Jews playing persecution card

[Phi]

Former London mayor Ken Livingstone has been suspended from the Labour Party
for another year over comments he made about Adolf Hitler and Zionism.

A disciplinary panel upheld three charges of breaching party rules.

Mr Livingstone has been suspended since April 2016 when he claimed Hitler
had supported Zionism in the 1930s.

Some Labour MPs and Jewish groups have criticised the decision not to expel
Mr Livingstone, but he said he had been "suspended for stating the truth".

The row first erupted when Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah
over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When Hitler
won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to
Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing
six million Jews."

He has repeatedly defended his version of events, saying there had been
"real collaboration" between Nazis and Zionists before World War Two.

[Ted H]

Post by Phi
Former London mayor Ken Livingstone has been suspended from the Labour
Party for another year over comments he made about Adolf Hitler and
Zionism.
A disciplinary panel upheld three charges of breaching party rules.
Mr Livingstone has been suspended since April 2016 when he claimed
Hitler had supported Zionism in the 1930s.
Some Labour MPs and Jewish groups have criticised the decision not to
expel Mr Livingstone, but he said he had been "suspended for stating the
truth".
The row first erupted when Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah
over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When
Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be
moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended
up killing six million Jews."
He has repeatedly defended his version of events, saying there had been
"real collaboration" between Nazis and Zionists before World War Two.

Mr Livinstone - who I usually have no time for - has done nothing more
than state historic facts. Jews are doing nothing more than trying to
rewrite history to keep the sob story going. Some of us haven't forgot
King Davids hotel and the results of trying to help these fuckers.

[Fredxxx]

Post by Ted H

Post by Phi
Former London mayor Ken Livingstone has been suspended from the Labour
Party for another year over comments he made about Adolf Hitler and
Zionism.
A disciplinary panel upheld three charges of breaching party rules.
Mr Livingstone has been suspended since April 2016 when he claimed
Hitler had supported Zionism in the 1930s.
Some Labour MPs and Jewish groups have criticised the decision not to
expel Mr Livingstone, but he said he had been "suspended for stating the
truth".
The row first erupted when Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah
over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When
Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be
moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended
up killing six million Jews."
He has repeatedly defended his version of events, saying there had been
"real collaboration" between Nazis and Zionists before World War Two.

Mr Livinstone - who I usually have no time for - has done nothing more
than state historic facts. Jews are doing nothing more than trying to
rewrite history to keep the sob story going. Some of us haven't forgot
King Davids hotel and the results of trying to help these fuckers.

Well, if can work for dissing Richard III, hell, why not?

Just shows terrorism pays, but only if you live long enough to be on the
winning side.

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by Ted H

Post by Phi
Former London mayor Ken Livingstone has been suspended from the Labour
Party for another year over comments he made about Adolf Hitler and
Zionism.
A disciplinary panel upheld three charges of breaching party rules.
Mr Livingstone has been suspended since April 2016 when he claimed
Hitler had supported Zionism in the 1930s.
Some Labour MPs and Jewish groups have criticised the decision not to
expel Mr Livingstone, but he said he had been "suspended for stating the
truth".
The row first erupted when Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah
over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When
Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be
moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended
up killing six million Jews."
He has repeatedly defended his version of events, saying there had been
"real collaboration" between Nazis and Zionists before World War Two.

Mr Livinstone - who I usually have no time for - has done nothing more
than state historic facts. Jews are doing nothing more than trying to
rewrite history to keep the sob story going. Some of us haven't forgot
King Davids hotel and the results of trying to help these fuckers.

It is obvious there is a pressure group trying to damage the labour
party but I think more people will vote labour in protest at this
censoreship.

[Brian Reay]

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by Ted H

Post by Phi
Former London mayor Ken Livingstone has been suspended from the Labour
Party for another year over comments he made about Adolf Hitler and
Zionism.
A disciplinary panel upheld three charges of breaching party rules.
Mr Livingstone has been suspended since April 2016 when he claimed
Hitler had supported Zionism in the 1930s.
Some Labour MPs and Jewish groups have criticised the decision not to
expel Mr Livingstone, but he said he had been "suspended for stating the
truth".
The row first erupted when Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah
over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When
Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be
moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended
up killing six million Jews."
He has repeatedly defended his version of events, saying there had been
"real collaboration" between Nazis and Zionists before World War Two.

Mr Livinstone - who I usually have no time for - has done nothing more
than state historic facts. Jews are doing nothing more than trying to
rewrite history to keep the sob story going. Some of us haven't forgot
King Davids hotel and the results of trying to help these fuckers.

It is obvious there is a pressure group trying to damage the labour
party but I think more people will vote labour in protest at this
censoreship.

The British Left is inherently anti-Jewish.

Livingstone showing the their true colours.

Like Corbyn, Livingstone is a millstone around Labour's neck.

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by p***@gmail.com
It is obvious there is a pressure group trying to damage the labour
party but I think more people will vote labour in protest at this
censoreship.

The British Left is inherently anti-Jewish.

What is the evidence for this?

[Nick]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Brian Reay
The British Left is inherently anti-Jewish.

What is the evidence for this?

Ed Miliband. Clearly electing him leader was a left wing plot to
embarrass British Jewry.

[The Todal]

Post by Phi
Former London mayor Ken Livingstone has been suspended from the Labour
Party for another year over comments he made about Adolf Hitler and
Zionism.
A disciplinary panel upheld three charges of breaching party rules.
Mr Livingstone has been suspended since April 2016 when he claimed
Hitler had supported Zionism in the 1930s.
Some Labour MPs and Jewish groups have criticised the decision not to
expel Mr Livingstone, but he said he had been "suspended for stating the
truth".
The row first erupted when Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah
over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When
Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be
moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended
up killing six million Jews."
He has repeatedly defended his version of events, saying there had been
"real collaboration" between Nazis and Zionists before World War Two.

Well, it isn't jews playing the persecution card.

It's right wing jews plus some socialist jews with a grudge against
Livingstone, arguing that:

a) they alone are entitled to define "antisemitism"
b) if they belive that he's been antisemitic, that's proof enough
c) if they want him expelled, the Labour Party must do what they demand
and expel him.

The usual people claim to be outraged at the failure to expel
Livingstone. They should accept the decision and shut the fuck up.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Post by The Todal

Post by Phi
Former London mayor Ken Livingstone has been suspended from the Labour
Party for another year over comments he made about Adolf Hitler and
Zionism.
A disciplinary panel upheld three charges of breaching party rules.
Mr Livingstone has been suspended since April 2016 when he claimed
Hitler had supported Zionism in the 1930s.
Some Labour MPs and Jewish groups have criticised the decision not to
expel Mr Livingstone, but he said he had been "suspended for stating the
truth".
The row first erupted when Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah
over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When
Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be
moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended
up killing six million Jews."
He has repeatedly defended his version of events, saying there had been
"real collaboration" between Nazis and Zionists before World War Two.

Well, it isn't jews playing the persecution card.
It's right wing jews plus some socialist jews with a grudge against
a) they alone are entitled to define "antisemitism"
b) if they belive that he's been antisemitic, that's proof enough
c) if they want him expelled, the Labour Party must do what they demand
and expel him.
The usual people claim to be outraged at the failure to expel
Livingstone. They should accept the decision and shut the fuck up.

Funny, I've never met a Jew who doesn't have a sob story. All they have to do is stop pretending there's a god and grow up.

[Fredxxx]

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by The Todal

Post by Phi
Former London mayor Ken Livingstone has been suspended from the Labour
Party for another year over comments he made about Adolf Hitler and
Zionism.
A disciplinary panel upheld three charges of breaching party rules.
Mr Livingstone has been suspended since April 2016 when he claimed
Hitler had supported Zionism in the 1930s.
Some Labour MPs and Jewish groups have criticised the decision not to
expel Mr Livingstone, but he said he had been "suspended for stating the
truth".
The row first erupted when Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah
over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When
Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be
moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended
up killing six million Jews."
He has repeatedly defended his version of events, saying there had been
"real collaboration" between Nazis and Zionists before World War Two.

Well, it isn't jews playing the persecution card.
It's right wing jews plus some socialist jews with a grudge against
a) they alone are entitled to define "antisemitism"
b) if they belive that he's been antisemitic, that's proof enough
c) if they want him expelled, the Labour Party must do what they demand
and expel him.
The usual people claim to be outraged at the failure to expel
Livingstone. They should accept the decision and shut the fuck up.

Funny, I've never met a Jew who doesn't have a sob story. All they have
to do is stop pretending there's a god and grow up.

I doubt you knowingly meet any face to face. I know a few and they have
no sob stories to tell.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Post by Fredxxx

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by The Todal

Post by Phi
Former London mayor Ken Livingstone has been suspended from the Labour
Party for another year over comments he made about Adolf Hitler and
Zionism.
A disciplinary panel upheld three charges of breaching party rules.
Mr Livingstone has been suspended since April 2016 when he claimed
Hitler had supported Zionism in the 1930s.
Some Labour MPs and Jewish groups have criticised the decision not to
expel Mr Livingstone, but he said he had been "suspended for stating the
truth".
The row first erupted when Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah
over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When
Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be
moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended
up killing six million Jews."
He has repeatedly defended his version of events, saying there had been
"real collaboration" between Nazis and Zionists before World War Two.

Well, it isn't jews playing the persecution card.
It's right wing jews plus some socialist jews with a grudge against
a) they alone are entitled to define "antisemitism"
b) if they belive that he's been antisemitic, that's proof enough
c) if they want him expelled, the Labour Party must do what they demand
and expel him.
The usual people claim to be outraged at the failure to expel
Livingstone. They should accept the decision and shut the fuck up.

Funny, I've never met a Jew who doesn't have a sob story. All they have
to do is stop pretending there's a god and grow up.

I doubt you knowingly meet any face to face. I know a few and they have
no sob stories to tell.

Converted to atheism have they?

[The Peeler]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:15:04 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

Post by James Wilkinson Sword

Post by Fredxxx
I doubt you knowingly meet any face to face. I know a few and they have
no sob stories to tell.

Converted to atheism have they?

You DO know that even every atheist who will get to know you will think you
are a sick asshole, don't you? <BG>

[The Peeler]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 23:52:19 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Funny, I've never met a Jew who doesn't have a sob story.

Tell us about the many Jews you pathological social misfit have met,
Birdbrain! <BG>

Post by James Wilkinson Sword
All they have to do is stop pretending there's a god and grow up.

You mean they should become sick assholes like you, Birdbrain? FAT chance!
LOL

[Nick]

Post by The Todal

Post by Phi
Former London mayor Ken Livingstone has been suspended from the Labour
Party for another year over comments he made about Adolf Hitler and
Zionism.
A disciplinary panel upheld three charges of breaching party rules.
Mr Livingstone has been suspended since April 2016 when he claimed
Hitler had supported Zionism in the 1930s.
Some Labour MPs and Jewish groups have criticised the decision not to
expel Mr Livingstone, but he said he had been "suspended for stating the
truth".
The row first erupted when Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah
over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When
Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be
moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended
up killing six million Jews."
He has repeatedly defended his version of events, saying there had been
"real collaboration" between Nazis and Zionists before World War Two.

Well, it isn't jews playing the persecution card.
It's right wing jews plus some socialist jews with a grudge against

It is an orchestrated attack on the Corbyn administration via Livingstone.

This is done with the aid of UK diaspora Jews in support of Israel. They
give this aid because it is perceived that Corbyn is overly supportive
of the Palestinians.

Here is another example of something similar being discussed with
respect to Foreign Office deputy Sir Alan Duncan.

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4098082/Astonishing-undercover-video-captures-diplomat-conspiring-rival-MP-s-aide-smear-Deputy-Foreign-Secretary.html>

[Pelican]

Post by Phi
Former London mayor Ken Livingstone has been suspended from the Labour
Party for another year over comments he made about Adolf Hitler and
Zionism.
A disciplinary panel upheld three charges of breaching party rules.
Mr Livingstone has been suspended since April 2016 when he claimed
Hitler had supported Zionism in the 1930s.
Some Labour MPs and Jewish groups have criticised the decision not to
expel Mr Livingstone, but he said he had been "suspended for stating the
truth".
The row first erupted when Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah
over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When
Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be
moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended
up killing six million Jews."
He has repeatedly defended his version of events, saying there had been
"real collaboration" between Nazis and Zionists before World War Two.

When the Balfour Declaration was being drafted, I told them not to send
it, but would they listen? And now look what has happened.

[GB]

Post by Phi
The row first erupted when Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah
over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When
Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be
moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended
up killing six million Jews."
He has repeatedly defended his version of events, saying there had
been "real collaboration" between Nazis and Zionists before World War
Two.

I personally don't care much what Mr Livingstone says, or what the
Labour party do about it, but I don't accept that his version of history
is correct.

Hitler's initial stance was that he wanted rid of the Jews in Germany.
He didn't care much where they went. At the same time, Zionists wanted
to encourage Jewish emigration to Palestine. But calling that "real
collaboration" is simply a preposterous untruth, as is saying Hitler
supported Zionism.

It's like saying that the German bombers that followed the railway lines
on their way to bomb Coventry had a common aim with the passengers on
the trains underneath them, as they both wanted to get to Coventry. Or
that the people who laid the railway tracks had collaborated in the
bombing of the city.

[The Todal]

Post by GB

Post by Phi
The row first erupted when Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah
over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When
Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be
moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended
up killing six million Jews."
He has repeatedly defended his version of events, saying there had
been "real collaboration" between Nazis and Zionists before World War
Two.

I personally don't care much what Mr Livingstone says, or what the
Labour party do about it, but I don't accept that his version of history
is correct.
Hitler's initial stance was that he wanted rid of the Jews in Germany.
He didn't care much where they went. At the same time, Zionists wanted
to encourage Jewish emigration to Palestine. But calling that "real
collaboration" is simply a preposterous untruth, as is saying Hitler
supported Zionism.
It's like saying that the German bombers that followed the railway lines
on their way to bomb Coventry had a common aim with the passengers on
the trains underneath them, as they both wanted to get to Coventry. Or
that the people who laid the railway tracks had collaborated in the
bombing of the city.

Surely this isn't a debate about history with the loser to face
expulsion for getting his history wrong?

Hitler and Eichmann encouraged jews to emigrate and encouraged Zionists
to facilitate emigration. That seems to be an accepted fact.

Livingstone's comments about real collaboration were these:

Livingstone said: “He didn’t just sign the deal. The SS set up training
camps so that German Jews who were going to go there could be trained to
cope with a very different sort of country when they got there. When the
Zionist movement asked, would the Nazi government stop a Jewish rabbi
doing their sermons in Yiddish and make them do it in Hebrew, he agreed
to that.

“He passed a law saying the Zionist flag and the swastika were the only
flags that could be flown in Germany. An awful lot. Of course, they
started selling Mauser pistols to the underground Jewish army. So you
had right up until the start of the second world war real collaboration.”

unquote

Now, that may be historically accurate. I think those who find the
remarks offensive are assuming that Livingstone made the remarks because
he is antisemitic and wants to taunt his enemies. I don't believe that
is true. I think he may have some sort of autism or aspergers - as
indeed many people have - and he wanted to make a pedantic point to
support his argument without caring whether it was tactless to make such
a point.

I don't think any jew should actually find Livingstone's remarks
distressing, hurtful, shocking or devastating. Those who say that they
have been distressed and have had to be comforted are, I suggest, not
being truthful.

[Brian Reay]

Post by The Todal

Post by GB

Post by Phi
The row first erupted when Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah
over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When
Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be
moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended
up killing six million Jews."
He has repeatedly defended his version of events, saying there had
been "real collaboration" between Nazis and Zionists before World War
Two.

I personally don't care much what Mr Livingstone says, or what the
Labour party do about it, but I don't accept that his version of history
is correct.
Hitler's initial stance was that he wanted rid of the Jews in Germany.
He didn't care much where they went. At the same time, Zionists wanted
to encourage Jewish emigration to Palestine. But calling that "real
collaboration" is simply a preposterous untruth, as is saying Hitler
supported Zionism.
It's like saying that the German bombers that followed the railway lines
on their way to bomb Coventry had a common aim with the passengers on
the trains underneath them, as they both wanted to get to Coventry. Or
that the people who laid the railway tracks had collaborated in the
bombing of the city.

Surely this isn't a debate about history with the loser to face
expulsion for getting his history wrong?
Hitler and Eichmann encouraged jews to emigrate and encouraged Zionists
to facilitate emigration. That seems to be an accepted fact.
Livingstone said: “He didn’t just sign the deal. The SS set up training
camps so that German Jews who were going to go there could be trained to
cope with a very different sort of country when they got there. When the
Zionist movement asked, would the Nazi government stop a Jewish rabbi
doing their sermons in Yiddish and make them do it in Hebrew, he agreed
to that.
“He passed a law saying the Zionist flag and the swastika were the only
flags that could be flown in Germany. An awful lot. Of course, they
started selling Mauser pistols to the underground Jewish army. So you
had right up until the start of the second world war real collaboration.”
unquote
Now, that may be historically accurate. I think those who find the
remarks offensive are assuming that Livingstone made the remarks because
he is antisemitic and wants to taunt his enemies. I don't believe that
is true. I think he may have some sort of autism or aspergers - as
indeed many people have - and he wanted to make a pedantic point to
support his argument without caring whether it was tactless to make such
a point.
I don't think any jew should actually find Livingstone's remarks
distressing, hurtful, shocking or devastating. Those who say that they
have been distressed and have had to be comforted are, I suggest, not
being truthful.

If equivalent comments had been made about black slavery, he would have
been booted out so fast his head would still be spinning and you won't
dream of closing your comments as you did.

The British Left is inherently anti-Jew, that is why Livingstone's
comments have been tolerated and he has got away with a 'slapped wrist'-
no more than window dressing for the public.

[The Todal]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by The Todal

Post by GB

Post by Phi
The row first erupted when Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah
over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When
Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be
moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended
up killing six million Jews."
He has repeatedly defended his version of events, saying there had
been "real collaboration" between Nazis and Zionists before World War
Two.

I personally don't care much what Mr Livingstone says, or what the
Labour party do about it, but I don't accept that his version of history
is correct.
Hitler's initial stance was that he wanted rid of the Jews in Germany.
He didn't care much where they went. At the same time, Zionists wanted
to encourage Jewish emigration to Palestine. But calling that "real
collaboration" is simply a preposterous untruth, as is saying Hitler
supported Zionism.
It's like saying that the German bombers that followed the railway lines
on their way to bomb Coventry had a common aim with the passengers on
the trains underneath them, as they both wanted to get to Coventry. Or
that the people who laid the railway tracks had collaborated in the
bombing of the city.

Surely this isn't a debate about history with the loser to face
expulsion for getting his history wrong?
Hitler and Eichmann encouraged jews to emigrate and encouraged Zionists
to facilitate emigration. That seems to be an accepted fact.
Livingstone said: “He didn’t just sign the deal. The SS set up training
camps so that German Jews who were going to go there could be trained to
cope with a very different sort of country when they got there. When the
Zionist movement asked, would the Nazi government stop a Jewish rabbi
doing their sermons in Yiddish and make them do it in Hebrew, he agreed
to that.
“He passed a law saying the Zionist flag and the swastika were the only
flags that could be flown in Germany. An awful lot. Of course, they
started selling Mauser pistols to the underground Jewish army. So you
had right up until the start of the second world war real collaboration.”
unquote
Now, that may be historically accurate. I think those who find the
remarks offensive are assuming that Livingstone made the remarks because
he is antisemitic and wants to taunt his enemies. I don't believe that
is true. I think he may have some sort of autism or aspergers - as
indeed many people have - and he wanted to make a pedantic point to
support his argument without caring whether it was tactless to make such
a point.
I don't think any jew should actually find Livingstone's remarks
distressing, hurtful, shocking or devastating. Those who say that they
have been distressed and have had to be comforted are, I suggest, not
being truthful.

If equivalent comments had been made about black slavery, he would have
been booted out so fast his head would still be spinning and you won't
dream of closing your comments as you did.

If it had been pointed out that some black people were complicit in
slavery, that some black rulers bought and sold black slaves, then
nobody in their right mind would then take offence on behalf of all
black people and would demand that such truths be suppressed.

Post by Brian Reay
The British Left is inherently anti-Jew, that is why Livingstone's
comments have been tolerated and he has got away with a 'slapped wrist'-
no more than window dressing for the public.

It's a theory, but it's quite wrong.

[Fredxxx]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by The Todal

Post by GB

Post by Phi
The row first erupted when Mr Livingstone, who was defending MP Naz Shah
over claims she had made anti-Semitic social media posts, said: "When
Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be
moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended
up killing six million Jews."
He has repeatedly defended his version of events, saying there had
been "real collaboration" between Nazis and Zionists before World War
Two.

I personally don't care much what Mr Livingstone says, or what the
Labour party do about it, but I don't accept that his version of history
is correct.
Hitler's initial stance was that he wanted rid of the Jews in Germany.
He didn't care much where they went. At the same time, Zionists wanted
to encourage Jewish emigration to Palestine. But calling that "real
collaboration" is simply a preposterous untruth, as is saying Hitler
supported Zionism.
It's like saying that the German bombers that followed the railway lines
on their way to bomb Coventry had a common aim with the passengers on
the trains underneath them, as they both wanted to get to Coventry. Or
that the people who laid the railway tracks had collaborated in the
bombing of the city.

Surely this isn't a debate about history with the loser to face
expulsion for getting his history wrong?
Hitler and Eichmann encouraged jews to emigrate and encouraged Zionists
to facilitate emigration. That seems to be an accepted fact.
Livingstone said: “He didn’t just sign the deal. The SS set up training
camps so that German Jews who were going to go there could be trained to
cope with a very different sort of country when they got there. When the
Zionist movement asked, would the Nazi government stop a Jewish rabbi
doing their sermons in Yiddish and make them do it in Hebrew, he agreed
to that.
“He passed a law saying the Zionist flag and the swastika were the only
flags that could be flown in Germany. An awful lot. Of course, they
started selling Mauser pistols to the underground Jewish army. So you
had right up until the start of the second world war real collaboration.”
unquote
Now, that may be historically accurate. I think those who find the
remarks offensive are assuming that Livingstone made the remarks because
he is antisemitic and wants to taunt his enemies. I don't believe that
is true. I think he may have some sort of autism or aspergers - as
indeed many people have - and he wanted to make a pedantic point to
support his argument without caring whether it was tactless to make such
a point.
I don't think any jew should actually find Livingstone's remarks
distressing, hurtful, shocking or devastating. Those who say that they
have been distressed and have had to be comforted are, I suggest, not
being truthful.

If equivalent comments had been made about black slavery, he would have
been booted out so fast his head would still be spinning and you won't
dream of closing your comments as you did.

Its well known that black chiefs sold their slaves for what we might
regard as nick nacks.

I don't see why anyone should feel the need to suppress facts apart from
those with chips on their shoulders. I also don't the need to apologise
for my forefathers actions any more I would expect blacks to apologise
for their tribal chiefs sale of slaves.

Post by Brian Reay
The British Left is inherently anti-Jew, that is why Livingstone's
comments have been tolerated and he has got away with a 'slapped wrist'-
no more than window dressing for the public.

The British left is not anti-jew as demonstrated by the suspension of
Livingstone quoting history. What it does show, is the left is trying to
suck up to jews, and attempt to suppress simple and established history.

[Incubus]

Post by The Todal
Now, that may be historically accurate. I think those who find the
remarks offensive are assuming that Livingstone made the remarks because
he is antisemitic and wants to taunt his enemies. I don't believe that
is true. I think he may have some sort of autism or aspergers - as
indeed many people have - and he wanted to make a pedantic point to
support his argument without caring whether it was tactless to make such
a point.

Are you going to call him Rain Man, then?

[GB]

Post by Incubus

Post by The Todal
Now, that may be historically accurate. I think those who find the
remarks offensive are assuming that Livingstone made the remarks because
he is antisemitic and wants to taunt his enemies. I don't believe that
is true. I think he may have some sort of autism or aspergers - as
indeed many people have - and he wanted to make a pedantic point to
support his argument without caring whether it was tactless to make such
a point.

Are you going to call him Rain Man, then?

Livingstone is so blunderingly tactless that most people think he must
be doing it on purpose. As someone who is really rather tactless myself,
I want to give Ken the benefit of the doubt and think the best of him.
But it does strain even my credibility.

There's the obvious difference, also, that when I am tactless it shames
me, my family, and possibly my friends, whereas Ken is/was a leading
representative of the Labour Party.

Most politicians have learnt that "when in hole, stop digging", but Ken
just keeps on shovelling the dirt. I don't want to attach labels, but he
does seem somewhat odd!

[Incubus]

Post by GB

Post by Incubus

Post by The Todal
Now, that may be historically accurate. I think those who find the
remarks offensive are assuming that Livingstone made the remarks because
he is antisemitic and wants to taunt his enemies. I don't believe that
is true. I think he may have some sort of autism or aspergers - as
indeed many people have - and he wanted to make a pedantic point to
support his argument without caring whether it was tactless to make such
a point.

Are you going to call him Rain Man, then?

Livingstone is so blunderingly tactless that most people think he must
be doing it on purpose. As someone who is really rather tactless myself,
I want to give Ken the benefit of the doubt and think the best of him.
But it does strain even my credibility.

The issue for me with respect to the above is the assumption that if someone is tactless, they must have some form of Aspergers or autism. It's rather hypocritical of Toadal to use Aspergers to defend Livingstone when he has previously used it as an insult and to wriggle out of losing arguments...

Post by GB
There's the obvious difference, also, that when I am tactless it shames
me, my family, and possibly my friends, whereas Ken is/was a leading
representative of the Labour Party.

I'm not sure I'd describe him as a leading representative any longer. He gets media coverage because he's well known but I don't believe he has that much influence any more.

Post by GB
Most politicians have learnt that "when in hole, stop digging", but Ken
just keeps on shovelling the dirt. I don't want to attach labels, but he
does seem somewhat odd!

I think the pertinent characteristic in question is a deep-seated dislike of Israel. Why read more into it than that?

[The Todal]

Post by Incubus

Post by GB

Post by Incubus

Post by The Todal
Now, that may be historically accurate. I think those who find the
remarks offensive are assuming that Livingstone made the remarks because
he is antisemitic and wants to taunt his enemies. I don't believe that
is true. I think he may have some sort of autism or aspergers - as
indeed many people have - and he wanted to make a pedantic point to
support his argument without caring whether it was tactless to make such
a point.

Are you going to call him Rain Man, then?

Livingstone is so blunderingly tactless that most people think he must
be doing it on purpose. As someone who is really rather tactless myself,
I want to give Ken the benefit of the doubt and think the best of him.
But it does strain even my credibility.

The issue for me with respect to the above is the assumption that if someone is tactless, they must have some form of Aspergers or autism. It's rather hypocritical of Toadal to use Aspergers to defend Livingstone when he has previously used it as an insult and to wriggle out of losing arguments...

I know several people with autism and aspergers and I haven't used it as
an insult at all. I've simply pointed out to people on this group who
declare themselves to be on the autistic spectrum that this can affect
the cogency of their arguments and make them rather obsessive and
forever keen to have the last word in a debate. Which is true. And can
be seen in Ken Livingstone.

Post by Incubus

Post by GB
There's the obvious difference, also, that when I am tactless it shames
me, my family, and possibly my friends, whereas Ken is/was a leading
representative of the Labour Party.

I'm not sure I'd describe him as a leading representative any longer. He gets media coverage because he's well known but I don't believe he has that much influence any more.

Ken Livingstone has obviously tarnished (or more than tarnished) his
past achievements. He was an excellent GLC leader, much admired by our
nation, and so successful that Mrs Thatcher decided to abolish the GLC.

On LBC Radio he had a regular Saturday morning programme with David
Mellor, explaining current events and dealing with callers in a
courteous and constructive way. He is still much missed, now that LBC
have cancelled the programme and substituted a few talentless presenters.

Post by Incubus

Post by GB
Most politicians have learnt that "when in hole, stop digging", but Ken
just keeps on shovelling the dirt. I don't want to attach labels, but he
does seem somewhat odd!

I think the pertinent characteristic in question is a deep-seated dislike of Israel. Why read more into it than that?

It's much more complicated than that. His dislike of the policies of the
government of Israel is shared by most sensible people and by the United
Nations. He has courageously spoken up for the oppressed Palestinians
and the people of Gaza. There has been a very determined campaign to
discredit him and to shut him up, for political reasons - both for his
antipathy towards the racist Israeli government and for his antipathy
towards the PLP rebels who tried to mount their unsuccessful coup.

[Incubus]

Post by The Todal

Post by Incubus

Post by GB

Post by Incubus

Post by The Todal
Now, that may be historically accurate. I think those who find the
remarks offensive are assuming that Livingstone made the remarks because
he is antisemitic and wants to taunt his enemies. I don't believe that
is true. I think he may have some sort of autism or aspergers - as
indeed many people have - and he wanted to make a pedantic point to
support his argument without caring whether it was tactless to make such
a point.

Are you going to call him Rain Man, then?

Livingstone is so blunderingly tactless that most people think he must
be doing it on purpose. As someone who is really rather tactless myself,
I want to give Ken the benefit of the doubt and think the best of him.
But it does strain even my credibility.

The issue for me with respect to the above is the assumption that if someone is tactless, they must have some form of Aspergers or autism. It's rather hypocritical of Toadal to use Aspergers to defend Livingstone when he has previously used it as an insult and to wriggle out of losing arguments...

I know several people with autism and aspergers and I haven't used it as
an insult at all.

Actually, you did as evidenced by use of the term 'Rain Man'. I can find the quotes if you so wish.

Post by The Todal
I've simply pointed out to people on this group who
declare themselves to be on the autistic spectrum

Who exactly declared themselves on the spectrum? The correct diagnosis must be done by a psychiatrist.

Post by The Todal
that this can affect
the cogency of their arguments

In other words, you made an unsuccessful attempt to discredit your opponent when you were unable to refute those arguments.

Post by The Todal
and make them rather obsessive and
forever keen to have the last word in a debate.

That's rather ironic coming from someone who used that argument in order to have the last word in a debate.

Post by The Todal
Which is true. And can
be seen in Ken Livingstone.

Politicians generally rather like to have the last word.

Post by The Todal

Post by Incubus

Post by GB
There's the obvious difference, also, that when I am tactless it shames
me, my family, and possibly my friends, whereas Ken is/was a leading
representative of the Labour Party.

I'm not sure I'd describe him as a leading representative any longer. He gets media coverage because he's well known but I don't believe he has that much influence any more.

Ken Livingstone has obviously tarnished (or more than tarnished) his
past achievements. He was an excellent GLC leader, much admired by our
nation, and so successful that Mrs Thatcher decided to abolish the GLC.

What exactly do you think he achieved as GLC leader?

Post by The Todal
On LBC Radio he had a regular Saturday morning programme with David
Mellor, explaining current events and dealing with callers in a
courteous and constructive way. He is still much missed, now that LBC
have cancelled the programme and substituted a few talentless presenters.

I wouldn't know as I can't abide LBC.

Post by The Todal

Post by Incubus

Post by GB
Most politicians have learnt that "when in hole, stop digging", but Ken
just keeps on shovelling the dirt. I don't want to attach labels, but he
does seem somewhat odd!

I think the pertinent characteristic in question is a deep-seated dislike of Israel. Why read more into it than that?

It's much more complicated than that. His dislike of the policies of the
government of Israel is shared by most sensible people and by the United
Nations. He has courageously spoken up for the oppressed Palestinians
and the people of Gaza. There has been a very determined campaign to
discredit him and to shut him up, for political reasons - both for his
antipathy towards the racist Israeli government and for his antipathy
towards the PLP rebels who tried to mount their unsuccessful coup.

That's one view of things.

[The Todal]

Post by Incubus

Post by The Todal

Post by Incubus

Post by GB

Post by Incubus

Post by The Todal
Now, that may be historically accurate. I think those who find the
remarks offensive are assuming that Livingstone made the remarks because
he is antisemitic and wants to taunt his enemies. I don't believe that
is true. I think he may have some sort of autism or aspergers - as
indeed many people have - and he wanted to make a pedantic point to
support his argument without caring whether it was tactless to make such
a point.

Are you going to call him Rain Man, then?

Livingstone is so blunderingly tactless that most people think he must
be doing it on purpose. As someone who is really rather tactless myself,
I want to give Ken the benefit of the doubt and think the best of him.
But it does strain even my credibility.

The issue for me with respect to the above is the assumption that if someone is tactless, they must have some form of Aspergers or autism. It's rather hypocritical of Toadal to use Aspergers to defend Livingstone when he has previously used it as an insult and to wriggle out of losing arguments...

I know several people with autism and aspergers and I haven't used it as
an insult at all.

Actually, you did as evidenced by use of the term 'Rain Man'. I can find the quotes if you so wish.

Yes, go on. Knock yourself out.

[Snow_Flower]

Post by The Todal
It's much more complicated than that. His dislike of the policies of the
government of Israel is shared by most sensible people and by the United
Nations.

Normal neo-nazi comment. But I accept that the number of people with
nazi views is rising.

It is well known that the UN is biased against Jews and likes Nazis.
Strange how using gas against civilians is judged to be fair play,
providing it is Syria and not Jewish Israel doing the attacking.

Post by The Todal
He has courageously spoken up for the oppressed Palestinians
and the people of Gaza.

Supporting crazed terrorist nazis is not a good thing.

Post by The Todal
There has been a very determined campaign to
discredit him and to shut him up, for political reasons - both for his
antipathy towards the racist Israeli government and for his antipathy
towards the PLP rebels who tried to mount their unsuccessful coup.

Seems you are being a tad racist, you seem to like terrorists as long as
they are not Jewish, but anyone Jewish, irrespective of their deads, is
according to you, fair game.
But then Labour is really the New Nazi Party.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Fredxxx]

Post by Snow_Flower

Post by The Todal
It's much more complicated than that. His dislike of the policies of the
government of Israel is shared by most sensible people and by the United
Nations.

Normal neo-nazi comment. But I accept that the number of people with
nazi views is rising.
It is well known that the UN is biased against Jews and likes Nazis.
Strange how using gas against civilians is judged to be fair play,
providing it is Syria and not Jewish Israel doing the attacking.

I take it you believe any criticism of Israel makes you a Nazi antisemite.

Are you a Jew?

Post by Snow_Flower

Post by The Todal
He has courageously spoken up for the oppressed Palestinians
and the people of Gaza.

Supporting crazed terrorist nazis is not a good thing.

Wasn't Israel born out of terrorism, or does pointing that out make me a
terrorist Nazi antisemite?

Post by Snow_Flower

Post by The Todal
There has been a very determined campaign to
discredit him and to shut him up, for political reasons - both for his
antipathy towards the racist Israeli government and for his antipathy
towards the PLP rebels who tried to mount their unsuccessful coup.

Seems you are being a tad racist, you seem to like terrorists as long as
they are not Jewish, but anyone Jewish, irrespective of their deads, is
according to you, fair game.
But then Labour is really the New Nazi Party.

No, the Labour party is bending to Jewish pressure, or haven't you noticed?

[Brian Reay]

Post by Fredxxx

Post by Snow_Flower

Post by The Todal
It's much more complicated than that. His dislike of the policies of the
government of Israel is shared by most sensible people and by the United
Nations.

Normal neo-nazi comment. But I accept that the number of people with
nazi views is rising.
It is well known that the UN is biased against Jews and likes Nazis.
Strange how using gas against civilians is judged to be fair play,
providing it is Syria and not Jewish Israel doing the attacking.

I take it you believe any criticism of Israel makes you a Nazi antisemite.
Are you a Jew?

Post by Snow_Flower

Post by The Todal
He has courageously spoken up for the oppressed Palestinians
and the people of Gaza.

Supporting crazed terrorist nazis is not a good thing.

Wasn't Israel born out of terrorism, or does pointing that out make me a
terrorist Nazi antisemite?

Israel existed before the birth of Christ but don't let facts influence
your views.

[Fredxxx]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Fredxxx

Post by Snow_Flower

Post by The Todal
It's much more complicated than that. His dislike of the policies of the
government of Israel is shared by most sensible people and by the United
Nations.

Normal neo-nazi comment. But I accept that the number of people with
nazi views is rising.
It is well known that the UN is biased against Jews and likes Nazis.
Strange how using gas against civilians is judged to be fair play,
providing it is Syria and not Jewish Israel doing the attacking.

I take it you believe any criticism of Israel makes you a Nazi antisemite.
Are you a Jew?

Post by Snow_Flower

Post by The Todal
He has courageously spoken up for the oppressed Palestinians
and the people of Gaza.

Supporting crazed terrorist nazis is not a good thing.

Wasn't Israel born out of terrorism, or does pointing that out make me a
terrorist Nazi antisemite?

Israel existed before the birth of Christ but don't let facts influence
your views.

Are you intimating the Jews blame Jesus for losing Israel for 2,000 years?

Perhaps they shouldn't have killed him.

[GB]

Post by Fredxxx

Post by Brian Reay
Israel existed before the birth of Christ but don't let facts influence
your views.

Are you intimating the Jews blame Jesus for losing Israel for 2,000 years?

How do you infer that from what he said?

[Fredxxx]

Post by GB

Post by Fredxxx

Post by Brian Reay
Israel existed before the birth of Christ but don't let facts influence
your views.

Are you intimating the Jews blame Jesus for losing Israel for 2,000 years?

How do you infer that from what he said?

By the association of Israel only existing before Jesus.

Do you think Israel should have 'existed' again through acts of terrorism?

[GB]

Post by Fredxxx

Post by GB

Post by Fredxxx

Post by Brian Reay
Israel existed before the birth of Christ but don't let facts influence
your views.

Are you intimating the Jews blame Jesus for losing Israel for 2,000 years?

How do you infer that from what he said?

By the association of Israel only existing before Jesus.

But he didn't say that. You inserted the 'only'.

Post by Fredxxx
Do you think Israel should have 'existed' again through acts of terrorism?

There were acts of terrorism on both sides, but obviously I don't
condone or applaud terrorism.

But where does that get you, anyway? The Republic of Ireland came about
through acts of terrorism. Arguably, so did the USA - certainly it was
an armed rebellion against the legitimate government. It's not ideal in
either case, but are you suggesting that either of those countries is
now not a legitimate state?

[Vidcapper]

Post by Fredxxx
Are you intimating the Jews blame Jesus for losing Israel for 2,000 years?
Perhaps they shouldn't have killed him.

I thought that was the Romans...

[Fredxxx]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Fredxxx
Are you intimating the Jews blame Jesus for losing Israel for 2,000 years?
Perhaps they shouldn't have killed him.

I thought that was the Romans...

Allegedly on behalf of the locals.

[James Stewart]

Post by Fredxxx

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Fredxxx

Post by Snow_Flower

Post by The Todal
It's much more complicated than that. His dislike of the policies of the
government of Israel is shared by most sensible people and by the United
Nations.

Normal neo-nazi comment. But I accept that the number of people with
nazi views is rising.
It is well known that the UN is biased against Jews and likes Nazis.
Strange how using gas against civilians is judged to be fair play,
providing it is Syria and not Jewish Israel doing the attacking.

I take it you believe any criticism of Israel makes you a Nazi antisemite.
Are you a Jew?

Post by Snow_Flower

Post by The Todal
He has courageously spoken up for the oppressed Palestinians
and the people of Gaza.

Supporting crazed terrorist nazis is not a good thing.

Wasn't Israel born out of terrorism, or does pointing that out make me a
terrorist Nazi antisemite?

Israel existed before the birth of Christ but don't let facts influence
your views.

Are you intimating the Jews blame Jesus for losing Israel for 2,000 years?
Perhaps they shouldn't have killed him.

they killed the baby Jesus?...bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Fredxxx
Wasn't Israel born out of terrorism, or does pointing that out make me a
terrorist Nazi antisemite?

Israel existed before the birth of Christ but don't let facts influence
your views.

If only Fredxxx had written "The modern state known as Israel as founded
in the late 1940s on former Palestinian Mandate territory", then we
wouldn't have had to fuck around correcting your tedious and misleading
nit-picking.

[GB]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Fredxxx
Wasn't Israel born out of terrorism, or does pointing that out make me a
terrorist Nazi antisemite?

Israel existed before the birth of Christ but don't let facts
influence your views.

If only Fredxxx had written "The modern state known as Israel as founded
in the late 1940s on former Palestinian Mandate territory", then we
wouldn't have had to fuck around correcting your tedious and misleading
nit-picking.

The trouble is that one may not condone terrorism, but it doesn't
necessarily delegitimise the state that emerges. In a different post I
gave the examples of the ROI and USA, but there must be hundreds.
Partly, it depends on your definition of terrorism.

[Fredxxx]

Post by GB

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Brian Reay

Post by Fredxxx
Wasn't Israel born out of terrorism, or does pointing that out make me a
terrorist Nazi antisemite?

Israel existed before the birth of Christ but don't let facts
influence your views.

If only Fredxxx had written "The modern state known as Israel as founded
in the late 1940s on former Palestinian Mandate territory", then we
wouldn't have had to fuck around correcting your tedious and misleading
nit-picking.

The trouble is that one may not condone terrorism, but it doesn't
necessarily delegitimise the state that emerges.

That is why I discerned that terrorism pays. You can't say some freedom
fighting is good, and others bad at your personal whim.

Perhaps you can explain why Nelson Mandela shouldn't have been summarily
executed and his body dumped at sea, Osame Bin Ladin style.

Post by GB
In a different post I
gave the examples of the ROI and USA, but there must be hundreds.
Partly, it depends on your definition of terrorism.

You mean ones you support, and ones you don't? It doesn't say much for
anyone if they condone killing of civilians to further a personal goal,
and yes it does remove some of the legitimacy of the established state.
One of the reasons of the continued struggle re Israel.

[harry]

Post by Snow_Flower

Post by The Todal
It's much more complicated than that. His dislike of the policies of the
government of Israel is shared by most sensible people and by the United
Nations.

Normal neo-nazi comment. But I accept that the number of people with
nazi views is rising.
It is well known that the UN is biased against Jews and likes Nazis.
Strange how using gas against civilians is judged to be fair play,
providing it is Syria and not Jewish Israel doing the attacking.

Post by The Todal
He has courageously spoken up for the oppressed Palestinians
and the people of Gaza.

Supporting crazed terrorist nazis is not a good thing.

Post by The Todal
There has been a very determined campaign to
discredit him and to shut him up, for political reasons - both for his
antipathy towards the racist Israeli government and for his antipathy
towards the PLP rebels who tried to mount their unsuccessful coup.

Seems you are being a tad racist, you seem to like terrorists as long as
they are not Jewish, but anyone Jewish, irrespective of their deads, is
according to you, fair game.
But then Labour is really the New Nazi Party.

What a load of drivel.
https://www.agameforgoodchristians.com/blog//ethnic-cleansing-in-the-name-of-the-lord-the-book-of-joshua-not-giving-a-shit-about-the-canaanites-most-of-the-old-testament

[Fredxxx]

Post by GB

Post by Incubus

Post by The Todal
Now, that may be historically accurate. I think those who find the
remarks offensive are assuming that Livingstone made the remarks because
he is antisemitic and wants to taunt his enemies. I don't believe that
is true. I think he may have some sort of autism or aspergers - as
indeed many people have - and he wanted to make a pedantic point to
support his argument without caring whether it was tactless to make such
a point.

Are you going to call him Rain Man, then?

Livingstone is so blunderingly tactless that most people think he must
be doing it on purpose. As someone who is really rather tactless myself,
I want to give Ken the benefit of the doubt and think the best of him.
But it does strain even my credibility.

I also recall him inviting members of the IRA to a meeting well before
the Good Friday agreement. Something I had never understood and viewed
like Gaddafi who also supported terrorism.

Post by GB
There's the obvious difference, also, that when I am tactless it shames
me, my family, and possibly my friends, whereas Ken is/was a leading
representative of the Labour Party.
Most politicians have learnt that "when in hole, stop digging", but Ken
just keeps on shovelling the dirt. I don't want to attach labels, but he
does seem somewhat odd!

Yes, he may be tactless but what he has demonstrated is the way the
Labour party asks how high when told to jump. That jews have a
disproportionate influence on the party, certainly more than any worker.
He has demonstrated the party is bent on suppressing history to appease
a minority.