the Holocaust. I don't know exactly where I stand on this issue, my reply is kind of a gut reaction. But I don't agree with anybody who declares that the USA is guilt free in the WW2 holocaust scenario. Didn't we neglect our fellow humans until the last year of World War 2? Ultimately, we have plenty of victims. We need to pay more reparations to the Japanese, Iraqis, African and Native victims of America, the sovereign Nation of Hawaii that the Navy invaded and colonized, Panama, and many other nations - basically everybody we as a country have engaged in genocide against, including but not exclusively toward holocaust survivors.

How about reparations from rich Jews for the families of the dead US servicemen who went to war against the Nazis?

Originally posted by blueorder
How about reparations from rich Jews for the families of the dead US servicemen who went to war against the Nazis?

Yes, good idea. Also, I could sue the cab driver I used last night because of the food poisoning I got in the restaurant he drove me home from.

Is it your suggestion that the US went to war solely to save the Jews from mass-slaughter? Or would you be looking to seek reparations from Britain as well for the cost of supporting them on D-Day? Or France for the cost of liberation?

jsobecky is quite right. There's no conspiracy here. This is about withheld insurance payouts. The taxpayer is untouched by this - unfortunately the same cannot be said by people reading anti-semitic propaganda sites masquerading as "news".

What nonsense.

LW

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

Yes, good idea. Also, I could sue the cab driver I used last night because of the food poisoning I got in the restaurant he drove me home from.

Indeed, you do realise my example wasn't serious, I trust your cab driver can rest easy from a possible law suit................

Is it your suggestion that the US went to war solely to save the Jews from mass-slaughter? Or would you be looking to seek reparations from Britain as well for the cost of supporting them on D-Day? Or France for the cost of liberation?

"solely", wars are not for "sole" reasons, but it was a bloody nice bonus point if itwasn't the main driving force!

You have singularly missed the point, I want reparations for no one, not for 200 year old slaves, not for Jews who died at the hands of nazis, not for white christians who were enslaved by North Africans- NONE OF THEM

jsobecky is quite right. There's no conspiracy here. This is about withheld insurance payouts. The taxpayer is untouched by this - unfortunately the same cannot be said by people reading anti-semitic propaganda sites masquerading as "news".

I never mentioned conspiracy.


The "taxpayer" is untouched by this- really, how about

"This act will give Holocaust™ survivors, heirs, dependents, and others, access to U.S. courts for the purpose of entertaining legal actions against insurance companies, even when those claims have already been denied by European Courts. And let them pursue legal action and seek redress--MONEY--against insurance or RELATED companies and seek damages. (Related Companies? Is no one safe from the latest Holocaust™ money extortion scheme?)"

does the legal system exist in a bubble, do Americans not pay taxes towards their legal system- most odd!

Also, who do you think pays for increased insurance premiums- the men on the moon!


Furthermore, I quote

"In part, this act reads "... including a review of the underlying rationale of the United States Government's decision to refuse the Jewish and other refugees entry, the information the United States Government received or acquired suggesting such refusal was necessary, the perceived benefit of such refusal, and the impact of such refusal on the refugees."



Specifically involving the US govt, and consequently the taxpayers who fund the government.


All this will do is make a lot of lawyers even richer- pathetic







[edit on 18-2-2008 by blueorder]

Originally posted by blueorder
Indeed, you do realise my example wasn't serious, I trust your cab driver can rest easy from a possible law suit................

Wouldn't bet on it, the amount cab drivers charge in London is genuinely criminal.

I never mentioned conspiracy.


The "taxpayer" is untouched by this- really, how about

"This act will give Holocaust™ survivors, heirs, dependents, and others, access to U.S. courts for the purpose of entertaining legal actions against insurance companies, even when those claims have already been denied by European Courts. And let them pursue legal action and seek redress--MONEY--against insurance or RELATED companies and seek damages. (Related Companies? Is no one safe from the latest Holocaust™ money extortion scheme?)"

Perhaps my cabbie IS in trouble after all, then - OK, I take your point. Certainly about the lawyers, if nothing else. But in a litigious country like yours (and mine, come to that) to blame an individual race for the costof a tax-funded legal system where it's too easy to sue is a little bit disingenuous, in my view.

The amount of money that goes into funding tenuous insurance claims is almost certainly absurd, but the context of this particular argument is life insurance claims that were not paid out after the war. It seems to me like a reasonable claim - and after all, simply allowing the insurance companies to be challenged in court is not in itself the same as paying up - which has every right to go before a court if a settlement is considered to be unfair.

"Related" companies presumably means, or would be taken to mean by a court, a company related to the financing of life insurance policies taken out before the war. I don't see anything sinister in that, myself.

As for this ongoing Holocaust TM gag - we get it - can we drop it now? The joke is getting a little tired, and I'm not sure what it adds to your case.


LW

Originally posted by NGC2736
And now some of you dislike Jews to the point that you would rather see a bloated wealthy group like the world banking and insurance cartels get by with an outright theft, than to see a Jew get what his father or uncle paid for?

First: No, I don't dislike jews so much.

Second: Get what his father or uncle paid for? Does that mean I get all the insurance money that my father and uncles pay for? Just curious, because I always thought that insurance only paid out to the insurance holder, not all their relatives too?

What's wrong with standing up for what's right, no matter who is right and who is wrong?

Nothing wrong with it. I want MY reporations for the US decimating MY people. Where's MY money and support from the government?

Oh, that's right, I'm not jewish and don't have the jewish lobby behind me.

Originally posted by NGC2736
They need to organize, and we need to support them. Those who got screwed in Katrina deserve to be treated fairly. But we have to get the political hacks out of D.C.

Sure, the Jews have gotten the ball rolling. Don't blame them for working harder at it, and twisting more arms. We ought to be doing the exact same thing over EVERY case where fraud and corruption allow these big boys to win at the expense of the rest of us.

This, I can totally agree with. But, my problem with it is when the use of government money is used to "sue" an insurance company. Why does the government even have to be involved?

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
As for this ongoing Holocaust TM gag - we get it - can we drop it now? The joke is getting a little tired, and I'm not sure what it adds to your case.


LW

I didn't "raise" it so to speak, it was included as part of the cut and paste I used from the article itself

Originally posted by Griff


First: No, I don't dislike jews so much.

Second: Get what his father or uncle paid for? Does that mean I get all the insurance money that my father and uncles pay for? Just curious, because I always thought that insurance only paid out to the insurance holder, not all their relatives too?

exactly, how far do we take this concept- does the daughter of a rapist now have to do time for her father's crime!?!

I don't understand why the US courts would be involved. Are they US insurance companies refusing to pay on claims? How many German Jews who ended up in concentrration camps bought insurance from American companies? Why have their claims been denied in European courts and why should American courts do what European courts won't?

Ok-so reparations was the wrong word to use in this instance.

Which means this is off-topic, but you all started it!

BUT! If anyone gets reparations (not that they will), they ought to include all the people sent here as indentured servants (when they were actually just on the wrong side of some politician back home). Maybe they were only enslaved for seven years, but it was slavery nonetheless.

Considering that "modern" racial segregation and eugenics were invented in the USA. And that Rockefeller/Carnegie/Harriman money was used to inject those theories to the german academic circles... the roots of the holocaust do lead to USA, to Cold Spring Harbour and Wall Street..