[ 25 June 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]

The point about the Nazis and history/culture/art is that they were mainly magpies. They stole as they liked. Their aesthetics were triumphalist-loonie.

The Celtic cross was such a symbol.

quote:

---

By the 1890s Celtic Crosses began to appear in cemeteries and churches around the world, wherever there was a Scottish or Irish Diaspora population with pride in their origins. Irish cemeteries now seem to be choked with Celtic Cross monuments. Inspection of the dates inscribed on them shows few are more than 100 years old.

---

http://www.celtarts.com/revival_crosses.htm

Unfortunately, there is a connection between "pride in your origins" as set out in the paragraph above, and the radicalized version of the fascists (fasces was their symbol: also reinvented in the 1890's) in which pride in heritage/ethnicity becomes an argument for excluding others.

Your own link recognizes the many magnificent mediaeval Celtic crosses. You chose to quote a passage that mocks the revived interest in the cross in the mid-C19, that an innocent reader might almost take to mean that the cross was a C19 invention, which is patent nonsense.

Further, anyone who has seen Celtic artifacts dating back to their earliest recorded appearance in what is now southern German/Austria will recognize the distinctive knotwork, which as far as I know persists as an unbroken tradition in Celtic art until, yes, about the end of the Renaissance. That is: from pre-history to about the sixteenth century.

There are reasons why many Celtic traditions were disrupted from the C16 to the C20, and they aren't exactly progressive ones -- not in my view, anyway.

Also, anyone who has ever seen the thing that neo-Nazis call a Celtic cross -- the same ugly sign that, eg, Social Crediters in Alberta in the 1930s and 1940s were flashing -- will know that it bears almost no relation to the historical cross. It is simply a circle, with a right-angled cross inside it. It ain't no monument to anything but hatred.

The Celtic cross, and many other symbols of various European "nations" were rediscovered and integrated into nationalist movements. There is nothing particularly nefarious about this, but these symbols can be used to exclude others. And that is how these Nazis were using the Celtic cross in this instance; to exclude others.

In the case of the Celtic cross, the use of it by Nazis is almost certainly based on a misunderstanding. Mid 1800's Irish sources claimed it was a "pagan" symbol, and of course the Nazis were big into pre-Christian mythology.
As far as I am aware, though, all Celtic crosses actually date from Christian times.

I wasn't aware I was winning an argument, but perhaps the point of disagreement is this: you think Nazis were magpies, rummaging pretty much at random through history for their symbols. I think that the symbols were chosen for very specific reasons, and often bore something of the meaning the nazis were trying to express.

Their forays into archeology to support this idea found support in the existence of Celtic-style art, architecture, and so on across most of Europe from Belgrade to Belfast. In this way, they did attempt to re-initialise the use of the 'Celtic Cross' and to crystallise a new pan-ethnic identity/solidarity around such symbols; which were imbued with a meaning congruent with their particular reading of the historical record. The Swastika, too, was used by these earlier 'Celtic/Germanic' peoples.

There was even false archeology for political expediency - such as when it would be conveniently found that certain ethnicities in states that were complicit with Nazism (e.g. Croatians, Albanians, and Italians) were "actually" of this ancient pan-European Celtic/Germanic people in spite of their status as untermensch in earlier ideological literature.

This is skipping over quite a bit, but this connection lives on in contemporary Neo-Nazi thought. Judging by the number of Neo-Nazi Bone...err...Skinheads in Poland (and among Polish ex-pat communities in Canada and the U.S.), it seems that Poles seem to have lost their Slavic qualities .

Also -- and this is also only a cursory analysis -- one of the trendy "hiding places" for this Nazi Pan-Europeanism is under the psuedo-religious guise of 'Odinism': the worship of Odin, the Celtic/Norse god figure of which you are doubtless somewhat familiar. That said, there are Odinists who don't subscribe to the exclusionist notions of these Nazis. But, there are a considerable number of these new 'Odinists' who decorate themselves (by tatoos and badges) in the Celtic Cross and Celtic-knot-style pieces.

Where I think you are going wrong, Skdadl, is in bringing in the problem of aesthetics. Sure, the Celtic Cross used by Nazis is not as pretty as the ones you describe (and with which we are all familiar) but you have to remember that the Nazis were using them on flags where simplicity and minimalism are commonplace. In fact, it could be said that such minimalism was in line with the overall aesthetic sense present in Mein Kampf in regard to political symbols: i.e. simple, easy to get behind, but imbued with awesome and mysterious atavistic meaning. This was simple 'artwork' for the supposedly simple-minded working class.

If you are interested in how this connection persists, I suggest you look no further than the various NeoNazi websites and discussion forums that can be found (and monitored...) on the internet. There is also a lot of information to be found on antifascist and anti-racist websites - posted by people whose interest it is to keep an eye on our 'Odinist' neighbours.

[ 25 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 25 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 25 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]

quote:

---

Celtic crosses were the common symbols of many different nationalist movements. Many were far less objectionable than the nazis were. But they were all concerned to define their ethnic group vis-a-vis "the other". And to invest their group with some special qualities.

---

Missing here:
1. historical class analysis;
2. analysis of the rise of British imperialism and the practice of ethnic cleansing;
2. analysis of the development of economic elites, often local, who collaborated in the ethnic cleansing.

Celtic crosses were among the many common symbols repossessed by oppressed Celtic peoples who were beginning to pull themselves together again politically after three centuries of being ripped off and often worse by imperial Britain. The English and other C19 capitalists were simply "the other," like any other "other"? Give me a break.

I shouldn't have to recap the early modern history of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales in particular here. National resistance movements among such peoples are not merely flights of fancy meant to exclude others, although they are indeed aimed at "the Other."

Courage, you seem to be referring to the appearance of Celtic symbols among other peoples but not Nazis. Unless this is only a post-WWII phenomenon, it is news to me, but I would be happy to learn about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Interesting that some posters who are known to take a great interest in the subject of acts of violence based in religious bigotry only condemn acts against one religious group. The silence is singificant and speaks of a hidden racist agenda.

---

Or it could be that they didnt see the thread.

However it is not surprising you would not just jump to this sad conclusion but use this thread to try and be divisive.

Nazis are evil. They target vulnerable minorities. Even here in Toronto last night they struck yet again this time it would appear in an area that houses many South east Asians.

They are sick racists. The act in France was despicable. That you would attempt to use it against others by claiming what you did is sad indeed

Nazi vandals strike Markham

[ 28 June 2004: Message edited by: Macabee ]

I think we can all agree there.

quote:

---

They are sick racists. The act in France was despicable. That you would attempt to use it against others by claiming what you did is sad indeed

Or it could be that they didnt see the thread.

---

Tsk. Tsk. Where is it that I that I said it was you? You are really taking this way to seriously. Where have I singled out a specfic poster, or yourself?

Is it that some posters have internal guilt associations with there racists attitudes and immediatly see themselves as the only possible target of the accussation because they actually are aware of their internal contradiction?

I think I am quoting Shakespeare when I say: "The lady, she doth protest too much."

[ 29 June 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 02 May 2006: Message edited by: 'topherscompy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'topherscompy:
whatsa matter macabee? you upset 'cause you're not the only one to label "some" or "many" babblers as intolerant bigots without evidence of said bigotry anymore?

you feel maybe you've got an intellectual property rights case here?

here's a hint: dubya dubya dubya dot shut the fuck up dot com

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macabee:
Nazis are evil. They target vulnerable minorities. Even here in Toronto last night they struck yet again this time it would appear in an area that houses many South east Asians.

---

Hmmm. I know a little bit about Nazis, and I suspect that most of the real Nazi boneheads in Toronto would know how to paint a swastika. Granted, this could be a little coven of dyslexic Nazis, but somehow I doubt that.

I think there ought to be a little doubt on this one. It doesn't actually appear to point to a great NeoNazi contingent lurking about in Markham. Interesting that the police seem to have taken this common sense position, while that fellow quoted in the article has opted for a more irrational approach.

But, then again, I guess there are those who need to make a lot of noise about stuff - regardless of how questionable their position - to keep their names in the media.

[ 29 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 29 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]

Point out specifically where I named you. Please point to the exact quote where I named you in this regard?

For instance I am shocked and appauled by people calling these 'Nazis' [/i]Nazis.[/i] The Nazi issue is a very sensitive topic with the French and just because some french people go around painting SS symbols on Muslims graves and engaging in Nazi-like behaviour doesn't mean that we can throw around this Nazi term. The French experienced terrible things under the Nazis and making a direct comparison between these acts and the Nazis amounts to little more than anti-Gaulic racism.

Tagging French "Nazis" as Nazis is a grave insult to the French and tests the the limits of racism itself. We have to be wary when this kind of anti-Franch racism rears its ugly head on the left. It is a slippery slope.

[ 30 June 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macabee:
[QB]I am unsure as to what you have "changed your mind" about however your analysis of the Markham attack is incredibly naive.

The hatemongers need not be storm trooping nazi skins. The fact that they have used swastikas and anti-Semitic graffitti to try to intimidate is hateful enough.

---

Sure, it may have been "hateful", I didn't conclude anything different. However, just to refresh your (always short and self-serving) memory it was your claim that it was carried out by Nazis. The title of your link, afterall, was "Nazi vandals strike Markham", was it not? Moreover, we don't know what the intentions of the painters was, and whether or not they look upon the symbol as 'antisemitic' or just dangerous and convention-breaking. I recall that some young people I grew up with would draw swastikas on desks, or lockers, or in bathrooms without the slightest understanding of the symbol's 'antisemitic' content. It was simply verboten so they did it to demonstrate their non-conformity.

The fact that the houses attacked were not those of Jews brings your interpretation further into question.

I was merely countering your false claim based on the evidence available. Do you have evidence that it was Nazis?

Moreover, the claim of one Bernie Farber that the correct use of the swastika is 'immaterial' is balderdash. It's actually quite important, as the police have concluded. It brings up a very serious question - whether or not the 'artists' in question were motivated by Nazi-style antisemitism (as you alleged) or whether they were motivated by some other cause - be it some other kind of racism, or mere adolescent stupidity. Moreover, simply targetting "hate" qua "hate" is silly and reckless. The intention of hate speech laws is to protect minority individuals and groups, not so that they may be used as a blanket charge against any person or act containing animus, anger, or disrespect. Causing 'indignity' is not necessarily a hate-crime. I'm glad that the police are taking this pragmatic and conservative approach in investigating possible 'hate crimes' and not the reckless and self-aggrandising approach of folks like Farber.

quote:

---

Why are you trying to minimize the indignity? Hopefully these "non-neo-nazis" never paint a swatika on your car or front door. I imagine if you were on the receiving end of a painted swastika on your front door you might feel very different.

---

In your rush to enjoy your favorite addiction - righteous indignation - you've made up several arguments that I didn't make, attributed them to me, and then refuted them with some rhetorical flourish about the 'indignation' of having a (wrongly-painted) swastika on my home or car. But this is a diversion. The question is not how I would feel, nor even how the victims feel. This is a strawman. I never made the claim that there was no indignity, nor that the act didn't possibly contain some seed of 'hate'. What I countered was YOUR assertion that the attacks were carried out by Nazis, despite the evidence. I note that in spite of your usual frothing and raving, that you have provided no evidence that your claim is true or to prove my assertion false.

Of course there is another issue in play here: that you like to jump down the throat of anyone using a Nazi or Nazi-related comparison without considerable substantiation, and have even gone so far to say that any such comparison is -- how would you put it -- "shameful" and "beyond the pale" of "civilised discussion". And yet you permit yourself to play fast and loose with direct labelling of others and/or their actions as Nazis. For example, you said, "Nazis are evil. They target vulnerable minorities. Even here in Toronto last night they (Nazis) struck yet again this time it would appear in an area that houses many South east Asians."

Apparently you know the whos and whys of the crime before the police? Apparently the evidence that it was not Nazis (a position you have now conceded after I called you on your bullshit) is "immaterial". Why? It is demonstrably (and the police position reflects this) extremely important. Why the original rush to label the suspects "Nazis" despite the evidence? Do you have a fetish? It would seem that both you and Farber find any fact which is inconvenient to your grandstanding to be "immaterial".

Flip-flop away Mishei....

[ 30 June 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
I don't agree Cueball. I've lived in France, and obviously live in a place where the language and culture are French, and have no tolerance for "France bashers" who see every French person as a collaborator and an ingrate. The Alsatian group I referred to - allusions were made to it in the string of anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish grave desecrations and other acts of vandalism and hate - is very much a Neo-Nazi group. Remember, part of the Nazis' nutty Aryan creed was to find "racialy useful" elements - the Germanic province of Alsace/Elsaß was a logical place for them to look. Many Alsatians were murdered by the Nazis or died fighting them - not just historian Marc Bloch - but there were also Alsatians enrolled in the SS itself - that is the reference to the Charlemagne brigade.

I think the incidents in Alsace, targeting BOTH the Arab/Muslim and Jewish communities there, are very serious and indications point to at least some of the acts being tied to organised hate groups. (There are often copycat groups by run-of-the-mill cretins under such conditions). Some time ago I posted about the neo-Nazi bomb plot in Munich, with a consirable arsenal of bombs, guns, banned Nazi parephenalia etc. Once again, it targeted the reconstructed main Synagogue as it was set to be inaugurated on Kristallnacht, AND several Mosques and other targets tied to immigrant groups.

---

I think that Cueball is busy extracting his tongue from his cheek, Lagatta.

quote:

---

Moreover, the claim of one Bernie Farber that the correct use of the swastika is 'immaterial' is balderdash. It's actually quite important, as the police have concluded. It brings up a very serious question - whether or not the 'artists' in question were motivated by Nazi-style antisemitism (as you alleged) or whether they were motivated by some other cause - be it some other kind of racism, or mere adolescent stupidity. Moreover, simply targetting "hate" qua "hate" is silly and reckless. The intention of hate speech laws is to protect minority individuals and groups, not so that they may be used as a blanket charge against any person or act containing animus, anger, or disrespect. Causing 'indignity' is not necessarily a hate-crime. I'm glad that the police are taking this pragmatic and conservative approach in investigating possible 'hate crimes' and not the reckless and self-aggrandising approach of folks like Farber.

---

It seems to me that the issue is quite simple, a large area , not just a corner in the back of a field, but a large urban area including numerous homes and cars were spray painted with nazi swastikas and anti-Semitic grafitti. The people in this area are mostly of South east Asian backround do you think they care if these were "professional" neo-nazis or just "beginners"?

quote:

---

Are you saying that just because these hatemongers mis-drew the swastikas it makes the indignation any less?

---

It doesn't make the indignation any less, but it does make the foe somewhat less worthy of fear. It means that whatever is lurking in the shadows in Markham is not particularly bright and probably not all that old and/or organized. That does give me some comfort in an otherwise awful situation. It's to bad that an interesting conversation on Natioanlism has been redrifted to nasty accusations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by aRoused:
So are they Nazis or aren't they, Mac? Before you were sure, now apparently it doesn't matter and you don't care..

What if they turn out to be radical Jainites?

---

What I have been trying to say is that those who hold the swastika as a symbol to be used for intimidation engage in neo-nazi behaviour at best. They may not be organized, they may not where jackboots, but they certainly engage in that type of behaviour. As such I have no qualms labelling at least their behaviour in this manner.

quote:

---

What I have been trying to say is that those who hold the swastika as a symbol to be used for intimidation engage in neo-nazi behaviour at best.

---

An interesting point.

quote:

---

Aboard the prison ship Runnymeade Park, Gruber photographed the refugees defiantly raising a Union Jack on which they had painted a swastika. Her photo became Life Magazine’s "Picture of the Week." Crushed together on the sweltering ship, making their way back to Germany, the refugees sang "Hatikvah," the Hebrew song of hope, soon to become Israel's National Anthem.

---

Source

quote:

---

Early Friday morning, the Rabin Memorial in Tel Aviv's Rabin Square was defaced by spray-painted swastikas.

The fountain at Dizengoff Square fountain was also sprayed with the "Kahane was right" slogan -a reference to Rabbi Meir Kahane, the late leader of the extreme right-wing Kach movement. It was the 9th such case of extremist graffiti in Tel Aviv since early Friday, Israel Radio reported.

---

Source - Jerusalem Post

Particularly distressing:

quote:

---

Even hardcore leftists had a problem when the God-fearing Yeshayahu Leibowitz dubbed the settlers "Judeo-Nazis." Less than 30 years later, the professor's words were translated into reality in a graffiti scrawled on a wall in the Jewish enclave in Hebron. A few weeks ago photographer Shabtai Gold's lens caught the phrase "Arabs to the crematoria" beside a Magen David on a wall in the enclave. Since then, someone blurred the shocking inscription. Not far from it, on another wall, someone wrote "Arabs - sub-humans."

That kind of graffiti pops up often in the streets of Jerusalem. Leftists have found that the slurs remain on the walls a long time so to hasten the city's action against them, they've found a chilling, but effective way to get them removed - they paint a swastika beside it.

---

(emphasis added)

But it is clear that those refugees painting a swastika on a flag were making a very tongue-in-cheek statement about the British willingness to allow Jewish DPs to enter the Palestine Mandate. You would not call those people Nazis nor would you condemn them for making the political statement they did, and I think anyone here on babble would agree with you in this respect and also in the previous respect regarding the desecration of graves, garages, cars, et cetera.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macabee:
[QB]This Im finding hard to believe. Are you saying that just because these hatemongers mis-drew the swastikas it makes the indignation any less?

---

No. You apparently have some reading comprehension trouble, so let's repeat. It is clear from the passage of mine that you quoted that what I am saying is that

1) There is no evidence that the crime was carried out by Nazis. Your claim is spurious. Your subsequent equivocation that the activity is 'neo-nazi-ish' is just the kind of invidious comparison to Nazism that you disallow for others.

2) That while you, and I, and Bernie Farber may find it difficult to watch others suffer 'idignity', causing 'idignity' doesn't necessarily qualify as a hate crime, nor is it 'Nazi' behaviour.

quote:

---

It seems to me that the issue is quite simple, a large area , not just a corner in the back of a field, but a large urban area including numerous homes and cars were spray painted with nazi swastikas...

---

Actually they weren't Nazi swastikas at all.

quote:

---

and anti-Semitic grafitti.

---

Where is the evidence of this? There appears to be no mention of it in the reports of the incident, and you have not mentioned it until now. In fact, unless you are privy to something that the police are not disclosing, then you are fibbing: there is no evidence that the painters were 'antisemites'.

quote:

---

The people in this area are mostly of South east Asian backround do you think they care if these were "professional" neo-nazis or just "beginners"?

---

This is a different problem altogether. I think they do and should care. And this is exactly what the police are attempting to determine. It is imperative that this is determined. The difference between an active gang of real Nazi thugs and a couple of teenagers with some bad ideas and bad taste in art is monumental.

If we aren't careful about distinguishing things, we run the risk of desensitising people to the word 'Nazi' and what it really means. I note that elsewhere this is your greatest concern. But here, your hipocrisy is on display in full regalia.

quote:

---

Get off it Courage. Drop your hatred of me personally and try to picture a 10 year old child living on Carleton St in Markham. Picture him waking up in the morning and being confronted with this horrible crime.

---

Would he even know what had happened? Would he really immediately ascribe to what he sees all the qualities that you do? You are making a huge assumption here.

quote:

---

Or picture his mother, father having to explain it to him. Do you think they care whether or not these punks were nazis or nazi posers. They chose to use a swastika to drive fear into peoples souls. I could care less personally if they graduated from nazi school or not .

---

I don't hate you. I pity your irrationality and your painful delivery. That said, I can full-well put myself in their position with no hesitation. I've spent a good chunk of my life openly confronting fascists and Nazis of all stripes: I would look at my child and explain the symbol to them, explain how it has been used wrongly, and discuss with them, rationally, the possiblilities - not only the possibilities of how to interpret what has occured, but also the possible reactions to it.

On the first count, I would discuss the posssibility that it is A) a group of dyslexic Nazis. B) A group of racist thugs looking to intimidate us. -- OR -- C) A stupid prank carried out by stupid people (Actually, there are lot more gradations possible). Interestingly, A and C are not that much different. And instead of enforcing the 'fear factor' into my child, I would explain that there are some stupid people out there who like to cowardly spray-paint funny symbols on things in order to feel more powerful, but that they shouldn't be afraid. They shouldn't cow to some scrawlings, and they should be strong and know that such cowards are easily defeated with a little reason, common sense, and a strong backbone.

Jumping up and down and waving one's hands, a la Farber, does SQUAT to intimidate a real hardcore group of Nazi thugs. They don't care about him. He is not a real threat to them. And for an adolescent prankster, it gives them all the satisfaction in the world to get a rise out of people. Again, jumping up and down and playing at 'righteous indignation' does nothing to solve the crime or stop it from happening again. It simply magnifies the act into something greater than it is and achieves the exact 'intimidation factor' which may be the intended result of the painters.

Moreover, running around shouting "Nazi" everytime someone (wrongly) paints a swastika anywhere belittles the terminology and will actually make people less sensitive when the real thing does rear its head.

[ 01 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 02 May 2006: Message edited by: 'topherscompy ]

quote:

---

That these people who saw their children, mothers, wives, fathers, firends. lovers murdered before their eyes, that these people are some how comparable to the nazi-thinking punks who intimidated a Chinese Canadian neighborhhod in Markham.

---

I didn't say that. You said that:

quote:

---

What I have been trying to say is that those who hold the swastika as a symbol to be used for intimidation engage in neo-nazi behaviour at best. They may not be organized, they may not where jackboots, but they certainly engage in that type of behaviour. As such I have no qualms labelling at least their behaviour in this manner.

---

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush
The mulberry bush
Here we go round the mulberry bush
That leads to charges of anti-Semitism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macabee:
Can you point out to me where Bentzi Lieberman or even "some of his settlers" have spraypainted anti-Semitic messages so that I can better understand the context for such a call.

---

WOOOOOOOOOOOSH! This exact URL was pasted earlier in the thread and you apparently didn't even bother to look at it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:

WOOOOOOOOOOOSH! This exact URL was pasted earlier in the thread and you apparently didn't even bother to look at it.

So there's the URL again. Maybe you could, you know, exert the huge effort to move your mouse over the link and click the little button and read the words on the screen.

---

Dont be an ass of course I know about the swastikas on the Rabin memorial and I deplore it. I rerenew my question please show that these were put there by "settlers". And yes no matter who did it it is still neo-nazi behaviour to use swastikas in this manner nonetheless there is no proof that "settlers" did this evil act is there?

[ 02 July 2004: Message edited by: Macabee ]

[ 02 May 2006: Message edited by: 'topherscompy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macabee:

What I have been trying to say is that those who hold the swastika as a symbol to be used for intimidation engage in neo-nazi behaviour at best. They may not be organized, they may not where jackboots, but they certainly engage in that type of behaviour.

---

So, what about those who call for identifiable groups to be sent to the gas chambers, as a message to be used for intimidation? Do they also engage in neo-nazi behaviour at best, or is that comparison beyond the pale?
. . . Oh, sorry--it's only beyond the pale if the people doing it are Israeli! Now I understand.

Sorry, in real life no particular ethnicity, nationality or religion whether Jamaican, generic whitebread, Palestinian, Hindu (bloody BJP), or whatever, makes people immune to criticism or comparison.

[ 02 July 2004: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

So, what about those who call for identifiable groups to be sent to the gas chambers, as a message to be used for intimidation? Do they also engage in neo-nazi behaviour at best, or is that comparison beyond the pale?
. . . Oh, sorry--it's only beyond the pale if the people doing it are Israeli! Now I understand.

Sorry, in real life no particular ethnicity, nationality or religion whether Jamaican, generic whitebread, Palestinian, Hindu (bloody BJP), or whatever, makes people immune to criticism or comparison.

[ 02 July 2004: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]

---

quote:

---

Dont be an ass of course I know about the swastikas on the Rabin memorial and I deplore it. I rerenew my question please show that these were put there by "settlers". And yes no matter who did it it is still neo-nazi behaviour to use swastikas in this manner nonetheless there is no proof that "settlers" did this evil act is there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

There is no 'proof' that 'they' (the Kach party) killed Rabin either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macabee:
Seems to me that whenever i engage in this sort of "assuming banter" michelle and others rap me on the knuckles. I see however that the subject these criticisms are carefully chosen.

---

You don't carry off "assuming banter" very well. It might help if you perhaps displayed a bit more sensitivity for nuance and detail, and a bit less obtuseness in regard to the blindingly obvious.

There will be no apologies - you've played fast and loose with truth for too long to deserve one.

And as for the issue of 'antisemitic comments', I am perfectly willing to revise my assessment based on this new evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Courage:
Mac:

There will be no apologies - you've played fast and loose with truth for too long to deserve one.

And as for the issue of 'antisemitic comments', I am perfectly willing to revise my assessment based on this new evidence.

It still doesn't answer the question of who carried out the crime and what their motivations were, nor does it explain your hypocrisy on the issue of labelling things 'Nazi' which are not.

---

quote:

---

They didnt. There is someone serving a life sentence for his murder. I have no idea if he was motivated by the racist kach party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Yes, and it was a Dutch communist that burned the Riechstag. Give me a break!

---

quote:

---

The Palo Verde Diversion Project includes the Palo Verde Diversion Dam on the Colorado River, and a spillway and canal headworks to serve the Palo Verde Irrigation District. A levee system and drain were built to protect portions of the Colorado River Indian Reservation. The dam was constructed to replace a temporary rock weir built by the Bureau of Reclamation during World War II. The rock weir was an emergency structure replacing other diversion structures previously built by the Palo Verde Irrigation District.

---