>> It is officially estimated that about 75% of all Hindu lands in Bangladesh have been seized by using this act
Edit: I have to ask -- why do left wing people have much less problems with the quite common Muslim antisemitism, than with Nazi antisemitism? Most of the arguments (except for the religious ones) and sources were copied from the nazis. It is even written in official(!) media in the Muslim world.
I have to ask -- why do left wing people have much less problems with the quite common Muslim antisemitism, than with Nazi antisemitism?
Israel, and more specifically the Israel-Paletine conflict. The Left tend to side with the people they perceive as weak in a conflict, and while during Nazi rule they were persecuted and killed by the millions, they're now the more powerful side. Being close allies with the US doesn't help.
This is, at least, what I see from knowing well a bunch of Southern European left-wing people, from social-democracts to communists.
Are you really claiming that left wing idealists accept racist hate propaganda -- as long as it is from a billion of people that seems "weaker" than five millions of people?
(I am not arguing, I have no better explanation for this craziness myself.)
The biggest problem with leftist thought is its tendency to degenerate into paternalism. It's easy to see the antisemitism of a largely poor, uneducated group as "not their own fault"; they're a product of their upbringing and environment. To criticize them for being antisemitic is as unfair and pointless as to criticize a savage for, well, savagery. Under this worldview, what these antisemitic poor people need is love, education and a chance to better themselves; give them this, and the antisemitism would probably wither away (except for a few truly bad individuals, who it would then be perfectly legitimate to criticize).
By contrast the Nazis had no such excuse; the Germans were quite possibly the best-educated and most advanced nation in the world. Not to mention the way they put their antisemitism into practice.
1. As far as I can tell, this antisemitism thing is mainly from dictators that need an external enemy to hate. (A universal phenomenon in those countries -- and yes, using external enemies is not unique to dictators.) Just see how Iran motivates anything with attacks against Israel. The left wingers must KNOW what they are supporting!
2. Isn't it racism to accept so low standards for [mainly ethnic] groups and assume them to be unable to be responsible for their actions?!
3. This tolerance (of e.g. antisemitism) goes for Muslims living in Western Europe too, which hardly have these excuses. So it isn't coherent.
4. Why do the left accept the arguments and world view (re Israel), when they at the same time argues it comes from a bunch of illiterates that aren't responsible for their actions/opinions?
5. Should people with low education get lower punishments for crimes? Should they get no punishment if they can't read and don't understand the law?
6. Afaik, e.g. Iran has a quite large part educated of their population. [Also, that was a high culture thousands of years before my ancestors had writing.]
Etc, etc, etc.
(Still not arguing, fascinated. I have no clue what the Hell political believers on all sides are smoking -- I just want to live in a country without any of them.)
>As far as I can tell, this antisemitism thing is mainly from dictators that need an external enemy to hate. (A universal phenomenon in those countries -- and yes, using external enemies is not unique to dictators.) Just see how Iran motivates anything with attacks against Israel.
Dictators do use it, but it works because the population supports it. The people really do hate Israel and the Jews.
>2. Isn't it racism to accept so low standards for [mainly ethnic] groups and assume them to be unable to be responsible for their actions?!
Eh. Maybe. I suspect those who were bothered by this would argue that it's not about race, it's about socioeconomic status. That those of lower socioeconomic status need/deserve help that the rest of us don't is pretty much the core thesis of the left.
>3. This tolerance (of e.g. antisemitism) goes for Muslims living in Western Europe too, which hardly have these excuses.
Even in western europe, you're largely talking about a ghettoized underclass. There's not a lot of tolerance of antisemitism from e.g. serious academics (muslim or otherwise). The nouveau riche sometimes get away with it, but again they're being looked on with pity by the left, and it's assumed they got those attitudes in their early days.
>4. Why do the left accept the arguments and world view (re Israel), when they at the same time argues it comes from a bunch of illiterates that aren't responsible for their actions/opinions?
I don't think you see leftists following the same Jewish conspiracy theories as Iranian peasants. Many on the left do believe Israel shouldn't exist in its current form, simply because we don't think it was right for the UN to arbitrarily confiscate the land of a bunch of (largely) innocent Palestinians.
>5. Should people with low education get lower punishments for crimes? Should they get no punishment if they can't read and don't understand the law?
Speaking for myself, yes that should be taken into account. If you're asking about the orthodoxy, I think the left would object to the notion that the justice system should have anything to do with punishment; its goals should be the prevention of crime, which is served a little bit by deterrence, and much more by reform. If you're thinking about it in terms of preventing re-offending, an uneducated person probably needs to take more time before they're ready to re-enter society. Not that the current prison system is good at helping with that.
>6. Afaik, e.g. Iran has a quite large part educated of their population.
Not really AIUI. There's small a university-educated middle class in the capital, from whom we hear a disproportionate amount in the media because they're the ones who speak English. And these people are quite possibly less anti-semitic than the general population. Certainly the left would expect them to be.
A few days too late, sigh. If I had time then, I would have written this...
I really think the hypothesis "We hate everything the US do and all their close friends" fits better as an explanation for the left's double standards. (Even without considering the venom against equally uneducated right wing extremist idiots.)
Disclaimer -- I only know Sweden well, but similar positions are seen also in English.
Here the media are very left leaning and tend to straight out censor pro-Israeli news and negative information about Palestinians.
Swedish media never mentioned e.g. Pallywood and the same goes for news about torture between Palestinian groups. UN's Ban's recent Iran criticism in Teheran was mangled in the translation(!) -- that is quite typical.
And so on.
It is just hard to not see my local left wingers as propagandists in this question. Often even filled with hate.
(Swedish media is why I follow this subject, I grew up believing them -- and I'm totally disgusted by now. The Mid East is a good test of Swedish media.)
>>I think the left would object to the notion that the justice system should have anything to do with punishment; its goals should be the prevention of crime, which is served a little bit by deterrence, and much more by reform.
I know all about this -- Sweden. These are the questions that are never answered:
The left seriously argue against both the existence of game theory and the existence of uncurable psychopaths?
Is the left really aware of that many crime victims gets their lives destroyed?
>I really think the hypothesis "We hate everything the US do and all their close friends" fits better as an explanation for the left's double standards.
Shrug. It's possible. Obviously as someone who takes quite a lot of the leftist view I don't like that explanation.
>The left seriously argue against both the existence of game theory
Interestingly criminals tend not to take a rational approach to evaluating the risk of punishment (or else, their utility function is rather skewed). There's a wealth of evidence that longer prison sentences don't deter crime any more than short ones, and while the threat of prison has some deterrent effect, it's less efficient overall than e.g. community service (which has far better reoffending rates)
>and the existence of uncurable psychopaths?
While such people exist, a) they make up a tiny proportion of the current prison population b) prison, and "punishment" in general, is not really an appropriate way to deal with them. Some people genuinely do need to be kept out of society, but we can deal with those cases as a medical matter rather than crime and punishment.
>Is the left really aware of that many crime victims gets their lives destroyed?
You'll find a lot less sympathy for violent criminals than property crimes. Certainly the leftist position would be that, considering their overall life, a typical burglar is more in need of help from society than their typical victim, but I don't think that's so unreasonable. Certainly going by the obvious financial measure it's true.
As I wrote: Why no indignation AT ALL over the coldly planned destruction of Palestinian lives in the camps of Libanon, Syria, etc?! All other cases in WW I/II have been laid behind them by the victims, but this.
To the other arguments might be added that more Jews had to flee in the Middle East (including the West Bank 1948) than Palestinians 1948. Ethnic cleansing -- because of their religion, not in the middle of a dirty civil war...
Those Jews got most assets stolen, including multiple times larger area than Israel itself. Why is there no indignation at all?!
I could probably add more. But the previous two which the left ignores are at least as bad as anything Israel has done, even with the left's description of Israel.
I can't use any milder description than "disgusting double standards", especially if you add the non-criticism of state supported nazi hate propaganda...
Re crime:
>>There's a wealth of evidence that longer prison sentences don't deter crime any more than short ones
I've heard that sentence length is irrelevant since I started school, but... It seems just too close to other lies they fed us in Swedish school.
1. Is that measured for first time criminals only? It is a big step to risk jail.
2. To simplify, there are two types of criminals. The first are the idiots that drink beer on a Saturday and get in a knife fight and the second type consider and weigh for/against like any other entrepeneur. How is the sentence length sensitivity if you ignore things like drunks that knife each others?
3. Sentences have influence. A proof: If there was a death sentence for e.g. jay walking, not even I would do it (sober, see 2.). But -- I wouldn't jaywalk even if it was just one year in jail. In that way, there is no influence by sentence length -- is that how the claim is measured?
4. But certainly, psychopaths are not that influenced by punishment...
>>[psychopaths are a tiny part of the prison population and can be handled as a separate case]
Do you have a reference for the claim?
The figures I've seen (easy to google, from Hare afaik) say 20% of the US prison population, 50%(!) of all violent crime. That is hardly something minimal to just ignore...?!
>> a typical burglar is more in need of help from society than their typical victim
I know of a couple of females that were very, very upset over a burglary and had e.g. nerve problems and problems sleeping home for quite a while. I slept with a couple of knives for a couple of months.
I only know about Sweden. Afaik, there are two types of burglars:
- Hard drug users. The logical solution is not to give them short sentences if they aren't likely to have stopped the drugs -- for their own sake.
- International crime syndicates -- see type two above (entrepeneur).
There's certainly some element of not expecting much from poor arab states. Yes, we do hold Israel to a higher standard than its neighbours - because it's richer, because it's seen as an extension of the US, and because it advertises and makes much of its status as the only democracy in the region. And there's probably at least some element of racism, but I think it's less a case of "it's all the jews' fault" and more "these smart white folks have a burden the brown savages do not".
>All other cases in WW I/II have been laid behind them by the victims, but this.
My instinct is to lay that at the feet of religion. Two violently opposed religions claiming the same areas as important holy sites makes peace hard.
>1. Is that measured for first time criminals only? It is a big step to risk jail.
AIUI it's been tested across criminals in general, not just first time.
>2. To simplify, there are two types of criminals. The first are the idiots that drink beer on a Saturday and get in a knife fight and the second type consider and weigh for/against like any other entrepeneur. How is the sentence length sensitivity if you ignore things like drunks that knife each others?
The thing is, "crime doesn't pay" isn't just a slogan, it's actually true. So the kind of smart people who evaluate the consequences usually end up following a different career. The only place it seems to me that it might make a difference would be the kind of grey area tax avoidance/fraud schemes, where the person is going to argue that what they did isn't a crime at all. But I don't think there would be much support for harsher sentencing of crimes that were only just on the wrong side of the law.
>3. Sentences have influence. A proof: If there was a death sentence for e.g. jay walking, not even I would do it (sober, see 2.). But -- I wouldn't jaywalk even if it was just one year in jail. In that way, there is no influence by sentence length -- is that how the claim is measured?
AIUI studies mostly look at crimes for which the sentencing guidelines were changed, or where different regions sentence differently, or statistically compare criminals who were given different sentences for the same crime. Obviously none of these methods are perfect.
I'll defer to you on psychopaths.
>- Hard drug users. The logical solution is not to give them short sentences if they aren't likely to have stopped the drugs -- for their own sake.
But prison is no good at getting them off the drugs or stopping them reoffending, unless you're going to lock them up forever to rot; what would a long prison sentence achieve that a short one wouldn't? Medical treatment and community service give them a better chance than prison - though still not a great one - at being able to reintegrate into society.
>- International crime syndicates -- see type two above (entrepeneur).
AIUI most of the inherently illegal income for crime syndicates comes from drugs, but it's hard to see how heavier sentencing would damage that income. Street-level dealers are easily replaceable and it's a pretty crappy job already, I don't think longer prison sentences would damage their recruitment. The executives usually stand to lose all their money and lifestyle if they're ever convicted (proceeds of crime and all that); they're banking on paying the right bribes and/or never getting caught.
AIUI you missed a third category of burglar: the independent "professional" who burgles because they're poor and have no skills with which to get a job. But while these guys do a bit better than drug addicts in prison (sometimes they're able to get some kind of qualification there - which is pretty much the only case where spending a longer time in prison will help), community service sentences still give them a better chance of not returning to crime.
I have a hard time to take seriously excuses like "we have harder demands on democracies" together with no criticism of state supported Nazi race hatred.
It is just ridiculously large double standards.
A couple of more examples:
Syria was one of the world's worst police states long before the present turmoil -- many times worse treatment of its citizens than Israel, even with a Palestinian description. Syria is/was a big part of the Israeli conflict, so it is discussed when the conflict is discussed. The criticism of Syria from the left has been almost nil.
The Swedish left wing politics have existed for a bit more than a century. During that time, they have never supported a democracy against a dictator.
As I wrote, there are many more examples of this insanity.
The real reason for this lefty weirdness, is that foreign politics are treated as arguments for internal politics.
The problem is: with incoherent arguments, conspiracy theories and disgusting double standards -- why would anyone sane take the left seriously?
I seriously don't believe you consider so gigantic double standards as rational -- the modern difference is that they aren't for nobles/kings now...
Why do you try to defend double standards of a factor of (at least!) thousands? Do you have no intellectual integrity? Do you identify with the position, like football fans?
Re prison:
We have too different societal systems and prison implementations.
To a Swede, the US 19th century prison system looks both counterproductive and like a crime against humanity.
Sure -- you can make a good argument that a country with 30 times the Swedish population is impossible to control and manage; the problem size increases with the square of the population, or something.
Also, Sweden didn't have "real" criminal subcultures and organised crime syndicates until quite recently. And still don't have desperate people, except for drug users. An influencing factor might be that the police isn't functioning well (compared to most of the rest of Europe) and punishments are short, so crime-as-profession might be a better deal in Sweden.
But in general, if you make extraordinary claims, you need extraordinary proofs. To argue against mathematics (in this case, game theory and evolutionary biology) is an extraordinary claim.
Sure, humans have culture -- which is updated when the environment is updated. There is an obvious lag of at least decades, before the cultures change.
And it is easy to make proof of concept examples of punishments influencing crime (e.g. see previous re prison/death for jaywalking).
>But in general, if you make extraordinary claims, you need extraordinary proofs. To argue against mathematics (in this case, game theory and evolutionary biology) is an extraordinary claim.
To argue that humans (and criminals in particular) behave rationally is a far more extraordinary claim. I believe in using evidence over theory (much like in medicine - see the use of blood-thinning drugs after heart attacks) - and the (admittedly imperfect) evidence we have is that prison sentences are ineffective in preventing future crime.
I see you gave up defending thousands of times less criticism of brutal dictators and nazi racist hatred propaganda. (See previous examples if you want to touch that.)
There are afaik papers that discuss different evolutionary strategies for animals of different social status in groups. In some level, behaviour with so big influences on fitness generally makes sense in game theory.
It would be interesting to see support for the claims about sentence length not influencing behaviour? I've only heard claims, bever seen a good overview of the research. (As I wrote above, not or drunk idiots getting into fights.)
>> Yes, we do hold Israel to a higher standard than its neighbours
When I compare the volume of criticism from the left, I have to ask: How many thousands times more criticism is reasonable? For much, much less?
Compare with e.g. Sudan, which literally can be argued to be at least thousands of time worse -- and not only is it criticised less, the muslim world's shameful support isn't criticised.
What shocks me is that the left support (as in -- not calling out) state nazi propaganda. Public news media, children(!) tv. And so on.
Is it a new Ribentropp-Molotov nazi/left alliance!?
There are many more possible examples (some more in previous comments). I just can't see how you reasonably can argue your position here.
>>My instinct is to lay that at the feet of religion. Two violently opposed religions claiming the same areas as important holy sites makes peace hard.
You really don't think the permanency of the refugees' situation (and dictators' need for external enemies) have the large influence?
(Also, up to now, the Jewish side haven't been that religious.)
I'll take the rest later or tomorrow. (I am in Europe, the prisons and criminal subcultures are (still) very different here. At least in Sweden, no one needs to be a criminal to not starve. There are, simplified, two motivations for criminals: Drugs or a big car to impress stupid women with breast implants.)
>>Dictators do use [hate propaganda against external enemies], but it works because the population supports it. The people really do hate Israel and the Jews.
True afaik, but it could never be the same scale without the official sanctions and official media. Otherwise it would just be like racism against e.g. blacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_Arab_world
I'm sorry, but I just can't see this as anything but gigantic double standards.
An example before I run:
>>Many on the left do believe Israel shouldn't exist in its current form, simply because we don't think it was right for the UN to arbitrarily confiscate the land of a bunch of (largely) innocent Palestinians.
I don't know enough about the arguments re Palestine. I'll just note that there were lots of area changes after the world wars.
Palestine was hardly the worst (at a minimum, Karelia should be worse) -- but it is the only area where the subject is still problematic (well, there are some Japanese islands).
The reason that little area is still a big question is mainly because the Arab states refused to integrate the refugees of the civil war and destroy their lives. So the Palestinian refugees still remembers and hates.
Why have I never seen any criticism from the left of the Arab states for that?!
Agh, idealists... I seriously think they just hate everything that is supported by USA. (I don't know about other countries, but my local left wingers have never supported a democracy against a junta controlled place...)
Weakness and power does not count populations, and especially not population dispersed.
E.g A colonial power, like England that had a population of 30 million people, ruled colonies of 1 billion (and more) people 7-8 decades ago.
And it's not Israel vs every muslim country, it's mostly Israel vs the palestinians. Check any map of Palestinian territories, 1930 to present, to see which entity has more power. Or check a tally of casualties on both sides.
That said, it's not "racist hate propaganda" that left wing idealists accept. That's how Israel describes it (understandably). What they do accept is that other people can be right to protest against Israel, and that that does not automatically means "antisemitism" in the historical sense.
Believe it or not, the incredible harm (genocide) done by the Nazi's to jews, does not automatically translate to modern day Israel being on the right against it's neighbours, or generally in any possible conflict.
Continue reading about the expulsion of the Jews for religious reasons -- they had the same religion as the state religion of Israel, if you want more. That were a larger number than the Palestinians, which happened connected to a civil war.
>You seem to deny that antisemitism hate propaganda is prevalent in the Muslim world? This is well documented.
No, I deny:
1) that this is the kind of "antisemitism hate propaganda" that "left wing idealists" (in the western world) embrace.
2) That this "antisemitism hate propaganda" is even prevalent or has any consequence in the Muslim world. I _lived and worked_ in some muslim countries. They could not care less for this stuff. Some do believe it, but it's not like they act on it. Do you know how many people in the Bible Belt believe similar things?
>Continue reading about the expulsion of the Jews for religious reasons -- they had the same religion as the state religion of Israel, if you want more.
Well, I know about that. I'm from Europe, we like History there. Doesn't have to do with present day muslim-israel relation though.
Actually, did you know that in the 19th century (and before), when Jews were persecuted in Europe, Russia and such, they lived mighty fine alongside muslim populations in muslim countries?
FWIW, the majority of jews persecution has happened by Europeans, by far. Including the Nazi's of course. Muslim states don't even come close, and even then they don't do it for religious reasons, but for political ones (ie they are not against jewism but against the politics of the state of Israel).
(Oh, and another tibbit: pro WW-II, the US was also full of anti-Semitism propaganda).
Seriously, you repeatedly contradict already given Wikipedia links. Go discuss a subject you have less emotional connections to.
>> I _lived and worked_ in some muslim countries. They could not care less for this stuff.
From the pages I linked:
In 2008 A Pew Research Center survey found that negative views concerning Jews were most common in the three predominantly Arab nations polled, with 97% of Lebanese having unfavorable opinion of Jews, 95% in Egypt and 96% in Jordan.[60]
>>Some do believe it, but it's not like they act on it.
It is hard to act on hatred against people you threw out from your country long ago... :-)
>>Actually, did you know that in the 19th century (and before), when Jews were persecuted in Europe, Russia and such, they lived mighty fine alongside muslim populations in muslim countries?
Obviously I know more than you... or at least I'm honest and can read. Also in the page I LINKED re the 19th century:
>Seriously, you repeatedly contradict already given Wikipedia links.
Seriously, I doubt I contradict them, without actual examples. I speak from experience AND from readings on the matter.
That said, "Wikipedia links" are not exactly scholarly sources of history, especially without interpretation and understanding of what they mention. Better open some books.
E.g about:
"In 2008 A Pew Research Center survey found that negative views concerning Jews were most common in the three predominantly Arab nations polled, with 97% of Lebanese having unfavorable opinion of Jews, 95% in Egypt and 96% in Jordan.[60]"
So what? Methodology of the research? Funding of the research? Political views of the researches themselves (e.g some institute trying to validate western intervention in the area)? This doesn't sound very impartial: "The Pew Global Attitudes Project is a series of worldwide public-opinion surveys and reports aimed at understanding worldwide attitudes on various issues. The Project is chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright".
Plus, are the "negative views concerning jews" the same as the antisemitism propaganda (e.g "Jews, the people, are evil"), or like a political statement ("we hate what jews in Israel are doing").
In the cold war, a majority of Americans could say in a poll that they "hate Russians", but I wouldn't take that to mean that they hate russian people as such.
Make those questions, and don't assume everything written on the web or presented by some "impartial source" is the whole of the truth.
>Obviously I know more than you... or at least I'm honest and can read. Also in the page I LINKED re the 19th century:
You must have missed the part in the article that said:
"Arab antisemitism is believed to have expanded since the 19th century. (...) despite its restrictive nature, dhimmi status also afforded the "People of the Book" relative security against persecution and welfare most of the time—a protection that was missing for non-Christians in most of Europe until the institutionalization of equality under a secular idea of citizenship after the French Revolution—and allowed them to enjoy their respective religious laws and ways of life.".
Or: "For most of the past fourteen hundred years, according to Bernard Lewis, Arabs have not been antisemitic as the word is used in the West. In his view this is because, for the most part, Arabs are not Christians brought up on stories of Jewish deicide."
Long story short: they had it better in the muslim countries than in Europe, until it started getting worse since the 19th century.
As for the pogroms you list, you can find some everywhere. That doesn't mean it was the prevalent practice. Note for example the Damascus affair, which you list as an example of "muslim persecution":
"""The Damascus affair was an accusation of ritual murder and a blood libel against Jews in Damascus in 1840. On February 5, 1840, Franciscan Capuchin friar Father Thomas and his Greek servant were reported missing, never to be seen again. The Turkish governor and the French consul Ratti-Menton believed accusations of ritual murder and blood libel, as the alleged murder occurred before the Jewish Passover."""
Notice how the victims were Christians? Noticed how Damascus had a large christian population? Wondered if they are those that initiated the pogrom? Noticed how the Turkish governor AND the French consul believed the accusations?
>> did you know that in the 19th century (and before), when Jews were persecuted in Europe, Russia and such, they lived mighty fine alongside muslim populations in muslim countries?
Wikipedia gave in 30 seconds (in a link I already gave!) 20+ pogroms in the 19th century. You claim a "few" pogroms aren't much to be upset about:
>> As for the pogroms you list, you can find some everywhere. That doesn't mean it was the prevalent practice.
(Then you blame the Christians in Damascus for the pogroms there!!)
20+ pogroms is NOT "mighty fine"! You are writing dishonest propaganda.
You claim to be well read on the subject -- then question Wikipedia without specific complaints or even listing any reference supporting your claims!!
Re antisemitism, there are lots of facts on the Wikipedia links -- including islamic scholars and attitudes in Europe, which should be milder than in the Mid East.
This is about Sweden in the page I referenced twice: "A government study in 2006 estimated that 39% of the Muslim population, harbor strong and consistent antisemitic views."
But maybe they learned that from the Swedes?! :-)
And so on.
Bye, I can't take you seriously when I have to quote every damn word of wikipedia pages or you deny the content (well, you deny the content even when I quote it...)
>Wikipedia gave in 30 seconds (in a link I already gave!) 20+ pogroms in the 19th century.
Making a query and getting some numbers back fast does not equal knowledge on a subject.
>20+ pogroms is NOT "mighty fine"! You are writing dishonest propaganda.
Neither is knee-jerk reaction knowledge. Also, "propaganda" really? For which side, since I acknowledge the wrong-doings of all of them?
20+ pogroms, you say. What does that say in itself? Not much.
You have to measure the importance of those numbers, and put them in historical perspective.
Else, with the same "muslims in the 19th century were as bad as christian nations in treating jews, because they had 20+ pogroms" you could as easily come to the conclusion that the US is an antisemitic haven, what with: "From 1979 to 1989 the ADL recorded more than 9,617 anti-Semitic incidents, including 6,400 cases of vandalism, bombings and attempted bombings, arsons and attempted arsons, and cemetery desecrations. The tally peaked at 2,066 in 1994".
So, let's try QUALITATIVE inquiry, instead of mere numbers. Those 20+ pogroms, how severe where they and how long have they persisted? Were only muslim communities in those multi-cultural cities involved? How do they compare to the situation in Europe and Russia, that had HUNDREDS of pogroms for several centuries, some of very large scale, including the persecution of jews in Russia and the USSR and culminating in the Nazi's genocide?
Read more about the Damascus Affair:
>The Damascus affair occurred in 1840, when a French monk and his servant disappeared in Damascus. Immediately following, a charge of ritual murder was brought against a large number of Jews in the city including children who were tortured. The consuls of England, France and Germany as well as Ottoman authorities, Christians, Muslims and Jews all played a great role in this affair.
Do you see it being especially about muslim persecution? Jewish scholars and writers themselves write that for many centuries jews had it better in muslim countries than they did in Europe. E.g up until in the first part of 20th Century hundreds of thousands of Jews lived in Salonica in peace under ottoman muslim rule (they even called the place "mother of Israel").
Yes, you can find persecution in several cases. That doesn't mean it is at the same level as persecution of jews that was done by christians and christian countries.
>But maybe they learned that from the Swedes?! :-)
Why not? Sweden was a Nazi Germany ally. That Wikipedia calls their stance "neutrality" is beyond comprehension. Here's how they put it:
"Sweden maintained a position of neutrality during the second world war; as such, it acted as a major supplier of raw materials for Hitler's military, laundered the gold confiscated from Holocaust victims, and often failed to provide adequate asylum for refugees including the near-completely exterminated Norwegian Jews. Some Swedes even volunteered with the Waffen SS."
In general, Sweden has a long and convoluted history with the matter (heck, they even had an active eugenics program up until the seventies).
>Bye, I can't take you seriously when I have to quote every damn word of wikipedia pages or you deny the content (well, you deny the content even when I quote it...)
Please don't take Wikipedia as the Bible. Some of the stuff it has is neutralised to not offend anyone, and lacks substance. Other articles contain just the bare facts and numbers, and need interpretation (to be put into perspective) to make any sense.
Especially matters of history that involve politics is not the best domain for Wikipedia. It's far better as a reference for technical and pop culture issues.
Astract: You're a total troll and/or a dishonest propagandist.
It was fun to see your conspiracy theory dismissing the example I quoted from Wikipedia:
>>Sweden was a Nazi Germany ally.
39% of the Muslim immigrants support antisemitism in a poll because the Swedes are Nazis and taught them?!
FYI troll, the Nazis never got much votes in Sweden. (I am Swedish, that is why I used that example.)
Conspiracy theories like that only work in dictatorships, with controlled information. Is what you're used to?
You certainly also have insane conspiracy theories about the rest of the European examples in the Wikipedia link -- Holland, Germany, Norway, etc. (Don't bother to post them, I have enough embarrassing materials if I see you write some other time.)
>Astract: You're a total troll and/or a dishonest propagandist.
Yes, thank you for your deep reading comprehension and insight. I'm sure everybody reading our exchange will reach the same conclusion as you did.
>It was fun to see your conspiracy theory dismissing the example I quoted from Wikipedia:
Was conspiracy theory? I provided facts, you gave me back BS wikipedia quotes you didn't even know how to read.
You found "20+ pogroms in the arab countries" in a Wikipedia search and you thought that closed the deal: jews had it just as bad as they had it in Europe in the arab countries. Despite JEW SCHOLARS saying the opposite.
You keep maintaining that jews had it AS BAD with antisemitism in the muslim world pre 20th century (based on the "20+ pogroms" nugget you found).
Well, here's some QUALITATIVE opinion on the matter, from the VERY wikipedia page you quote:
= = = =
Claude Cahen[2] and Shelomo Dov Goitein[3] argue _against historic antisemitism in Muslim lands_, writing that discrimination practiced against non-Muslims was of general nature, and not targeted specifically at Jews. For these scholars, _antisemitism in Medieval Islam was local and sporadic rather than general and endemic_. For Goitein antisemitism was _not present at all_, and for Cahen it was _rarely_ present.
Bernard Lewis[5] writes that while Muslims have held negative stereotypes regarding Jews, throughout most of Islamic history _these stereotypes were not indicative of antisemitism_ because, unlike Christians, Muslims viewed Jews as objects of ridicule, not fear. He argues that Muslims did not attribute "cosmic evil" to Jews. In Lewis' view, it was _only in the late 19th century that movements first appeared among Muslims that can legitimately be described as antisemitic_.
Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry state that there are mostly negative references to Jews in the Quran and Hadith, and that Islamic regimes treated Jews in degrading ways. Jews (and Christians) had the status of dhimmis. They state that _throughout much of history Christians treated Jews worse_, saying that _Jews in Christian lands were subjected to worse polemics, persecutions and massacres than under Muslim rule_.
= = = =
Surely, qualitative information is beyond your comprehension. Blissfully unaware that "information is not understanding".
And to top it, you are quick with typical knee-jerk ad hominen reactions "troll", "conspiracy theory" and such.
>FYI troll, the Nazis never got much votes in Sweden. (I am Swedish, that is why I used that example.)
They didn't get votes, bravo. That's so heroic. They just got a neutral stance and lots of cooperation.
Whereas my country, for one, told them to sod off, defeated the italian fascist army, lost by the German army with lots of casualties and still had a large armed resistance movement while under occupation. Oh, and some hundred thousands of people died from famine --plus some thousands were killed in mass civilians executions from the Nazi's to avenge the local resistance.
Another comment, two days later... I will assume you're not a troll and try to educate you.
To rehash:
You deny all the documentation for widespread antisemitism in the Muslim world - like schoolbooks(!), TV programs, other official media, presidents(!), religious scholars, documented transfer of antisemitism from the 3rd Reich, etc, etc.
Your only counterargument is a claim about personal experience!
My pain limit was your conspiracy theory that 39% of Muslims in Sweden were antisemitic in 2006 because: The Swedes are Nazis and taught the immigrants antisemitism in less than a generation!.
Advice:
There are lots of facts I don't like, "batista". But I don't sell out my intellectual integrity and start lying to deny them. I have some f-ing dignity!
If you want to argue on this subject, instead note that racism were common in Europe until modern times -- it is a phase which hopefully the Muslim world will leave, when their dictators are gone.
Please stop both lying and being a drag on HN quality.
You ignored my single point in the short GP comment.
I wrote: "39% of the Muslim immigrants support antisemitism in a poll because the Swedes are Nazis and taught them?!"
You didn't retract that, you just wrote lots of other text (and attacked Sweden of 65+ years ago!)
that it is just bad propaganda and/or trolling. That stupidity was enough, I have nothing more to say to you, troll.
(As I wrote, it would be fun to copy/paste statistics from other countries to see more of your conspiracy theories -- since you ignore references if I don't copy/paste the content -- but it is enough.)
> why do left wing people have much less problems with the quite common Muslim antisemitism, than with Nazi antisemitism?
I think you may be a bit confused. Muslims living in the Middle East aren't antiSemitic (unless they hate themselves). They may or may not be anti-Israeli, but it's a little simplistic to describe them as antiSemitic, since the're in large part Semitic themselves.
Nazis were really antiSemitic in the classic sense (against Jews). This is a difficult label to apply to people who are racially nearly identical to the Semites in Israel.
All I am saying is the problems of the Middle East don't fit into simple categories.
> As other comments have noted, he has criticized Christianity more than Islam.
Yes -- probably more to avoid what befell Salman Rushdie than any deeper goal.
Edit: I have seen others dismiss racist hatred with an attempt at linguistics, but happily seldom on HN. Where do you guys pick up this kind of "argument"? Seriously, checking your links you're obviously smarter and more educated than most people I've ever met.
> Edit: I have seen others dismiss racist hatred with an attempt at linguistics
Why is that surprising? Racist hatred often arises from ignorance and confusion, and there's plenty of ignorance and confusion about the meaning of words. Examining word usage is an obvious starting point.
> Where do you guys pick up this kind of "argument"?
It's called fighting fire with fire. Racists tend to be ignorant of the group they hate, and they also tend to ignorant of the various meanings of words. And "antiSemite" is a classic example of a word that's tortured until it means anything.
I seriously expected you to say something like "Ah, I hadn't checked the dictionaries and repeated what I read in article X". I wanted to find out what X was. :-(
>>Examining word usage is an obvious starting point.
>>It's called fighting fire with fire
So you are consciously lyi... redefining the dictionary and do logical jumps through hoops, to get out the opinion you consider "good". :-(
>>Racists
So, all means are OK that attacks the racist enemy in your own social group? Even trying to define away racism in other groups -- presumably so there won't be a negative view of them because of their racism?
If that excusing of racism in your attacks on racism wasn't such pathetic Orwellian double-think, it would be funny.
Anyway, thanks for the honesty -- if it really was honesty and not another trick.
(My internal monologue right now is: "Grumble, must shower; I feel dirty when people sell out their intellectual integrity. Seriously, the left wing extremists are as crazy as the US right wing extremists.")
As other comments have noted, he has criticized Christianity more than Islam.
For a less well known counter example, this is from a not so extreme Muslim country (a few friends are from Bangladesh, so I read up a bit).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vested_Property_Act_%28Banglade...
>> It is officially estimated that about 75% of all Hindu lands in Bangladesh have been seized by using this act
Edit: I have to ask -- why do left wing people have much less problems with the quite common Muslim antisemitism, than with Nazi antisemitism? Most of the arguments (except for the religious ones) and sources were copied from the nazis. It is even written in official(!) media in the Muslim world.