Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!

[sinjection]

OK, hurumph ... here goes ...

I question whether anyone has the time to read what I've written (Arghhhh!), and I sure don't have much more time to pursue this. The Hudlin Forum had these discussions ad nauseum before.  We could go round and round forever in a point-counterpoint fashion, and at the end of the day we will have burned hours of time.  

My only real purpose in laying all this out now is to express to you the perspective of a large segment of the American Jewish Community.  To help give you further understanding of why there may be some political fallout from the sympathetic publication of the Hamas stance in the “Pastor’s Corner” of the church bulletin.  

Good Lord, man!

I don't think our own supreme illuminati has composed a message as lengthy as the one you've posted. I'll see you all in a week as I read and digest your offering 

I'll find the time to read your fine post in its glorious entirety....between the NCAA Basketball tournament games - both male and female - the NIT Basketball tournament games, the new CBI Basketball tournament games and any high school basketball state tournaments that may be aired in the near future. You haven't typed and posted in vain 

[Catch22]

The US is in no way culpable for any aspect of the WW2 holocaust.

The rhetoric of recent presidents shows how accepted the Holocaust analogy is in American political life. “Out of our memory of the Holocaust,” Jimmy Carter enjoined, “we must forge an unshakable oath with all civilized people that never again will the world stand silent, never again will the world fail to act in time to prevent this terrible crime of genocide.” At the groundbreaking for the U.S. Holocaust Museum, George H.W. Bush admonished the audience, “Here we will learn that each of us bears responsibility for our actions and for our failure to act. Here we will learn that we must intervene when we see evil arise.” Finally, at the inauguration of the Holocaust Museum, Bill Clinton concurred: “For those of us here today representing the nations of the West, we must live forever with this knowledge: Even as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done.”

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_04_12/article3.html

So, you don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. But the facts are as I've stated them. This nation as illustrated by the foregoing quotes spoken by three of our Presidents disagrees with your point of view. Each of them believe that the U.S. did not respond properly to the Jewish Holocaust. Each of them have vowed that "never again" should we allow a similar attrocity to take place.

As you read through the article, if such is your desire, you will find that the author does seem to agree with your point of view, a point of view which is of course, at variance with my own.

Seems like the promise of "never again" only applies to either people with oil reserves or non-black skin.  The U.S. and UN's actions (inactions) in the Darfur Conflict is testament to that.  All the rhetoric that's been quoted here shows the hypocrisy this nation was built on and is fueled by.

[sinjection]

The US is in no way culpable for any aspect of the WW2 holocaust.

The rhetoric of recent presidents shows how accepted the Holocaust analogy is in American political life. “Out of our memory of the Holocaust,” Jimmy Carter enjoined, “we must forge an unshakable oath with all civilized people that never again will the world stand silent, never again will the world fail to act in time to prevent this terrible crime of genocide.” At the groundbreaking for the U.S. Holocaust Museum, George H.W. Bush admonished the audience, “Here we will learn that each of us bears responsibility for our actions and for our failure to act. Here we will learn that we must intervene when we see evil arise.” Finally, at the inauguration of the Holocaust Museum, Bill Clinton concurred: “For those of us here today representing the nations of the West, we must live forever with this knowledge: Even as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done.”

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_04_12/article3.html

So, you don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. But the facts are as I've stated them. This nation as illustrated by the foregoing quotes spoken by three of our Presidents disagrees with your point of view. Each of them believe that the U.S. did not respond properly to the Jewish Holocaust. Each of them have vowed that "never again" should we allow a similar attrocity to take place.

As you read through the article, if such is your desire, you will find that the author does seem to agree with your point of view, a point of view which is of course, at variance with my own.

Seems like the promise of "never again" only applies to either people with oil reserves or non-black skin.  The U.S. and UN's actions (inactions) in the Darfur Conflict is testament to that.  All the rhetoric that's been quoted here shows the hypocrisy this nation was built on and is fueled by.

And you are absolutely correct, Catch! I agree with you 100%. In fact, I may have alluded to this very observation in an earlier posting in this thread. I can't remember which one at the moment. But wait....I went back and looked and located my exact quote from that earlier posting. Here it be: Today, the U.S. has referred to its past mistake of turning Jews away in their time of need to justify military actions taken in Iraq and Bosnia. The only places where the U.S. seems reticent or disinterested in stopping genocidal slaughter is in Africa.

Please make no mistake. In pointing up the fact that the U.S. turned nazi german Jews away during a period of their mortal peril, I am in no way ignoring this nation's abominable inaction where African genocide is concerned. And as this is the case, it is easy for me to see why the Rev. Jeremiah Wright would exclaim, "goddamn America" in his sermon. They aren't black people, but "goddamn America" for allowing Gen amherst to give blankets laced with small pox to a tribe of Indians as a means of germ warfare.

[sinjection]

Aha. 

Having found what I was looking for in your posting:

You also raise South Africa. The Israeli arms trade with Apartheid South Africa is a flashback to the 1980s. It is troubling, I agree. However, Israel did reverse course in its relationship with that regime.

I can now go back and read your post in total. Well, I'll be able to do that as soon as you explain to me what you were getting at with the following statement:

Other than as a mere pretense, this does not justify an endorsement of Hamas today, the topic we’ve been discussing (or at least were discussing before I went to work this morning, haha).

"Other than as a mere pretense"?

[michaelintp]

Well, it's germane.

Jewish Americans, as a group, are no more and no less allied with blacks than the larger white populace and never have been.

Nothing that has happened to the American jewish population IN AMERICA stacks up against what has happened to blacks IN AMERICA. So, when talking about the long suffering of people elsewhere and what we do or don't owe them as decent human beings, I think it's legitimate for American blacks to say, "get in line behind us." Just as the native Americans can say the same to all of us.

Lots of groups have a holocaust. All are legit and none takes the front seat over the others.  But, when dealing with them, you have to deal with the actual torturers and the actual victims. America isn't responsible in any way for the Holocaust so we don't owe anything on that score. Take it up with Germany.

Redjack, I believe your implication that Jews were no more involved in the Civil Rights movement than any other group of white Americans is false.  While or course most Jews did not actively participate (too busy working, raising families, etc ... to be directly involved, just as with any social movement), I believe that the percentage of Jews that did actively participate far exceeded the percentage of Jews in the general American population.  That is to say, Jews did participate at a higher rate than most white Americans.  And those who did not participate actively on the streets did participate in the voting booth.  Even to this day Jews tend to be far more liberal than the general white American population.

On another topic ... I don't know how the Nazi Holocaust came up ... I certainly didn't raise it.  The extermination of the Jews of Europe was a horrible thing.  The Slave trade was a horrible thing of greater magnitude.  Perhaps the Holocaust is given greater emphasis because it was more recent, or perhaps because as you mentioned nobody before then believed there could be assembly-line mass murder in the 20th Century, or maybe because of an ethnocentric bias (as in "How could 'civilized' Europeans do such a thing?"), and yes maybe because the victims, while Jews, were white. 

Getting back to horrors.  The Cambodian genocide was horrible. The genocide in Rwanda was horrible.  What is taking place in Africa today is horrible.  As to this latter example, Jewish organizations and Jews in leadership positions of non-Jewish organizations are far more active in condemning the genocide in Africa today, and in trying to alleviate the suffering, than any other ethnic group in America, bar none.  Jews have traditionally been "over-represented" (vis a vis our % of the population) in movements fighting for social justice, combating genocide, and alleviation of global suffering.

Part of the reason may be because of our own cultural "memory" of the Holocaust.  Many Jews, even American Jews, lost family and friends.  Many Jews in America today are the children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren of Holocaust survivors.  If the memory of the Holocaust as spurred American Jews to fight for justice and work to help the oppressed elsewhere, that is something to praise, not to minimize.

[bluezulu]

Never want to get into a comparisons of generational atrocities, however Jews were allowed to continue being...Jews after WW II well the American slave lost almost all ties to their native land and culture up to and including diluted blood lines. Even the Native American culture is celebrated on some level and is defined. The descendants of slaves run far away from that point in history despite having generational curses left from it.

ps: not trying to throw off thred topic.

[michaelintp]

Never want to get into a comparisons of generational atrocities, however Jews were allowed to continue being...Jews after WW II well the American slave lost almost all ties to their native land and culture up to and including diluted blood lines. Even the Native American culture is celebrated on some level and is defined. The descendants of slaves run far away from that point in history despite having generational curses left from it.

ps: not trying to throw off thred topic.

Though thankfully the slaves' African culture could not be totally eradicated ... parts of it were sustained and emerged in indirect ways, forever changing the course of American Culture (and to some extent, the culture of the Western World).

[Curtis Metcalf]

I don't think our own supreme illuminati has composed a message as lengthy as the one you've posted. I'll see you all in a week as I read and digest your offering 

And so you quoted it in full. 
Perhaps just the beginning and some ... would have sufficed.

[sinjection]

And so you quoted it in full. 
Perhaps just the beginning and some ... would have sufficed.

Perhaps.

Getting back to the topic, HAMAS has engaged in suicide/homicide bombings. But after political successes it appeared HAMAS was prepared to change its tactics opting for a cease fire, a truce and talks with Israel. Their political opponents Fatah, were none too pleased with these developments. Fatah may have actively sought to undermine the HAMAS-led government. If I'm not mistaken, both Israel and the U.S. favored Fatah over HAMAS did they not? What part might Israel and the U.S. have played in destabilizing the HAMAS-led power structure? It's probably already been posted somewhere, but when exactly did Church of Trinity's endorsement of HAMAS come to light? How long has the Church endorsed HAMAS? Was it before or after HAMAS sought a cease fire and a truce with Israel?

I noticed in the article attached to the first link in the initial post of this thread, it states that Obama's Church's Newsletter referred to HAMAS as the "Islamic Resistance Movement", seeming to suggest that it was the Church's decision to refer to HAMAS by that title. But when I look up "HAMAS", I find that the name literally means "Islamic Resistance Movement."

[Redjack]

Sinjection:

My father, for nearly twenty years, worked as an officer in the United Nations High Commission for refugees. Before that he worked for various NGOs in Africa, India and Vietnam. I split my time between life with him and life with my mom who, until recently, taught school in the so-called inner city. When I need a lecture about the US's policy toward refugees, it won't be you I call. I grew up with the refugee situation as part of everyday life.

Like many descendants of those who faced horrible adversity in their home countries, you seem to be of the opinion that what happened to your particular group was in some way unique or that the United States owes yours or any group, automatic safe haven if things are awful at home. That isn't the case. It's never been the case. It's never going to be the case and, as Americans, you shouldn't want it to be the case.

There is simply too much crap going on the rest of the world for the "come one, come all" policy to be effective or even sound. It's a good place to come from emotionally but, in practice, it's not workable. IOW: the US routinely turns away hundreds of thousands of people who "deserve" asylum here. We always have and we always will and those who don't get in have to eat it. It's tough. It's horrible in fact, but they still have to eat it because we can't take them all.

Like a lot of people, you are conveniently leaving out those facts that don't support your assertions and conflating unconnected events in an effort to support them. That stops right now.

In the period leading up to the 2nd World War, America was looking inward. Our economy was destroyed, millions were displaced, there was racial, ethnic and class strife on a scale that most can't imagine today who didn't live through it. Meanwhile, in Europe, the democratically elected leader of a nation is being cruel to his own people. NO ONE here knew about the death camps because, unsurprisingly, they hadn't been built yet. Mass deportation is cruel but it is not, in itself, an automatic ticket into the US. Sorry. We have our own crap to deal with. Lots and lots and lots of our own crap.

In the build-up to our entry into the war England repeatedly warned us of Hitler's megalomania and desire for conquest and repeatedly begged for us to get in before things got really dire. We did not. America had no real military at the time, our munitions were substandard and in many cases antiquated. After Lindbergh got a look at the German air force his opinion was they would crush us in a straight out fight and, at that time, he was absolutely right. yes, he was a racist. Doesn't mean the report was false. It wasn't and everybody concerned knew it.

(Side note: American multinational corporations, sadly, have never cared about local evils as long as there's a buck to be made. Hell, they often assist or create those evils to stretch buck farther. Incidentally, I also lived in and around South Africa for several of the Apartheid years and I think the importance you place on the participation of American corporations in the fall of apartheid would come a sever and insulting shock to many there. It wasn't sanctions that turned that tide, bunky.  It was a LOT of black people writing on the wall: "We will win this eventually. It can be with blood or you can give up the ghost. LOTS of people left rather than stay and forge the new nation.)

Couple that weakness with the incredible social and economic strife at home and it's easy to see why the American public had to be convinced that the Germans weren't, at worst,  just a problem for Europe. Hell, we still had vets of the last time we stopped a German land grab who were disinclined to have the country get mired in the same crap again. So a tiny subset of our population has relatives at home who are getting a raw deal? Welcome to the club. A larger subset, the Irish Americans, had problems too, massive ones, and we didn't invade England to stop them or absorb every Irishman who took the boat ride. A larger subset, black Americans, had problems RIGHT HERE, that were, shall we say, not being paid serious attention. You think a bunch of European refugees are going to rate? Get over yourself.

We did not get in early and that, ultimately, is why we turned the tide when we did get in. Before we joined in we revamped our entire economy in an impossibly short period of time. We shattered the traditional social structure in ways that led directly to the civil rights victories for women and blacks over the next decades and, oh yes, SAVED THE f*ckING WORLD.

Within that saving we and the other allies freed from hideous bondage the victims of the Nazi death camp system and the world was given a glimpse of the sort of horror that most would rather think only exists in novels about hell. The camps were never the point.  Even after we did know about them. Even after escapees and spies brought out photos and testimony. The camps were INCIDENTAL to the overall war effort. They were a small subset of the whole. Just as the Japanese labor camps were.

We did not know what we didn't know and can't be held accountable for that ignorance.  Moreover, while it may seem unfair to you that so many Jews were turned away, I must AGAIN remind you that the US routinely turns away people fleeing similar events. Cambodians don't get a free pass. African refugees from various nations don't. Tibetans don't. Etc. etc. etc. We don't take everybody. We don't even take most of those who want to get in. We can't. So get over it. It's not specific to your group and it's not personal. GET. OVER. IT. And those people, in the context of the world's horrors, aren't special. They are, sadly, depressingly common.

America owes a debt to Americans and to those peoples we have, ourselves, harmed or destroyed. We do not owe anything to the victims of other people's evil deeds. If we do open a hand or a door, it is because we WISH to, not because we share guilt.

Those Presidential speeches were about HINDSIGHT and REGRET and, btw, complete BS. The US has subsequently turned a blind eye to MULTIPLE acts of horrible oppression and has propped up the perpetrators of brutality. Presidents say all kinds of stuff in front of cameras and to specific ethnic or class gatherings.  it's called pandering.

As with all things, what they DO matters considerably more than what they say.

Michael:

Jews are white. By the spurious definitions of "race" that everyone seems so comfy with, jews are white. The underlying and unspoken  reason for the outrage at their treatment both here and abroad is because of the collective shock that, as white people, the should get the raw deal. German jews thought of themselves as Germans. American jews thoght they were white americans. They were proven, in many cases, not to be right about that.

But, also because they look white (isn't racism fun, kids?), they were able to blend into the existing system here and change things for themselves, for the better, from within. Some blacks did it too but it's more difficult for us for obvious reasons. We call it "passing." It's not held in high regard and it creates resentment in those ho see it happening, especially when getting lectured by those who do it and reap the benefit.

While I would never downplay the participation in and support of various Jewish individuals and organizations in the latter part of the civil rights struggle, you are not allowed to describe that participation as somehow representative of the whole.  it's not. And, it must be said, black people think WE did the whole civil rights thing alone. As Bill Clinton just found out. That's false. We had help. Lots of it.

No matter what we said or how many of us marched, if white America hadn't agreed with the sentiments expressed, nothing would have changed for us. In fact things could have gotten worse. Lots worse. We get credit for pushing them, over a about a century, into that agreement but there was no guarantee that they would. And that was still most whites. It was almost always with qualifiers and nowhere near all.

However, just because the majority (and we'll never know how wide a majority) of non-blacks seemed to get on the band wagon eventually, that doesn't obviate the deeds and indifference of those who did not. White. Jewish. Latin. Chinese. Whatever. If they didn't join up, they're still on the hook.

Charleton Heston was famous for saying he "marched with King."

The most common response I ever heard to that was some version of "So what? What have you done for me lately with your cold dead hands?"

Anybody can take a stroll.

Those Jewish kids that stood up for what was right were doing so not because of their Jewishness but because of their American-ness just as the blacks were fighting not to create some sort of Afrocentric enclave but simply to be considered Americans like everybody else. There's a theme there.

If more people would grasp it, we'd all be better off.

Obama's pastor said nothing wrong. Obama himself doesn't need to pass some litmus on how he feels about Hamas or Israel or freaking Darfur for that matter. We elect presidents for what they will do for US, not what they can do for the world. Otherwise the world would get  a vote.

They don't.

[sinjection]

Obama's pastor said nothing wrong. Obama himself doesn't need to pass some litmus on how he feels about Hamas or Israel or freaking Darfur for that matter. We elect presidents for what they will do for US, not what they can do for the world. Otherwise the world would get  a vote.

They don't.

But...but did he HAVE to say "garlic noses"?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080326a.html

[sinjection]

Sinjection:

My father, for nearly twenty years, worked as an officer in the United Nations High Commission for refugees. Before that he worked for various NGOs in Africa, India and Vietnam. I split my time between life with him and life with my mom who, until recently, taught school in the so-called inner city. When I need a lecture about the US's policy toward refugees, it won't be you I call. I grew up with the refugee situation as part of everyday life.

  Well then, it's a good thing for me that I didn't attempt to lecture you about the U.S. policy toward refugees isn't it? What I did do is give you the straight facts about how this nation turned away german Jews who were fleeing for their lives and sent them back to a godless regime which slaughtered them. Today, if a refugee from any war torn part of the world is fortunate enough to make it to the U.S. and present a legitimate case for why they should be allowed to remain in this nation, they are offered asylum.

Like many descendants of those who faced horrible adversity in their home countries, you seem to be of the opinion that what happened to your particular group was in some way unique or that the United States owes yours or any group, automatic safe haven if things are awful at home. That isn't the case. It's never been the case. It's never going to be the case and, as Americans, you shouldn't want it to be the case.

You must have missed (or overlooked), the part where I said rather emphatically I might add, that human suffering is human suffering. Period. All human suffering should be addressed. There needn't be a system created to rank "holocausts" by degree of suffering and who the sufferers were. I see human suffering as a UNIVERSAL EVIL. Apparently, you seem to be under the impression that the Jews, the Slavs, the homosexuals, etc....are trying to trump the suffering of black people and that they "need to get in line". No, I don't agree with that attitude.

There is simply too much crap going on the rest of the world for the "come one, come all" policy to be effective or even sound. It's a good place to come from emotionally but, in practice, it's not workable. IOW: the US routinely turns away hundreds of thousands of people who "deserve" asylum here. We always have and we always will and those who don't get in have to eat it. It's tough. It's horrible in fact, but they still have to eat it because we can't take them all.

As far as I know, Cubans who are fortunate enough to escape Cuba, survive the 90 mile journey over open water from Cuba to Florida, and who are able to put their foot on U.S. soil are allowed to stay. Feel free to enlighten me if you find that the policy toward Cuban refugees has been changed. Any refugee who is absolute danger of facing death upon their return home should be granted asylum. Recently, I heard a report about an Iranian youth who happens to be a homosexual. He learned while studying in Britain, that his partner had been executed in Iran for the crime of sodomy and that upon his return, he would face that same fate. The youth left Great Britain and applied for asylum in Scandanavia I believe. It was not granted due to some red tape situation existing between the workings of asylum between Britain and Scandanavia. Meanwhile, the youth's visa or whatever they call it over there, is expiring; in fact, it should have expired by now. Either Britain was able to work out a way which would allow the young homosexual Iranian to be granted asylum in their country or the youth is heading home to keep a date with the gallows. I see what you're saying, but the U.S. took in Irish escaping the potato famine didn't they? In more recent times, the U.S.opened the doors for Southeast Asians, didn't they? Discussions are now underway to formulate a plan which would allow Iraqi refugees to come to America. The fact remains, what happened to those german Jews who came here to escape a slaughter in their homeland was nothing short of abominable.

Like a lot of people, you are conveniently leaving out those facts that don't support your assertions and conflating unconnected events in an effort to support them. That stops right now.

Okay, let's see what you've got 

In the period leading up to the 2nd World War, America was looking inward. Our economy was destroyed, millions were displaced, there was racial, ethnic and class strife on a scale that most can't imagine today who didn't live through it. Meanwhile, in Europe, the democratically elected leader of a nation is being cruel to his own people. NO ONE here knew about the death camps because, unsurprisingly, they hadn't been built yet. Mass deportation is cruel but it is not, in itself, an automatic ticket into the US. Sorry. We have our own crap to deal with. Lots and lots and lots of our own crap.

The U.S. had no money, but could somehow find the means to print WWII versions of the Beat Back the Hun posters. This nation knew enough about "the democratically elected leader" and his attrocious aspirations and hatreds for Jews and other "sub-cultures". Before WWII began in earnest, the U.S. sought to shove that "democratically elected leader's" words about his "super race" down his throat pinning their hopes on the athletic prowess of two black Americans, Joe Louis and Jesse Owens. The U.S. knew at that time that hitler was bad news getting worse. And as Clinton said in his address: "Even as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done.” Those Jews seeking refuge in the U.S. weren't all deaf mutes. They could communicate and could tell whomever it concerned, what was happening in their home country. Sorry. Because of the position this nation finds itself in these days and based upon how we've cast ourselves and comported ourselves, the world expects the U.S. to be there to aid stricken nations after every natural disaster. The world expects the U.S. to exercise the "power of our position" to assist in slowing or stopping nation-on-nation aggression. The world expects us to deal with "our own crap" and their "crap" too. And why not? That's what we've been trying to do for decades is it not?

In the build-up to our entry into the war England repeatedly warned us of Hitler's megalomania and desire for conquest and repeatedly begged for us to get in before things got really dire. We did not. America had no real military at the time, our munitions were substandard and in many cases antiquated. After Lindbergh got a look at the German air force his opinion was they would crush us in a straight out fight and, at that time, he was absolutely right. yes, he was a racist. Doesn't mean the report was false. It wasn't and everybody concerned knew it.

The U.S. military began girding for war as early as 1939. Isolationist or not, these preparations were being made because the government KNEW that at some point, the U.S. was going to enter the war. It had to be prepared to defend our bases in places like the Phillipines. When the german aggression began and war in Europe broke out, President Roosevelt put our military forces - meager in some places, but quite strong in others, the air force being one - on alert. So though America was "isolationist" and far removed from Europe, our President put our military forces on alert. Why? Well, I'm sure you know why. Our military was already drawing up battle plans as the President put forward a plan to increase the size of our army and equipping them. By 1940, our forces were participating in war games preparing for entry into the war. During this time, we were ACTIVELY SENDING MUNITIONS TO BRITAIN AND FRANCE. But we weren't in the war  By 1941, France had been defeated and America's war prep had achieved its goal. During that time we had amassed an army not yet capable of waging war, but very close to being able to do so. Why? Because we were destined to enter the war notwithstanding the urgent urgings of Great Britain. By 1941 congress passed laws which enabled the U.S. to drop its neutrality stance and already the plan was not "if", but "when" the U.S. entered the war, it would attack germany. hitler didn't wait for us though. Angered because we had been supplying Britain and France with munitions, germany declared war on U.S. (that's us).

(Side note: American multinational corporations, sadly, have never cared about local evils as long as there's a buck to be made. Hell, they often assist or create those evils to stretch buck farther. Incidentally, I also lived in and around South Africa for several of the Apartheid years and I think the importance you place on the participation of American corporations in the fall of apartheid would come a sever and insulting shock to many there. It wasn't sanctions that turned that tide, bunky.  It was a LOT of black people writing on the wall: "We will win this eventually. It can be with blood or you can give up the ghost. LOTS of people left rather than stay and forge the new nation.)

"Bunky"? I haven't called you out of your name. If you must address me, sinjection will do. Thank you very much. The Sullivan Principles were very effective in putting tremendous economic pressure on South Africa. Don't sell the sanctions short. Without them, those black people writing on the wall would have been writhing against the wall after having been shot or beaten by emboldened racist policemen serving a government not having to worry about international sanctions against them.

We did not get in early and that, ultimately, is why we turned the tide when we did get in. Before we joined in we revamped our entire economy in an impossibly short period of time. We shattered the traditional social structure in ways that led directly to the civil rights victories for women and blacks over the next decades and, oh yes, SAVED THE f*ckING WORLD.

  Oh, so melodramatic. The U.S. played a large part in saving the world, this is true. Do not forget about our Russian ally. Without their withering assault on germany, forcing her to fight a war on two fronts, the Eastern front being the most damaging because the Russians weren't playing. The U.S. was able to do its part in saving the war with our Russian and British allies. And why is it that after winning those "civil rights victories", german prisoners of war were treated better and accorded more respect than black American soldiers who were attached to French and British units because white American soldiers didn't want to fight beside them. When black soldiers returned home from WWII, they quickly discovered that they were still n_____ as far as white Americans were concerned. "The traditional social structure was shattered"? Tell that to the black American soldier who in fighting for the U.S. had to do so attached to French or British units because white American soldiers didn't want to serve alongside a black American soldier. Tell Dr. Charles Drew who through his work with blood transfusions was put in charge of that function during the war, but left in disgust when told he was to be sure "white blood" didn't mix with "black blood". Can we say the "traditional social structure" was maybe cracked just a little? Because "shattered" it certainly was not.

Within that saving we and the other allies freed from hideous bondage the victims of the Nazi death camp system and the world was given a glimpse of the sort of horror that most would rather think only exists in novels about hell. The camps were never the point.  Even after we did know about them. Even after escapees and spies brought out photos and testimony. The camps were INCIDENTAL to the overall war effort. They were a small subset of the whole. Just as the Japanese labor camps were.

We did not know what we didn't know and can't be held accountable for that ignorance.

 

I say again, the U.S. government could not have been "that ignorant" of the fact that the nazis had death camps and were mass murdering Jews and others in those camps. The camps were built beginning in 1940. The Allies had reliable information about these camps as early as 1941. They had aerial photos of the camps. The allies had a Polish plant within one of those camps and he was supplying the allies with accurate accounts of the horrors taking place in those camps. The allies and I'm sure the Americans as well, knew what was going on in those camps as early as 1941 and dismissed that information as exaggeration. Now if you believe the government is above lying about what it knows and when it knew it....what can I say?

Unfortunately, my time is running short and I cannot respond to your fine post in the manner it deserves. I will only reiterate what I've been saying all along. This nation chose to turn away people who were fleeing for their lives hoping to find safety and sanctuary in the nation who boasts, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...." I will always say because I will always believe that the U.S. fell far short of her lofty words when they sent those Jews back to Europe and to their deaths.

[Redjack]

Well then, it's a good thing for me that I didn't attempt to lecture you about the U.S. policy toward refugees isn't it? What I did do is give you the straight facts about how this nation turned away german Jews who were fleeing for their lives and sent them back to a godless regime which slaughtered them. Today, if a refugee from any war torn part of the world is fortunate enough to make it to the U.S. and present a legitimate case for why they should be allowed to remain in this nation, they are offered asylum.

Your problem is you think you get to determine what "legitimate" means. You don't.

You must have missed (or overlooked), the part where I said rather emphatically I might add, that human suffering is human suffering. Period. All human suffering should be addressed. There needn't be a system created to rank "holocausts" by degree of suffering and who the sufferers were. I see human suffering as a UNIVERSAL EVIL. Apparently, you seem to be under the impression that the Jews, the Slavs, the homosexuals, etc....are trying to trump the suffering of black people and that they "need to get in line". No, I don't agree with that attitude.

I see that. It's why you keep making the mistake you do. There is a line. It forms waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back there. And then another line forms at the border for people who want to get into the first line.

As far as I know, Cubans who are fortunate enough to escape Cuba, survive the 90 mile journey over open water from Cuba to Florida, and who are able to put their foot on U.S. soil are allowed to stay.

One, that's not invariably true. Two, the Cuban model is not representative and is, at the very least, considered somewhat controversial. Three, you are conflating modern behaviors with past ones again; that doesn't work.  Four, the US deals differently with different nations and in different situations. That is our right and we are under no obligation to let anyone stay just because someone else got to. Zero.

Feel free to enlighten me if you find that the policy toward Cuban refugees has been changed. Any refugee who is absolute danger of facing death upon their return home should be granted asylum.

"Should be" is your determination. You don't speak for the US.

 

Recently, I heard a report about an Iranian youth who happens to be a homosexual. He learned while studying in Britain, that his partner had been executed in Iran for the crime of sodomy and that upon his return, he would face that same fate. The youth left Great Britain and applied for asylum in Scandanavia I believe. It was not granted due to some red tape situation existing between the workings of asylum between Britain and Scandanavia. Meanwhile, the youth's visa or whatever they call it over there, is expiring; in fact, it should have expired by now. Either Britain was able to work out a way which would allow the young homosexual Iranian to be granted asylum in their country or the youth is heading home to keep a date with the gallows.

I hope he makes it. If not, that's really tough. But the immigration policy of one nation is not the business of another. No more than the internal politics of another nation, say a massive totalitarian regime that employs slave labor to make gods for US consumers.

 

I see what you're saying, but the U.S. took in Irish escaping the potato famine didn't they?

Some. Not all. And, again, one size doesn't fit all.

In more recent times, the U.S.opened the doors for Southeast Asians, didn't they?

Some. Not all. There were strict regulations as to who got in and why and even under those regs not everyone who "technially qualified" got in.  Lots and lots and lots got and get turned away. Also, there is a "we broke it, we bought it" undercurrent in the South Asian and Iraqi cases that was not present in WW2.

Discussions are now underway to formulate a plan which would allow Iraqi refugees to come to America. The fact remains, what happened to those german Jews who came here to escape a slaughter in their homeland was nothing short of abominable.

It's rough. No one's saying it's not. But using a tough immigration policy to link the US in responsibility to the WW2 holocaust is too big a stretch. It's just not true.

The U.S. had no money, but could somehow find the means to print WWII versions of the Beat Back the Hun posters. This nation knew enough about "the democratically elected leader" and his attrocious aspirations and hatreds for Jews and other "sub-cultures".

Enough for what? it was a sovereign nation. The was no UN then. The League of NAtions was a joke from day one. exactly what right did we have to say or do anything to Hitler beyond shaking our fist and calling foul? None, that's right. And, btw, America's treatment of its own minority populations at the time made any such criticism of Hitler hypocritical at best. Which was pointed out on more than one occasion by people of the day.

Before WWII began in earnest, the U.S. sought to shove that "democratically elected leader's" words about his "super race" down his throat pinning their hopes on the athletic prowess of two black Americans, Joe Louis and Jesse Owens.

A dubious political stance considering the US's teatment of Owens himself before and after the contest.  It was a PR victory, not a declaration of intent.  We were running our own eugenics programs here during the entire period. Difficult to get too hot about somebody else doing it. Had Hitler not been an expansionist it is likely the Nazis would still be running Germany. His ethnic policies were never going to be enough to inspire conflict on their own. Look at how we deal with countries where women have fewer rights than animals. We shake hands and play nice. No difference. Aggression against your neighbors is what gets the harsh response or cutting into company profits.

The U.S. knew at that time that hitler was bad news getting worse. And as Clinton said in his address: "Even as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done.”

We call that hindsight. the word you're apparently not reading is "fragmentary."

Those Jews seeking refuge in the U.S. weren't all deaf mutes. They could communicate and could tell whomever it concerned, what was happening in their home country.

I'm sure they did. The response was obviously, "that's really awful. take a number." Just like it is for the majority of refugees.

Sorry. Because of the position this nation finds itself in these days and based upon how we've cast ourselves and comported ourselves, the world expects the U.S. to be there to aid stricken nations after every natural disaster.

Yeah. that's pretty tough. the thing is, what "the world" expects is not our concern when voting for president or in letting in refugees. What WE want is all that matters on either score.

The world expects the U.S. to exercise the "power of our position" to assist in slowing or stopping nation-on-nation aggression. The world expects us to deal with "our own crap" and their "crap" too. And why not? That's what we've been trying to do for decades is it not?

Like I said. "The world" needs to get over that. Unless they also want to follow our laws and live under our constitution. So far there haven't been too many takers on that.

The U.S. military began girding for war as early as 1939. Isolationist or not, these preparations were being made because the government KNEW that at some point, the U.S. was going to enter the war.

No. It means the US was keeping its options open as best it could given increasingly dire reports from Europe and Churchill STILL couldn't actually budge us to add troops and actually declare.

So though America was "isolationist" and far removed from Europe, our President put our military forces on alert.

Because there was a disconnect between what the president wanted and what the people, as represented by the house and senate, wanted. There was strong fascist sympathy in this nation. Hell, there still is.

"Bunky"? I haven't called you out of your name.

LOL. You guys need to get over this "called out of my name" crap. I honestly haven't heard anyone outside these boards say anything like that since i was a child. I'll continue to determine how I address people without help, thanks.

 

The Sullivan Principles were very effective in putting tremendous economic pressure on South Africa. Don't sell the sanctions short.

Don't oversell them. I was there.

 

Oh, so melodramatic.

No. We saved the world. So did the Russians. So did the Brits. The French, not so much.

"The traditional social structure was shattered"? Tell that to the black American soldier who in fighting for the U.S. had to do so attached to French or British units because white American soldiers didn't want to serve alongside a black American soldier. Tell Dr. Charles Drew who through his work with blood transfusions was put in charge of that function during the war, but left in disgust when told he was to be sure "white blood" didn't mix with "black blood". Can we say the "traditional social structure" was maybe cracked just a little? Because "shattered" it certainly was not.

Oh, I'd say it was shattered the first time a nigger suited up to fly a fighter. Or the first time a woman became a factory foreman. Shattered is appropriate. It was those very same niggers, back from the war, who planted their feet and said "This sh*t is over as of now" when it came to their unequal treatment. That generation did the foundational work for the peace talkers like King to come in and solidify.

I say again, the U.S. government could not have been "that ignorant" of the fact that the nazis had death camps and were mass murdering Jews and others in those camps.

You'll need proof to the contrary, I'm afraid. "Shoulda" and "Coulda" don't mean much to me.

The camps were built beginning in 1940. The Allies had reliable information about these camps as early as 1941. They had aerial photos of the camps. The allies had a Polish plant within one of those camps and he was supplying the allies with accurate accounts of the horrors taking place in those camps. The allies and I'm sure the Americans as well, knew what was going on in those camps as early as 1941 and dismissed that information as exaggeration.

Right. Which means, what? That they didn't "know."  They didn't believe the scattered and, at the time, wild accounts. No one in human history had ever done it that way before and I'm sure it was difficult to convince people that they had. Hell, there are people NOW who refuse to accept it.

I will only reiterate what I've been saying all along. This nation chose to turn away people who were fleeing for their lives hoping to find safety and sanctuary in the nation who boasts, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...." I will always say because I will always believe that the U.S. fell far short of her lofty words when they sent those Jews back to Europe and to their deaths.

I agree. But they weren't citizens so I don't care as much as I do about those people who were and are.  It's terrible. it's awful. But they were not and are not our problem or shame.

The US is not heaven and only US citizens are US citizens. Only US citizens are entitled to the benefits of being a US citizen (and tourists of course, and only up to a point). Any time some other nation wants to sign up for our program they can ask nicely, let us decide and abide by that decision. Until then it's a case-by-case, era by era structure that governs who we help and how.

[michaelintp]

Other than as a mere pretense, this does not justify an endorsement of Hamas today, the topic we've been discussing (or at least were discussing before I went to work this morning, haha).

"Other than as a mere pretense"?

What I meant is that some folks who have an agenda to support Hamas, who in their hearts of hearts would like to see the Hamas agenda fully implemented, who would love to see Israel purged from the Middle East, may try to justify their position by citing Israel's relationship with S. Africa decades ago, in an attempt to demonize Israel today. 

You, of course, have not advocated support for Hamas, so I would not count you as one of those folks.

However, since you did raise the S. Africa thing, I looked into it.  That was a lotta years back.  Shared what I came up with.  Including the citations that provided a lot more info -- and by no means a whitewash.  Seemed like a pretty even-handed presentation (even for Wikipedia, haha). 

One thing I found interesting is that apparently Israel had a relationship with S. Africa that went back to the 1950s, that the first head of state to visit Israel was from that country, and that their opposition to British Colonialism as what brought them together.  I don't claim to be an expert on S. Africa's history, but as to Israel, it was very clear "what side" the British were on, and it wasn't on the side of the Jews.  Sounds like the South Africans were "friends" of Israel very early on.  This brought to mind the concept that some have expressed on this thread regarding Obama, that you don't throw your friends or family under the bus. I'm wondering if this sentiment might have had something to do with the thinking of some of the Israeli policymakers.  I don't think such a sentiment justifies the arms sales to the apartheid regime ... but I too was struggling to get a handle on what was going on.  This might have been a part of it.  But again, that is just speculation.  I really don't know. In any event, Israel did reverse its position and ceased its arms sales to South Africa in the 1980s.

I also found it interesting that, as in the United States, a "disproportionate" number of Jews in South Africa were active in that country's civil rights movement (i.e. the anti-apartheid movement).

[sinjection]

  Gadzooks!!!!  

Ah well, "Once more unto the breach..." and all that.  

 

Your problem is you think you get to determine what "legitimate" means. You don't.

Where did you get the idea that it was I who got to determine what "legitimate means"? It wasn't I who determined that the Shah of Iran should be admitted to the U.S. It wasn't I who decided to grant asylum Salvadorans escaping the aftermath of a civil war in their nation to U.S. As many of them were likely in life threatening situations, I would have done so. It isn't I who gets to decide that Cubans who leave their nation and make it to the U.S. are granted asylum but Haitians who leave their nation and make it to the U.S. for the same reasons are sent back. Don't try to blame the Mariel Boatlift on me. I had nothing to do with Castro sending his mental patients and convicts here. They were economic refugees. Had it been my decision to make, there wouldn't have been a "boatlift". Those people were not in a life-threatening situation until they took it upon themselves to travel to the U.S. in overcrowded, rickety boats. Those Jews seeking to escape persecution and the death camps had what I believe was and is a legitimate case and should have been granted asylum. Had it been my decision to make, they would have been granted asylum.

In your world perhaps. Not in mine. It's a mistake to grant asylum to economic refugees from Cuba, but not grant asylum to economic refugees from Haiti. It's a mistake to grant asylum to economic refugees over refugees fleeing their nations in fear for their lives. It's always a mistake to allow such things as oil and other strategic interests to factor into the determination of what humans are suffering the most. That's the shameful mistake this nation has been making. Has granting asylum to Southeast Asian boat people made worse the situation of Native Americans and Black Americans? Do you believe those people usurped our place "in line"? In MY world, if I see children starving whether it be in Haiti, in Somalia or here in our own nation, I'm going to do what I can to end that human suffering as quickly as possible only the logistics in providing necessary aid would determine who would receive it first. I wouldn't rate such human suffering on any scale of severity unless one group is on the very brink of the point of no return. But no, I wouldn't have such a line as you suggest, Native Americans first, Black Americans second, and so forth.  

One, that's not invariably true.

You're right. We did send Elian Gonzalez back, didn't we? But only because his father demanded his return. I believe most of the mental patients and convicts who came over on the Mariel Boatlift are still here however.

Two, the Cuban model is not representative and is, at the very least, considered somewhat controversial. Three, you are conflating modern behaviors with past ones again; that doesn't work.  Four, the US deals differently with different nations and in different situations. That is our right and we are under no obligation to let anyone stay just because someone else got to.

In other words, the "Cuban model" is still in effect. Maybe that will change now that Fidel has stepped down and his brother is now running things.

"Should be" is your determination. You don't speak for the US.

But I still have the right to express my opinion. I stand by what I've been saying. And, I do hope the young Iranian was able to manage some sort of extension and will be granted asylum. I will never understand a culture that executes a person because of sexual orientation and stones or beheads or imprisons a woman who has been raped while those who assaulted her receive a slap on the wrist. That's almost as messed up as your "get in line" policy.

Some. Not all. And, again, one size doesn't fit all.

Yes, many Irish escaping the potato famine were allowed to emigrate to the U.S. Cuban economic refugees were allowed to remain in the U.S. This resembles your own "get in line" stance. Because this nation believes it needed to make a point against Cuba and communism, mental patients and convicts were able to "move up in line" over many individuals who were perhaps more worthy of asylum.

Some. Not all. There were strict regulations as to who got in and why and even under those regs not everyone who "technially qualified" got in.  Lots and lots and lots got and get turned away. Also, there is a "we broke it, we bought it" undercurrent in the South Asian and Iraqi cases that was not present in WW2.

In other words, Yes; the U.S. did grant asylum to Southeast Asians. But there was a time when this nation turned back Jews fleeing from their lives from the nazi regime determined to wipe them from the face of the earth. Not good.

It's rough. No one's saying it's not. But using a tough immigration policy to link the US in responsibility to the WW2 holocaust is too big a stretch. It's just not true.

The decision to turn those Jews away was abominable and remains a stain on American history as far as I am concerned. The U.S. is directly responsible for the death of Anne Frank. If she was among those Jews who the U.S. sent back when she could have been granted asylum in this nation, then it follows that the U.S. is directly responsible for that young girl's death. Had the U.S. not turned her party away, she and her family would not have been captured in that attic hideaway and sent to nazi concentration camps.

Zounds... and it goes on and on and on. Unfortunately as much as I'd like to do so, I haven't time to respond to the remainder of your comments. And as our discourse has taken this thread far afield, it's probably best that I don't. That is not to say that I don't believe my position to be correct. I stand by everything I've said from the U.S. responsibility as far as the Holocaust is concerned, its stated vow that "never again" should such a thing happen anywhere as hypocritical as that might seem. I would not doubt that the U.S. knew about the nazi death camps before you seem to believe they did...as Rev Wright said; "Governments lie!"   The nation did pin its hopes on Joe Louis and Jesse Owens to take hitler down a peg and to this point:

Oh, I'd say it was shattered the first time a nigger suited up to fly a fighter. Or the first time a woman became a factory foreman. Shattered is appropriate. It was those very same niggers, back from the war, who planted their feet and said "This sh*t is over as of now" when it came to their unequal treatment. That generation did the foundational work for the peace talkers like King to come in and solidify.

You think that qualifies as the "traditional social structure" being "shattered"? Look. Peter Salem, Salem Poor, Crispus Attucks, all black men who took up arms and fought for the U.S. before it WAS the U.S. Crispus Attucks was reputed to be the first or second American to die in what would become this nation's Revolutionary War. Black slaves were allowed to take up arms and fight for this nation believing that at wars end, they too would be as "free" as their white countrymen would be. Now there was a moment that the "traditional social structure" was so-called "shattered" a black slave with a gun that could actually fire balls capable of ending a white man's life and what did it get the blacks in the newly-formed America? It got them back to the plantation picking cotton, that's where it got them. And when our soldiers returned from WWII battlefields they were still the same ol' n-----. This nation didn't even recognize black soldiers from that era with the medals they deserved until fairly recently. Any medals awarded black troops from America were given them by their foreign commanders. No. the "traditional social structure" was far from "shattered".

And now in the interests of getting this thread back to the topic it was intended to discuss, these will be my final words regarding our exchange. It was stimulating