Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Ken Livingstone is right!

smelisox
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 8:42:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Hitler supported Zionists and signed an agreement with them in the early 1930's (the Havamaar agreement).

He's neither racist not an anti-semite

Don't let Jeremy Snorebin and the Labfags rewrite history! DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER!
smelisox
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 8:42:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 8:42:10 PM, smelisox wrote:
Hitler supported Zionists and signed an agreement with them in the early 1930's (the Havamaar agreement).

He's neither racist not an anti-semite

Don't let Jeremy Snorebin and the Labfags rewrite history! DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER!

For that second sentence, I mean Livingstone. Hitler can go sit on a dick.
Overhead
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:14:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
His point seems half-right in the smaller context, as he makes the error of saying they were moved to Israel when it would actually be another decade and a half before Israel came into being. However I'm unsure what relevance it has in the big picture.

a) Hitler did this as part of an early policy of getting Jews out of Germany, not because he believed in Jewish nationhood (he in fact opposed such goals).

b) So what if he did? Hitler was also a vegetarian, that doesn't mean there's automatically something wrong with being a vegetarian.

I've only been able to find references to what Livingstone said without the context of what the topic about and what had preceded it, but I find it very hard to imagine a relevant point with this.
smelisox
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:28:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:14:45 PM, Overhead wrote:
His point seems half-right in the smaller context, as he makes the error of saying they were moved to Israel when it would actually be another decade and a half before Israel came into being. However I'm unsure what relevance it has in the big picture.

a) Hitler did this as part of an early policy of getting Jews out of Germany, not because he believed in Jewish nationhood (he in fact opposed such goals).

b) So what if he did? Hitler was also a vegetarian, that doesn't mean there's automatically something wrong with being a vegetarian.

I've only been able to find references to what Livingstone said without the context of what the topic about and what had preceded it, but I find it very hard to imagine a relevant point with this.

He was very specifically booted out for saying that, sic, "Hitler supported Zionism".

This proves he did, at some point, and to a certain extent. I believe Hitler's madness was gradual, as do the FBI's psychological profiles.
Overhead
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:43:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:28:13 PM, smelisox wrote:
At 4/30/2016 9:14:45 PM, Overhead wrote:
His point seems half-right in the smaller context, as he makes the error of saying they were moved to Israel when it would actually be another decade and a half before Israel came into being. However I'm unsure what relevance it has in the big picture.

a) Hitler did this as part of an early policy of getting Jews out of Germany, not because he believed in Jewish nationhood (he in fact opposed such goals).

b) So what if he did? Hitler was also a vegetarian, that doesn't mean there's automatically something wrong with being a vegetarian.

I've only been able to find references to what Livingstone said without the context of what the topic about and what had preceded it, but I find it very hard to imagine a relevant point with this.

He was very specifically booted out for saying that, sic, "Hitler supported Zionism".

This proves he did, at some point, and to a certain extent. I believe Hitler's madness was gradual, as do the FBI's psychological profiles.

Why does it show he supported zionism? Even in the 1920's, well before this law, he'd directly stated his opposition to a Jewish homeland (the goal of zionism).

Although this law strengthened the Zionist movement, it also strengthened Hitler and the Nazi party who (if they had been successful in their overall goals) would have destroyed the Zionist movement (not to mention the Jews themselves) forever.

When an action simultaneously happened to help the nazis and the zionists, it seems the height of folly to assume that it was the latter that Hitler cared about even when he'd already directly stated his opposition to them.

It also doesn't answer the question of "So what?" Even if Hitler did at one point support Zionism, how exactly is this point supposed to have mattered? What context was there where this was a reasonable thing to say?
smelisox
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:50:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:43:00 PM, Overhead wrote:
At 4/30/2016 9:28:13 PM, smelisox wrote:
At 4/30/2016 9:14:45 PM, Overhead wrote:
His point seems half-right in the smaller context, as he makes the error of saying they were moved to Israel when it would actually be another decade and a half before Israel came into being. However I'm unsure what relevance it has in the big picture.

a) Hitler did this as part of an early policy of getting Jews out of Germany, not because he believed in Jewish nationhood (he in fact opposed such goals).

b) So what if he did? Hitler was also a vegetarian, that doesn't mean there's automatically something wrong with being a vegetarian.

I've only been able to find references to what Livingstone said without the context of what the topic about and what had preceded it, but I find it very hard to imagine a relevant point with this.

He was very specifically booted out for saying that, sic, "Hitler supported Zionism".

This proves he did, at some point, and to a certain extent. I believe Hitler's madness was gradual, as do the FBI's psychological profiles.

Why does it show he supported zionism? Even in the 1920's, well before this law, he'd directly stated his opposition to a Jewish homeland (the goal of zionism).

Although this law strengthened the Zionist movement, it also strengthened Hitler and the Nazi party who (if they had been successful in their overall goals) would have destroyed the Zionist movement (not to mention the Jews themselves) forever.

When an action simultaneously happened to help the nazis and the zionists, it seems the height of folly to assume that it was the latter that Hitler cared about even when he'd already directly stated his opposition to them.

It also doesn't answer the question of "So what?" Even if Hitler did at one point support Zionism, how exactly is this point supposed to have mattered? What context was there where this was a reasonable thing to say?

I'm not sure what YOU'RE trying to argue. Seems like semantics. That's not the issue at hand.
Overhead
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:54:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Livingstone contends that Hitler genuinely supported Zionism. as explained he did not. Livingstone being wrong seems relevant to this thread.

I also think the question of why in the hell he brought this up is relevant because it genuinely puzzles me.