black@pundit.DEC (DON BLACK DTN 261-2739 MS: NIO/N13 LOC: POLE C6) (07/30/85)
>JoSH writes: >> Black signs himself: >> >> Member, >> American Pistol & Rifle Association >> >> and Forsythe, pretending to quote the signature, renders it: >> >> American Pistol, Nazi & Rifle Association > >> No comment. > >This may very well be a cheap shot at the American Pistol & Rifle >Association. It is, however, a perfectly appropriate shot at Don Black. >[Isaac Dimitrovsky] It's too bad that the net has to be subjected to "Ad Hominem" slurs. But I suppose if They let me on the net, They can let this kind of crap continue. C'est la guerre, n'est-ce pas? But anyway.... I'm not out to win any popularity contests, and I make d___ed few apologies. Whenever I read something that is blatantly and obviously incorrect, unjust, or unfair, I--in fact, we all--have an obligation to attempt to set the record straight. Sometimes that takes "a pair of brass ones." Sometimes our own information is flawed. Sometimes we end up changing our opinions. Sometimes we're absolutely wrong. Remember how Hitler worked in Germany? First he went for one group, and nobody spoke up. Then he went for another, and nobody spoke up. And so on, until Germany was both levelled and partially enslaved. It can happen here too. So I speak up. One of my favorite topics is firearms. Of any invention under the sun, they are the most unloved and the most controversial of all. But yet, they are a block of steel, wood, plastic, or aluminum--nothing more. Left to their own accords, they lay there and corrode--nothing more. Every nation on this planet owes its existance to firearms. But they're Something Awful That Goes Bump In The Night, and nobody should have one. I mean, really now--no American needs one. There's plenty of police around to protect us, right? After all, two students were shot on the Harvard Bridge and one was shot in Kenmore Square and three more were held up at gunpoint. What a great job those cops did! Why, I'll bet the Black-and-White was right there and arrested all those nasty pistol- packin' hoodlums and took them right off to MCI Walpole! (My apologies to any police officer who reads this.) Now don't forget, you have to make sure those pistols get tried and convicted. Gotta put 'em away for good, you know. That sweet, innocent little felon was really a good boy who had a bad homelife, and we have to understand him. You gotta understand, too, that our Military Establishment has to job of protecting our shores. The Private Citizen has no business owning a mean old assault rifle. ("They're no good for hunting. They're only meant to kill people." Ad nauseam.) Now, when Ivan gets here, we're all supposed to stand back and let the National Guard take care of the situation, aren't we? We pay them for that, don't we? Ummm, just for chuckles sometime, check out the federal laws concerning the Militia, I believe it's found in 10 USCS 311 and 312---some Legal Beagle can correct me if I'm wrong. These sections spell out the differences between the Military, the Organized Militia (ie., the National Guard), and the Unorganized Militia (ie., all male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45). Surprise, surprise! You might get drafted without even registering! Enough of this balderdash for now. The Distinguished Spokesman from Cow Hampshire relinquishes the soapbox to ******************Fill in the blank******************************************* PS-- Various people on the net love that term "Nazi." I'm a dummy. I don't understand what a Nazi is. Let's all see if somebody on the net can come up with a definition of the term. Let's also see if somebody knows who the first Nazi was. Tune in again for fore of the continuing saga. --Don Black
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (07/31/85)
[] >>> American Pistol, Nazi & Rifle Association >> This may very well be a cheap shot at the American Pistol & Rifle >> Association. It is, however, a perfectly appropriate shot at Don Black. > It's too bad that the net has to be subjected to "Ad Hominem" slurs. > But I suppose if They let me on the net, They can let this kind of crap > continue. C'est la guerre, n'est-ce pas? I don't understand, Don. I thought you'd be proud to be called a Nazi. Another thing I can't understand is why you're so bland about some things. You pussyfoot around saying things like [I'm paraphrasing; I don't have the quotes handy, so deny if you feel misquoted] "Well, as far whether the Germans gassed Jews, there are pros and cons, aren't there?" or "There is an Institute in California which has offered a $50,000 reward to anyone who could prove the Germans gassed Jews; so far noone has been able to make them pay." Why not just say what you think? i.e. "I don't think the Germans gassed Jews; the Holocaust is a hoax." Come to think of it, why haven't you ever said exactly what *you* want to do about the Jews? The closest thing I can remember is when someone asked if Jews were the Antichrist and you answered "Well, if the shoe fits ..." Come on, Don, you can do better than that. What should be done about the Antichrist? What would you do if someone made you President tomorrow? As long as I'm asking you to explain your opinions, I might as well add your recent comment to the effect that "Christians should really read the Talmud; they'd really get an education." What exactly would they find out? Post all the details in net.religion. > Remember how Hitler worked in Germany? First he went for one group, > and nobody spoke up. Then he went for another, and nobody spoke up. And > so on, until Germany was both levelled and partially enslaved. It can > happen here too. So I speak up. I'm truly baffled now, Don. Just what groups do you think Hitler went for? Do you think the Nazis were composed of Jews, Gypsys, gays, etc. who ganged up on Aryans and put them in concentration camps? Please clarify. >[lots of stuff about guns] I don't really want to talk about guns, Don. I'm undecided about gun control. I think there are good arguments for both sides. Isaac Dimitrovsky allegra!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov (l in cmcl2 is letter l not number 1) 251 Mercer Street, New York NY 10012 ... Hernandez steps in to face ... Orl ... HERchiiiser ... and it's a liiine driive, deeeeep to the gap in left center ... - Bob Murphy, Voice of the Mets
black@pundit.DEC (DON BLACK DTN 261-2739 MS: NIO/N13 LOC: POLE C6) (08/16/85)
Hey, Oaf--
Toss these around awhile.
> If you think I called you a Nazi out of thin air, rest assured I
>had logical reasons, provided by yourself, and I pointed them out.
>Also you think WRONG, since I called you no such thing. I said I was
>unable, on the strength of the evidence you so kindly provided, to
>claim you aren't one. Not the same thing.
The term "Nazi" gets used so much that the exact definition has long
since been blurred. I guess the current definition depends on what the
ADL decides it is on any particular day.
Nobody really knows any more what the roots of Nazism were. People
blame it on Nietzche and Satre and Camus and Hauer and Goebbels (sp?) and
Hitler. Tell me, Oaf, who wrote "On the Jewish Question" (1844) and
"The German Ideology" (1845)?
> > The UN to this day has no legitimacy, and neither does the
> >Israeli State.
I don't see where any One-World-Government organization, whose goals
are to destroy the sovereignty of any and all nations, has any legitimacy
at all.
As far as Israeli being illegitimate, I believe that's fairly obvious.
The British had no right to turn Palestine over to the Jewish refugees, since
it was not legitimate British territory to begin with. They were an army of
occupation on Palestinian land. If it were to be turned over to anybody, it
should have been released to those who had a more legitimate claim, to wit,
the Palestinians.
The United Nations had no right to order that a new nation be formed on
territory that already had an indigenous, flourishing population. The
Palestinians had been in the area for 2000 years. They owned it rightfully.
Previously the Israelites and the Jews had both abandoned the territory and
had made no claim to it. (Who'd want a sand dune anyway?)
The very fact that the UN did make such an order shows that it is no
respector of nations or civil rights.
Now, since the Jewish refugees had been slowly moving into the area
over a couple of centuries, they could well have worked their way into the
local governments, and legiimately voted to accept the war survivors. But
they didn't. They stole the Palestinian lands, houses, businesses, and
drove the Palestinian people into the desert.
Therefore, on the basis of what is right and just, I oppose the Israeli
State.
> > As for Hitler not killing any Jews, well, I guess there are
> >pro's and con's of the subject, aren't there? I suppose the subject
> >has been "proven" in a courtroom. But that's relatively easy to do
> >when the jury's been brainwashed, and the judge has been paid off.
It is a well-known fact that some people and organizations do not believe
the whole story of the "Holocaust." Which means there are "pros" and "cons"
of the subject.
Just because the Institute for Historical Review says it didn't happen
doesn't mean that it didn't. Likewise, just because the Simon Wiesenthal
Center says it did, doesn't mean that it did. What makes this country
strong is that we have the right to discuss the issue in public, like it
or not. It's called "Individual Freedom."
> || >> If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, smells like
> || >>a duck, lives in the swamp with the ducks, and presumably
> || >>hopes to produce future generations by <@%$>, who am I to
> || >>question whether it's a duck? (Now, as to whether you're a
> [Oaf]
> I happen to think you're a KGB agent, hired to spread second-level
>disinformation under guise of a Klansman and neo-Nazi.
Same to you, fella!
>Said
>disinformation, when exposed, will lead to more favorable perceptions
>of Soviet intentions and a very strong reaction in favor of gun
>control, perhaps outright confiscation:....
Not likely. In fact, You've actually added fuel to my fire.
Lets face it, Oaf. If I did a 180-deg. switch, claimed to be a KGB
agent, and advocated Communism and repression, you'd jump all over me like
flies on a cow paddy. You don't want "Sovietism" any more than I do. But
yet, a sovereign free constitutional republic doesn't suit your fancy, either.
Simply because it allows too much free examination and discussion of history,
religion, finance, politics, etc. A Constitutional Republic is a nation
governed by laws, rather than by men. A nation governed by laws can call its
officials to task if they screw up. But a government of men has no account-
ability. And accountability is exactly what our "Shadow Government" is
afraid of.
Enough for now. There's plenty more to come.
(By the way, if I really were a KGB agent, wouldn't I be smart to shut
up, go away, and let some other agent take over?)
--Don Black
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/18/85)
Don Black writes: > As far as Israeli being illegitimate, I believe that's fairly obvious. > The United Nations had no right to order that a new nation be formed on >territory that already had an indigenous, flourishing population. The >Palestinians had been in the area for 2000 years. They owned it rightfully. >Previously the Israelites and the Jews had both abandoned the territory and >had made no claim to it. (Who'd want a sand dune anyway?) > The very fact that the UN did make such an order shows that it is no >respector of nations or civil rights. > Now, since the Jewish refugees had been slowly moving into the area >over a couple of centuries, they could well have worked their way into the >local governments, and legiimately voted to accept the war survivors. But >they didn't. They stole the Palestinian lands, houses, businesses, and >drove the Palestinian people into the desert. > > Therefore, on the basis of what is right and just, I oppose the Israeli >State. The same argument could be used to say that we should give North America back to the Indians. Hmmm. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal Have they not suffered enough?" from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_
dxa@bentley.UUCP (DR Anolick) (08/22/85)
Mr. Black's article which I am responding to covers many topics including his arguments against some previous postings about his character. I have no desire to enter that argument, I wish only to respond to certain facts Mr. Black presented. > As far as Israeli being illegitimate, I believe that's fairly obvious. > The British had no right to turn Palestine over to the Jewish refugees, since > it was not legitimate British territory to begin with. They were an army of > occupation on Palestinian land. If it were to be turned over to anybody, it > should have been released to those who had a more legitimate claim, to wit, > the Palestinians. > > The United Nations had no right to order that a new nation be formed on > territory that already had an indigenous, flourishing population. The > Palestinians had been in the area for 2000 years. They owned it rightfully. > Previously the Israelites and the Jews had both abandoned the territory and > had made no claim to it. (Who'd want a sand dune anyway?) > > Now, since the Jewish refugees had been slowly moving into the area > over a couple of centuries, they could well have worked their way into the > local governments, and legiimately voted to accept the war survivors. But > they didn't. They stole the Palestinian lands, houses, businesses, and > drove the Palestinian people into the desert. > > Therefore, on the basis of what is right and just, I oppose the Israeli > State. > [Don Black] I believe that it is fairly obvious that Israel is not illegitimate. The claim used by Mr. Black is that the Palestinian Arabs had a more legitimate claim on the land than the Jews did. He claims that Arabs had been in the area for 2000 years. This is true. But it is also true that Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country. There was never an Arab state in Palestine, and never a separate Palestinian Arab nation. I don't think that there is any argument of claim to Palestine during Biblical times. Mr. Black states that the Jews abandoned the land. Of course they did not abandon the land by choice but by force, after being conquered. However, even after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, Jewish life in Palestine continued uninterrupted, and often flourished. Records exist of sixth century Talmudic study in Palestine, of large Jewish communities being reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century, as well as many others. So, the Jews had NEVER totally abandoned the territory. The most outrageous claim Mr. Black makes is that the Jews "stole the Palestinian lands, houses, businesses, and drove the Palestinian people into the desert." Although this could have happened in some individual cases, for the vast majority of cases this statement is simply not true. In the beginning, the Arabs welcomed the Jews who sought to settle in Palestine. Why? Well, the Jews were willing to buy worthless land like sand dunes or swamps for _ten_ times the going price of _fertile_ land. The Arabs were glad to take the Jewish money. They never believed that the Jews could make profit from such worthless land. Later this land did flourish, which became part of the growing hatred of Jews by Arabs. We are all guilty of envy at one time or another. These land sales were well documented. Yet I have never seen a documented case of the Jews stealing land and displacing Arabs. [The problem of the displaced Arabs due to the War of 1948 is worthy of an article of its own, I will not go into it here.] Without knowing the facts, it is easy to believe that the Palestinian Arabs were "driven into the desert." Before the land was transformed, _most_ of Palestine was desert, and after its cultivation, the Jews lived on the fertile land while the Arabs lived on desert. If the land was only seen after its transformation, it appears that the Jews drove the Arabs into the poor areas, while taking the fertile areas for themselves. This would be a short sighted view, and far from the truth. If you don't believe that Israel was transformed from desert to "milk and honey," I suggest you read Mark Twain's opinions of Palestine which he wrote in the 1800's in _The_Innocents_Abroad. Therefore, on the basis of what is right and just, I _support_ the Israeli State. -- Droyan David Roy Anolick ihnp4!bentley!{droyan|dxa} ^ ^^^ ^^ "Why are you here?" "To fight for truth, and justice and the American Way."
dxa@bentley.UUCP (DR Anolick) (09/07/85)
I apologize for the length of this article, and for the delay in following up a two week old posting. In a previous article entitled "More of the saga", Mr. Black states: > As far as Israeli being illegitimate, I believe that's fairly obvious. > The British had no right to turn Palestine over to the Jewish refugees, since > it was not legitimate British territory to begin with. They were an army of > occupation on Palestinian land. If it were to be turned over to anybody, it > should have been released to those who had a more legitimate claim, to wit, > the Palestinians. > > The United Nations had no right to order that a new nation be formed on > territory that already had an indigenous, flourishing population. The > Palestinians had been in the area for 2000 years. They owned it rightfully. > Previously the Israelites and the Jews had both abandoned the territory and > had made no claim to it. (Who'd want a sand dune anyway?) > > Now, since the Jewish refugees had been slowly moving into the area > over a couple of centuries, they could well have worked their way into the > local governments, and legiimately voted to accept the war survivors. But > they didn't. They stole the Palestinian lands, houses, businesses, and > drove the Palestinian people into the desert. > > Therefore, on the basis of what is right and just, I oppose the Israeli > State. > [Don Black] I have already written an article to address many of the above points; below is a summary of that article. [Please do not flame based on this summary, but read the entire original text. I will gladly send you a copy if you don't have one.] - It is true that Arabs had been in the area for 2000 years. However, Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country. - There was never an Arab state in Palestine, and never a separate Palestinian Arab nation. - Jews never totally abandoned Palestine, Jewish life there continued uninterrupted, and often flourished. - Jews did not steal Palestinian lands or property, they _purchased_ worthless Arab lands at inflated prices, and transformed them into being productive. I am writing this additional follow-up because in my original article, I did not address one of the points which I feel is important. That has to do with Mr Black's statements that: > The British had no right to turn Palestine over to the Jewish refugees, since > it was not legitimate British territory to begin with. They were an army of > occupation on Palestinian land. > > The United Nations had no right to order that a new nation be formed on > territory that already had an indigenous, flourishing population. First of all, the British did not "turn Palestine over to the Jewish refugees." When the British troops left Palestine on the eve of Israel's independence, they turned over strategic positions and military material to the Arabs. Outside of that, the British were content to leave the Jews and the Arabs to fight it out by themselves. In addition, the UN did not "order that a new nation be formed." What they did do was to recommend partitioning of the land into a Jewish State, Arab State, and an International Zone (Jerusalem and its suburbs) The Jews of Palestine were ready to accept this compromise, however the Arabs were not. The UN did have the right to recommend partition. Under the Lausanne agreement of 1923, Turkey surrendered all claims to Palestine to the Mandatory power, Britain. The UN, as successor to the League of Nations and as the recognized power responsible for mandates, had a legal right to recommend partition when Britain asked for a recommendation in 1947. When Israel declared independence, her government had clearly stated that they would remain at peace if the Arabs accepted the partition compromise. The Arabs attacked, and were defeated. If the Arabs accepted partition, what we today call the West Bank would have been part of the Arab Palestinian State. As an aside: many people today believe that Israel should give up the West Bank so that the Palestinians may have a home land. I do not wish to comment on this issue per se, but on a related topic. Those that argue that the West Bank should become a Palestinian State claim that the reason this has not happened is completely due to Israel. This is not true. In my opinion, the Palestinian Arabs are being used as political pawns. The West Bank was controlled by Jordan from 1948 until 1967. Why wasn't a separate Palestinian state formed during those nineteen years? Because it was not an issue, the Palestinian's were content to be Jordanians. After all, many people forget that Jordan _is_ Palestine. Nearly 80 percent of what was the historic land of Palestine, as defined by the League of Nations, was allocated to what became Jordan. The Palestinians are treated with contempt by boths sides, and that is the tragedy of the situation. These issues are not at all black and white, and certainly no single country or group deserves the blame. However, from what I have learned of the history of the area, I tend to support Israel. I am more than willing to be convinced that I am wrong, but only by facts, and not by unsubstantiated statements which have been presented by Mr. Black. Once again, on the basis of what is right and just, I support the Israeli State. -- Droyan David Roy Anolick ihnp4!bentley!{droyan|dxa} ^ ^^^ ^^ "Why are you here?" "To fight for truth, and justice, and the American Way."
scott@scirtp.UUCP (Scott Crenshaw) (09/10/85)
> The West Bank was controlled by Jordan from 1948 until 1967. Why wasn't a > separate Palestinian state formed during those nineteen years? Because it > was not an issue, the Palestinian's were content to be Jordanians. After all, > many people forget that Jordan _is_ Palestine. Nearly 80 percent of what was > the historic land of Palestine, as defined by the League of Nations, was > allocated to what became Jordan. Also, a majority of Jordan's population is *Palestinian* . -- Scott Crenshaw {akgua,decvax}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp SCI Systems , Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC The views represented may or may not be those of my employer.