Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    lmao what
    Hitler killed 11 million people, those that he regarded as "degenerates".

    This was not limited to only Jews, but included disabled people, homosexuals, ethnic groups like the Romas and generally anyone that they felt like killing.

    (Original post by caravaggio2)
    Fixed that for you.😊
    :yy:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    his face always reminded me of this

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Omen96)
    This why I hate the left and everything they are. That video really has annoyed me. Everytime I know a lefty has been murdered I will celebrate because I am yet to meet a lefty who isn't anti-Semitic, up the *** of Islam, pro terror, pro extremism and pro everything that is anti west, anti white, anti Jewish, you name it. They are pure evil
    Calm down Hitler.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Calm down Hitler.
    Ironic since didn't we just hear how it's the left who think "hitler was the greatest man on earth"?

    Please tell me what happened to the left? You used to make valid arguments. Now they are pro-Islam, pro-extremism, pro-terror, anti-Jewish, anti-Christianity. Why did they take this "I love Islam route"? And please don't deny it, most people know it, we see it on a regular basis so address the question. Why is there this special relationship between Islam and the left?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Omen96)
    Ironic since didn't we just hear how it's the left who think "hitler was the greatest man on earth"?

    Please tell me what happened to the left? You used to make valid arguments. Now they are pro-Islam, pro-extremism, pro-terror, anti-Jewish, anti-Christianity. Why did they take this "I love Islam route"? And please don't deny it, most people know it, we see it on a regular basis so address the question. Why is there this special relationship between Islam and the left?
    Hitler and his fascist chums killed a lot of them that's for sure. Now go celebrate over all the leftists that rotted in concentration camps.

    Oswald Mosley was in the Labour party so it is nothing new. Jews can get attacked from left wing people for reason such as being perceived as being wealthy/powerful, therefore fair game.

    There are lots of different groupings in the left. Just like the right. The left has always had elements hostile to religion (which includes being hostile to Christianity as well as other religions). You want an example of someone from the left who was hostile to Islam go read stuff by Christopher Hitchens.

    There are those on the left you support or act as apologist for Islamic terrorists like ISIS or Hamas because they see them as enemies of Western imperialism. My enemies enemy is my friend.

    There are those on the left who defend Muslims from what they see as racism or some other form of oppression. Then at the same time a bit part of the left has always been about standing against social conservatism in religion. It is complicated trying to balance these two contradicting points. This also brings up another point. Socially conservative Muslims often vote for the Conservative part. That Muslim accused of being an extremist and being mates with Sadiq Khan (who voted for equal marriage) was actually a bring supporter of the conservatives due to their social conservatism. In this instance it is the Muslim Khan being progressive with his stance on equal marriage and the socially conservative Tories being allied with the socially conservative Muslims.

    You seem to want me to be anti Islam, pro Jew and pro Christianity. That's a regressive position. I wont just blindly single out one lot of people and blindly praise another. I am pro human rights, social liberalism and other values that are important to me and can be described as humanist. I judge everyone/group based on those values. So Muslim Kurds standing up for women and fighting against ISIS get my support where as at the same time I view the head scarf as a result of a patriarchal religious culture.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Labour needs to just admit it: they are constantly against the Jewish people. They need to sort it out.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Hitler and his fascist chums killed a lot of them that's for sure. Now go celebrate over all the leftists that rotted in concentration camps.

    Oswald Mosley was in the Labour party so it is nothing new.

    There are lots of different groupings in the left. Just like the right. The left has always had elements hostile to religion (which includes being hostile to Christianity as well as other religions). You want an example of someone from the left who was hostile to Islam go read stuff by Christopher Hitchens.

    There are those on the left you support or act as apologist for Islamic terrorists like ISIS or Hamas because they see them as enemies of Western imperialism. My enemies enemy is my friend.

    There are those on the left who defend Muslims from what they see as racism or some other form of oppression. Then at the same time a bit part of the left has always been about standing against social conservatism in religion. It is complicated trying to balance these two contradicting points. This also brings up another point. Socially conservative Muslims often vote for the Conservative part. That Muslim accused of being an extremist and being mates with Sadiq Khan (who voted for equal marriage) was actually a bring supporter of the conservatives due to their social conservatism. In this instance it is the Muslim Khan being progressive with his stance on equal marriage and the socially conservative Tories being allied with the socially conservative Muslims.

    You seem to want me to be anti Islam, pro Jew and pro Christianity. That's a regressive position. I wont just blindly single out one lot of people and blindly praise another. I am pro human rights, social liberalism and other values that are important to me and can be described as humanist. I judge everyone/group based on those values. So Muslim Kurds standing up for women and fighting against ISIS get my support where as at the same time I view the head scarf as a result of a patriarchal religious culture.
    My post on the Austria thread 30 minutes ago:

    (Original post by Omen96)
    I've been anti religion all my life. I spit on the 3 Abrahamic religions for the Barbary they have inflicted on this earth. I'm not changing my views to appease to your Islamic terrorist friends
    Take what you want from that. I'll give my side. I hate all 3 but what I and many see from the left is hatred for 2/3 of them and love for 1/3 of them. Why is that fair? Why is it justified? That's where my anger towards left resonates.

    I said what have the left become...implying I associated with the old left and WW2 represents just that with the fight against fascism and prior Franco in Spain, in Finland too. I won't celebrate what hitler did then but when I look at the mainstream left today it's makes me sick so yes I will say I will celebrate their death because they celebrate the death of distant family I have/had and I will not take that lightly.

    Thank you for answering and I like the throrough explanations. I just can't see the justification for it on any moral ground. That's my opinion. You either hate all or not. You can't pick and choose.

    And for the record it goes beyond Muslims vs Islam because I see left wingers DEFEND Islam. They call it the "religion of peace", "religion of tolerance" and "Muslims have just interpreted the religion wrong" so this is not about defending Muslims. The left are actively defending Islam
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Was Kenny any good as Mayor of London? I don't recall much about his time
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Tbh I really can't be bothered to debate you this time. We just get more of your bigotry and deluded lies, end up spending 1269 hours going back and forth. It's a waste of my time because you're not interested in genuine debate, you're just an anti-semitic douche, so it's time to go ahead and add you to the ignore list
    As predicted, you played the Anti-semite card.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    ????????
    Guys, I think TheArtofProtest is broken. Does anyone know how to fix him?
    When you genuinely don't know how to reply, just make a joke.
    Good one mate.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    what's wrong with that statement
    I think the stereotype about Golders Green being a jewish area.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    I think the stereotype about Golders Green being a jewish area.
    Your neighbours are more likely to be Romanian hookers than Jews in Golders Green today
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Hitler and his fascist chums killed a lot of them that's for sure. Now go celebrate over all the leftists that rotted in concentration camps.
    Incorrect. You may have just been referring to Nazis, which is then correct, but if you were not - I'll count this as some history revision. Neither Mussolini or Franco (more debatable) were anti-Semitic. The only reason why Mussolini implemented anti-semitic laws, close to war time, was to remain in Hitler's bed. The Northern Italian jews deported to the death camps were not on Mussolini's orders, but the Germans. Northern Italy (the Salo Republic) was not controlled by Mussolini, and at the time of the deportations he was living in a nice house in Salo doing menial administrative tasks given to him by the Germans.

    In response to the thread. The Havaara Agreement doesn't make Nazis Zionists. They just simply wanted to remove them from Germany and they didn't care where they went. By the logic of that argument, you could say that EU donations to North Korea make them sympathisers to the regime. Obviously that's not true, the EU were/are only helping NK because its people are starving.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Ken Livingstone is the latest victim of this witch-hunt.

    There are anti-Semites in every political party, and they should be suspended, investigated and if found to be anti-Semitic, should be expelled from the party.

    However, Livingstone was simply (but perhaps stupidly) pointing out a historical fact. He was referring to the Haavara Agreement, which:

    ...was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. The agreement was designed to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine
    Nothing Livingstone said was anti-Semitic. Naz Shah's insinuation, on Facebook, that Jewish people should be forcibly relocated to the United States, was an anti-Semitic comment, although I don't think that she is personally anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, it is right that she has been suspended.

    Once again, however, many people, including the totality of the mainstream media, are trying to conflate anti-Zionism and criticism of Israeli government policy with anti-Semitism.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    Incorrect. You may have just been referring to Nazis, which is then correct, but if you were not - I'll count this as some history revision. Neither Mussolini or Franco (more debatable) were anti-Semitic.
    i was talking about left wing people, not Jews.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Ken Livingstone is the latest victim of this witch-hunt.

    There are anti-Semites in every political party, and they should be suspended, investigated and if found to be anti-Semitic, should be expelled from the party.

    However, Livingstone was simply (but perhaps stupidly) pointing out a historical fact. He was referring to the Haavara Agreement, which:



    Nothing Livingstone said was anti-Semitic. Naz Shah's insinuation, on Facebook, that Jewish people should be forcibly relocated to the United States, was an anti-Semitic comment, although I don't think that she is personally anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, it is right that she has been suspended.

    Once again, however, many people, including the totality of the mainstream media, are trying to conflate anti-Zionism and criticism of Israeli government policy with anti-Semitism.
    I don't think you can come to the conclusion Hitler was a Zionist from that Haavara Agreement, it was most likely Hitler aligning himself with any politician force that would get Jews out of Germany. However you can;t accuse people of anti-Semitism and expelling them just for having bad historical analysis. I think it is possible Ken Livingston is antisemtic and is equating Zionist and by extension Jews as being Neo-fascists with the supporting of the state of Israel. It's the flip side of the far right equating Jews as being Nazis and that Jews worked with Hitler to create a Jewish state.

    I think the question is: Does the cooperation between Hitler and a Zionist organisation mean Hitler was a Zionist? Most people would say no. People who say yes may well be prejudiced against Jews and want to tie Zionism with Fascism and then blame Jews as a whole.


    "
    She [Shah] talked about relocating Israel to America. She talked about what Hitler did being legal. And she talked about the Jews rallying. And she used the words Jews, not Israelis or Israel. You didn’t find that to be antisemitic?Livingstone: No. It’s completely over the top [but] it’s not antisemitic. Let’s remember, when Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism. [He then] went mad and ending up killing 6 million Jews. But the simple fact in all of this is that Naz made these comments at a time when there was another brutal Israeli attack on the Palestinians. And there is one stark fact that virtually no one in the British media ever reports: in almost all these conflicts the death toll is usually between 60 and 100 Palestinians killed for every Israeli. Now any other country doing that would be accused of war crimes, but it’s like we have a double standard about the policies of the Israeli government."

    This is the problematic bit for me. It is an anti-Semitic statement which Ken doesn't seem to recognise.

    Something Ken did say I agree with though is this.

    "Albert Einstein. When the first leader of Likud, the governing party now in Israel, came to America he [Einstein] warned American politicians: “Don’t talk to this man, because he’s too similar to the fascists who fought in the second world war”. Now if Naz or myself had said that today we would be denounced as antisemitic, but that was Albert Einstein. "

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...P=share_btn_tw
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ken Livingstone is so irrelevant now
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Having read a transcript of what was said I am coming to this conclusion myself.



    I don't think you can come to the conclusion Hitler was a Zionist from that Haavara Agreement, it was most likely Hitler aligning himself with any politician force that would get Jews out of Germany. However you can;t accuse people of anti-Semitism and expelling them just for having bad historical analysis. I think it is possible Ken Livingston is antisemtic and is equating Zionist and by extension Jews as being Neo-fascists with the supporting of the state of Israel. It's the flip side of the far right equating Jews as being Nazis and that Jews worked with Hitler to create a Jewish state.

    I think the question is: Does the cooperation between Hitler and a Zionist organisation mean Hitler was a Zionist? Most people would say no. People who say yes may well be prejudiced against Jews and want to tie Zionism with Fascism and then blame Jews as a whole.
    I completely understand where you're coming from, and I don't think we really disagree. Hitler wasn't a Zionist - he was supporting Zionism to achieve his own political aims, of course. But, crucially, this is what Ken Livingstone - in his characteristically rambling manner - was saying. In the transcript, Livingstone says:

    Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism
    The key word is supporting - he was simply pointing out that he was supporting Zionism by doing so, not that Hitler was actually a Zionist.

    Livingstone later confirmed this:

    He was a monster from start to finish but it’s simply the historical fact. His policy was originally to send all of Germany’s Jews to Israel and there were private meetings between the Zionist movement and Hitler’s government which were kept confidential, they only became apparent after the war, when they were having a dialogue to do this.

    What John Mann just said isn’t true – I’ve not said that Hitler was a Zionist, what I said was his policy in ‘32 was to deport Germany’s Jews to Israel. I condemn that. I never said it, what I said was that was his policy.
    Livingstone isn't anti-Semitic, and I think he's right to criticise really-existing Zionism (Zionism in action) and the policies of the state of Israel. Even if he was trying to associate Zionism with Nazism, there's nothing anti-Semitic about that, although as you point out, there could be. In Livingstone's case, I don't think it is: he was stupidly and untactfully pointing out a historical fact and a historical policy.

    EDIT: Or, were you saying that you were coming to my conclusion? In which case, I've just restated what you said.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)

    Livingstone isn't anti-Semitic, and I think he's right to criticise really-existing Zionism (Zionism in action) and the policies of the state of Israel. Even if he was trying to associate Zionism with Nazism, there's nothing anti-Semitic about that, although as you point out, there could be. In Livingstone's case, I don't think it is: he was stupidly and untactfully pointing out a historical fact and a historical policy.
    I don't think you should suspend someone for something they could be. To much like guilty until proven innocent. Although it looks like this is going to a big problem for the labour party. Knowing that Ken shouldn't have said what he said purely from the perspective of avoiding a media **** storm.

    Zionism is a form nationalism and as such has the potential to be spawn ethnic fascist political forces. Just like Einstein pointed out when comparing certain Zionist politicians of Israel to German fascists.

    I think your conclusion is a valid one. But you can;t win. I think to myself maybe they are overacting and we can;t really know Ken Livingston is anti-semetic or not. But then it looks like anti-semitism apolgism. I think the labour party have been forced to suspend Ken regardless of whether he is anti-semetic or not. It would be too politically costly not to. That's politics for you.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Zionism is a form nationalism and as such has the potential to be spawn ethnic fascist political forces. Just like Einstein pointed out when comparing certain Zionist politicians of Israel to German fascists.
    Indeed, which is why comparing Zionism - or at least some Zionists and some Zionist actions - with German fascism is a valid point to make, in my view, although I'd say that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine perpetrated when Israel was founded has many more parallels with Milosevic than with German fascism.

    The British High Commissioner for Palestine, Sir Alan Cunningham, was among those who made those comparisons.

    Sir Alan Cunningham, who was the last high commissioner in pre-state Israel, wrote to his superiors that as the Jews celebrated military victories, their “broadcasts, both in content and in manner of delivery, are remarkably like those of Nazi Germany.”

    In another report, he wrote that the Jews were ready to declare the state’s establishment and an “all-out offensive” with “all the equipment of a totalitarian regime.” The papers include mention of Jewish and Arab attacks against the British, together with frequent references to Jewish “terrorists.”
    Yes, they've obviously been forced to suspend Livingstone, and for tactical purposes it's probably best. That said, I think Mann should be the one suspended for his disgraceful behaviour.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 2, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.