Cyber-scum deface Nazi concentration camp memorial website Sicko cyber-crooks defaced the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp memorial website with images of child abuse late last week. The attack on the site coincided with the run up to the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camp by US troops in May 1945 as well as wider VE-Day commemorations. The site (en. …
I work with many varied nationalities - mostly European.
There seems to be a saying of sorts that crosses nations and nationalities and it goes something like this:
Every country has something to be ashamed of in its past.
Now, in the UK do we hear voices of dissension or derision about the Raj and what England did in India to the Indians?
Here in the UK do we hear, give voice, support legal actions about what England did in Africa to the Africans?
If not, why?
Discuss ...
> many similar genocidal activities committed over a much longer period of
> time by the Israelis against the Palestinians?
I'm horrified that there is evidence Israeli's use gas chambers to kill millions of Palestinians and then cremate their bodies in an attempt to avoid detection. I'm not sure why only you have this evidence and it has not been more widely publicized. How did you find this out ? Where did you get your proof ? Apart from posting in The Register comments section, what are you doing about this ?
In passing, why are your claims relevant to an article about people defacing a site with child abuse images ?
None of that is relevant to the issue of defacing the web site.
Setting aside questions over the objectivity of HRW, and the serious questions raised about that report in particular, quoting from their report :
"White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon and is not banned per se."
"the six cases documented...killed 12"
And one rather odd statement :
" Human Rights Watch researchers found 24 spent white phosphorus 155mm shells in civilian areas of Gaza, apparently in the places where they had fallen"
Why "apparently" ? Who moves a shell during a conflict (or at all) ? Unless you have suspicions that all you are seeing and reporting is not necessarily true... A google lookup of Pallywood could explain why there would be some reluctance to believe everything you see and hear in Gaza.
The death figures in the Nazi camps are around 6M Jews and, depending on which figures you find, up to another 6M homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, mentally and physically disabled, gypsies etc.
Even using dubious HRW figures, the numbers dead in Gaza are very small in comparison (maximum is in the thousands even if you do ignore the odd skewing of the victims ages to be young men of fighting age-http://time.com/3035937/gaza-israel-hamas-palestinian-casualties/), so this does not even come close to being "similar genocidal activities". The genocide claim is a lie and people should be ashamed to repeat it when real genocide happens in places like Rwanda and is largely ignored.
If you want serious civilian casualty figures from a conflict, why not look at those inflicted by UK troops in Iraq/Afghanistan ? Why pick on Israel which is in a deadly conflict with those ideologically opposed to the very existence of Jews and who stop at nothing, including gross exaggeration and distortion and, if that does not work, outright fabrication?
"Setting aside questions over the objectivity of HRW"
There are few questions over that. They are one of the most widely respected organisations in the field. Second only to maybe Amnesty International.
"White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon and is not banned per se."
Absolutely correct. Presumably you are ignorant as to it's status? It is permitted for use in making smoke to hide troops. Deliberately firing WP at civilians or indiscriminately at populated area (including in this case schools and children) as was done by the Israelis in Gaza is a war crime though.
"the six cases documented...killed 12"
Right - so the six cases documented involved 12 death. Seems perfectly clear to me. Many more would have suffered horrific injuries if 12 died.
"Human Rights Watch researchers found 24 spent white phosphorus 155mm shells in civilian areas of Gaza, apparently in the places where they had fallen" "Why "apparently" ?"
Presumably because they were being objective and making it clear that they didn't actually see them fall. The origin is not in doubt though as they had American marking, and the Israelis (after the usual lies and denials) finally admitted firing WP after the evidence became overwhelming.
"the numbers dead in Gaza are very small in comparison.....so this does not even come close to being "similar genocidal activities". "
Oh the numbers might be smaller, but the genocidal activities are pretty similar in scope and horror. Imagine the agony of children dying due to chemical flesh burns at about 900 degrees centigrade from White Phosphorus...
"Even using dubious HRW figures".
There is little doubt that those figures are conservative.
"Why pick on Israel which is in a deadly conflict with those ideologically opposed to the very existence of Jews "
Because Israel has killed thousands who have nothing to do with that view. Including a very high percentage of women and children. In the recent invasion, The UN says at least 2,104 Palestinian died, including 1,462 civilians, of whom 495 were children and 253 women. Versus the Israeli casualties which were overwhelmingly military - 58 Soldiers and only 7 civilians. The reason for this was a deliberate shoot to kill policy by the Israelis against civilians - again a war crime. See http://rt.com/news/255453-israeli-soldiers-gaza-war/
Really? Genocide? The destruction of an entire ethnic / racial or religious group? You mean like 1.5 million Armenians in a few years by the Turks. Or perhaps the 500,000 - 1,000,000 slaughtered in Rwanda in 100 days? Or maybe the Holocaust where 6 million Jews were systematically slaughtered? (or perhaps you deny that ever happened).
So logic follows that the Israeli Army and state which has fought 6 wars to ensure its very existence against overwhelming superior Arab forces hell bent of its destruction (genocide perhaps) is actually fairly useless when it comes to genocide - after all the population of the West bank and Gaza is actually increasing rather than being systematically destroyed as you seem to maintain.
Good night
Now, in the UK do we hear voices of dissension or derision about the Raj and what England did in India to the Indians?
Arguably, the Raj was at least neutral and probably beneficial in its overall effect on the Indian subcontinent:
- it left a unified country[1] where it had found a warring collection of kingdoms, principalities and empires.
- it left a common language. Many Hindi speakers won't speak Tamil and vice versa, but both groups can and will talk to each other in English.
- Indian Rail is an immensely valuable legacy of the Raj, along with the Post Office and a democratic system of government.
[1] IMO the Partition was the Raj's biggest mistake. Would the Taleban exist if Partition hadn't happened?
I have spent time in India, travelled in most parts of it, and have read a fair bit about its history. As I've never been to Africa and so have no relevant experience, I won't comment on that topic except to remark that no European countries seem to have behaved well there.
Spot on! I was going to post pretty much the same. I've been lucky enough travel to India as part of my job over several years and the impressions I get of the legacy of the British Empire is pretty much the same as yours.
Many aspects of the Indian system are directly modeled on those of the UK, and the fact that these were retained after independence says it all.
You could also mentioned the educations system!
What about the Belgians in Africa? As soon as things started to go a bit pear shaped they just buggered off and left the two warring factions to tear the shit out of each other.
Great Britain did capture and trade slaves from Africa. Sir Francis Drake was a very well known person who's slave trading and privateering is quietly forgotten in favour of his hero image, however that was 500 years ago.
Great Britain did capture and trade slaves from Africa. Sir Francis Drake was a very well known person who's slave trading and privateering is quietly forgotten in favour of his hero image, however that was 500 years ago.
To be fair, Brits didn't do much capturing, did a lot of buying. qv Ashanti, Yoruba, Tippu Tip.
Go back far enough, and everyone was in to slavery. GB has the unique position of being the first major power to pass abolitionist laws and attempt to enforce them throughout the world, through direct action (seizing slave ships), and diplomatic action (forcing other countries, eg Ottomans to outlaw slavery).
Er go check you facts. The vast majority of slaves transported from Africa (we are talking 99.999% and upwards type figures) where rounded up *BY* Africans for sale to the slave traders. Anyone who thinks Europeans sailed up to the African coast jumped out and rounded up people to ship over the Atlantic is a deluded idiot. Africans were UTTERLY complicit in the slave trade, and without their participation it would not have been possible. When in 1807, the UK Parliament passed the Bill that abolished the trading of slaves. The King of Bonny (now in Nigeria) was horrified at the conclusion of the practice saying
We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#African_participation_in_the_slave_trade
In short no side in the slave trade is without blame.
You're getting lots of downvotes for this. You bashed the UK.. One simply doesn't do that on El Reg... one should bash the US instead.
You are quite right though.. every country, culture, religion, race, ad nauseam ad infinitum, have things to be ashamed of. And some of the newer countries may just not realize that they also have things in the closet.
The real issue is have they learned from it? If so, that's good. If not, that's bad.
Actually to be embarrassed you only have to look closer to home – Ireland. Oliver Cromwell killed a very large number and the Irish potato famine (where food was being still exported out by the English) killed the rest it seems.
*Every* country has something to be ashamed of. Spain has Franco’s butchery and the new world, France has Algeria, Belgium has the Congo, etc. etc… Funny enough when you complain about it they find some justification (how the country was left in a better state after they bled it dry/killed them all), only Germany it seems had adequately live up to its past. Perhaps the other countries should as well.
I remember talking to an Austrian, very dapper in a cravat sipping wine in a pub, who said: ‘Austrians are very clever people, we’ve managed to convince the world that Mozart was an Austrian and Hitler was a German’.
"We expect 20th century ethics to be better than 18th century ones."
You do realise we're in the 21st Century?
And why would you expect 20th century ethics to be better? After all, in the 20th century we had much better technology, much better armaments and the industry of killing became a whole lot easier.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, to a large extent owe their successful bodycounts to the abilities of 20th century advances. In the 17th century massacres were harder because we couldn't shoot as fast - so we relied on the old tried and trusted methods of starvation (Ireland), deportation and slavery (Ireland again), germ warfare (USA, Australia)
If you're serious then you really are part of the problem here. As the previous poster said what has been done hear is at least as bad as posting child pornography on a mosque -- I would say worse since it's posting child pornography on a memorial to a mass murder of horrific proportions.
If you wish to discuss a perceived difference between the way the Jewish people and religion and those of other religious faiths are treated in society this is not the place to raise the issue and you do any cause you may have a severe disservice. I will make no comment regarding my thoughts on that subject, by the way as I think it irrelevant here.
Nah, no cause. I'm obviously rubbish at trolling, only the one downvote.
Was just trying (and failing) to posit it from a different angle, but you're correct; the child porn means I chose the wrong subject for my experiment.
Sincere apologies if I have caused any offense on my part.
I lived and worked in Israel for almost 3 years, I even worked in Yad Vashem for a few weeks on one of the exhibits...
Everyone I lived with and worked with were active soldiers, the others, no longer in active military service, continued to leave work for a month or so each year to do their reserve service. I lived on Field Schools , Moshaves, Kibbuttz's for a few months and Jursulaem for almost 2 years, which allowed me to see a fair share of what life has to offer there.
I often spoke about the current situation, at the time, it was during the first intifida, with my colleagues friends etc... but in all this time I never once heard anyone speaking about the Shoah ( the holocaust) or Jewish rights ( or lack of) etc etc. Even whilst working in Yad Vashem the subject never came up....
However, I hear about it all the time here in Europe. Why are the media, politicians always going on about anti-semitism etc I get the feeling that the media/business/politicians have more to gain than the Jewish people... Is someone profiting from the sitation because it allows them to wave the "humanity" flag ?
[Yes, I spoke/read/wrote hebrew so language was not a barrier]
"...I hear about it all the time here in Europe..."
Because primarily, the Holocaust was a European phenomenon.
The fact is, both the victims and the perpetrators were our close neighbours. Those of us fortunate enough to have no direct familial connection (from either side) still have to face the fact that it happened, not all that long ago, on our own doorstep, by and to people not too dissimilar to ourselves.
So enlighten me, what are these other two "hate crimes" you speak of?
I suspect the reference was to the millions of people killed under Stalin and Mao, 23 and 78 million respectively versus 17 million under Hitler's regime.
Objectively speaking there are probably more than just two on body counts. Off the top of my head:
Stalin's reign of terror
Mao's Cultural Leap Forward
Pol Pot
are all power mad dictators who have killed more people out of hate.
BUT, that is a broad usage of "hate" and doesn't quite the same focus as Hitler had on the Jews. So in the end an invalid criticism and one which earned him a down vote.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Nazis wanted to get rid of all Untermensch, the Jewish peopel were probably foremost but the Slavs,Gypsies, anyone not European,and the disabled, mentally and physically were all slated for extermination or slavery under the Nazis ill informed notion of eugenics.
If they had won people like Steven Hawking would not be here, and everyone who has a child with a genetic disease would lose the child and most likely be restricted from further breeding. My daughter has a genetic disease because a 1 in 400.000 chance of me meeting my wife who carries the same rare crappy gene was realised, and we all carry crappy genes which is why incest is a crime and everyone would be a potential target for the racial purity police.
A good reason forkeeping the extreme right loonies at bay..
You were doing so well until you got to the last sentence. The loonies were Socialists walking the path to Communism. That makes the extreme Lefties, not extreme right. This lie continues to do more damage to society than Hitler inflicted on it with his war.
Also, you left out his targeting of homosexuals who were hunted as viciously as the Jews.
No.
Leftism is about class struggle.
Nazism is about replacing class struggle with racial struggle.
The Nazis are only 'left wing' in a certain type of libertarians head , where all political philosophies that may increase the power of the state are 'socialist'.
"The real issue is have they learned from it? If so, that's good. If not, that's bad."
Have any countries genuinely learned from the past? What I mostly see are "Western" countries conveniently wielding human rights as a stick to beat on non-friendly countries. By most measures Saudi Arabia has less respect for human rights and less personal freedom than Iran. Whilst Iran is demonised by the "West", Saudi Arabia is given free reign to bomb civilians in Yemen with the blessings of the "West".
Even if they have learned, does it stay learned? Japan, with the complicity of the US, has effectively cast aside its pacifist constitution and will now allow its "self defence" forces to act unilaterally and preemptively to "defend" Japanese "interests" anywhere in the world.
"However, I hear about it all the time here in Europe. Why are the media, politicians always going on about anti-semitism etc I get the feeling that the media/business/politicians have more to gain than the Jewish people... Is someone profiting from the sitation because it allows them to wave the "humanity" flag ?"
Whenever/wherever Jews are attacked/killed the Israeli PM or spokesperson would pop up and spout the same stuff "anti-Semitism, blah blah, terrorist attack, blah blah".
"Arguably, the Raj was at least neutral and probably beneficial in its overall effect on the Indian subcontinent:"
Native Americans probably think the same too: after the genocide they are now living in the most powerful country on earth.
Stop carrying water for the Islamonazis. The truth is the only difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran is that Saudi Arabia doesn't use government money to fund Islamonazis. While that isn't much of a difference in absolute standards, in the Middle East it is enough to earn Saudi Arabia a pass on their internal treatment of citizens. And like it or not, a policy of "we won't interfere in your internal politics no matter how many people you are killing so long as you aren't killing any of ours" is a reasonable realpolitic position.
"Stop carrying water for the Islamonazis."
Are these the Shia hating (and by extension Iran hating) Sunni fanatics like AQ, IS, the various groupings fighting in Syria etc. The ones funded and equipped by Saudi Arabia and other GCC states?
"The truth is the only difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran is that Saudi Arabia doesn't use government money to fund Islamonazis."
The truth is that the "West" says Iran funds terrorism, and doesn't say Saudi Arabia also does the same.
And because the "West" says so it must be true.
The biggest organisations that Iran supports and funds are Hezbollah and Hamas. I assume that these are the "terrorist" groups that Iran is funding. May I remind you that Hamas had also been funded by Saudi Arabia?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/world/flow-of-saudis-cash-to-hamas-is-scrutinized.html
"While that isn't much of a difference in absolute standards, in the Middle East it is enough to earn Saudi Arabia a pass on their internal treatment of citizens."
The "West" don't give a damn how Saudi Arabia (mis)treats its citizens, sure they'll make noises and wring their hands now and again, but Saudi Arabia earns their "get out of jail free" card by maintaining an elastic supply of oil that they can turn the taps on and off as required to support US policy. They are also a useful consumer of weaponry, most coming from the US. How long the Saudis can keep their GOOJF card remains to be seen given the US's reduced dependency on Middle East energy resources.
'And like it or not, a policy of "we won't interfere in your internal politics no matter how many people you are killing so long as you aren't killing any of ours" is a reasonable realpolitic position."'
It is a reasonable position to take, but contrary to the hypocritical public rhetoric issued by the "West".
I tend to agree, though reluctantly. The Iranians tend to have a degree of logicality and reasoning behind what they do, while the Saudis have their religion.......
Put it this way, who is more likely to kill you? A Sunni fundamentalist or a Shia? So far the Shias seem to have more rationality in what they do......especially when compared to the loony Wahabis - who are to blame for a lot of the finance supporting the Sunni extremists.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
