Disclaimer: every word in this article that appears to be anti-Semitic is in fact descriptive and not racist. Any objection to this article by ADL and parties representing them is thus a violation of free speech.
By expropriating Palestinian land to make this park, Canadian Jews have raised the ire of the Palestinians who were forcefully expelled in 1947. In 2007, the Israeli government denied the request for the Arabs who used to own homes there to return to their home and rebuild them.
By doing so, Canada will soon be a target of Palestinian jihadis in the future, who are descendants of the original Arab families from whom the Israeli government illegally stolen land from them for "security reasons."
IMO the reason why Israel stole this land is because of the historical significance even though a few Israeli Jews are genetic descendants of the ancient Hebrews.
For six million of them were killed in genocide by 1946, and the current Jews that dominate Israeli politics are Ashkenazim who are not descendants.
Yes, I am suggesting that ancient Hebrews are not the ancestors of Ashkenazim, but are ancestors of the Samaritans and the Jews who never left the Levant after returning from Babylonian captivity.
It is those Jews who are no longer represented by the Israeli government due to internecine conflict between the original Jews and the American and European Jews whose ancestors originated in Central Asia. This includes the American Hasidim who emigrated there to illegal occupy the West bank in violation of the UN treaty with Jordan.
It is no wonder that the Hamas want to push all Jews to the Mediterranean Sea.
Let us hope the IS does not invade Canada because of this outrage against the Palestinian Arabs who still own that land.
Reference:
http://www.jpost.com/Green-Israel/People-and-The-Environment/Remembering-the-Americans-and-Canadians-who-Fell
Showing posts with label genocide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label genocide. Show all posts
20120311
Real reason for Kony Campaign
#STOPKONY so we can steal Ugandan oil!
KONY was preventable, had Kony's village not do what they did to him.
For him being a bullying they basically shunned him.
That just made him become a monster.
I bet Kony was a bed wetter.
I bet Kony was an arsonist.
I bet Kony killed animals.
Ain't that the triad of a serial killer?
KONY was preventable, had Kony's village not do what they did to him.
For him being a bullying they basically shunned him.
That just made him become a monster.
I bet Kony was a bed wetter.
I bet Kony was an arsonist.
I bet Kony killed animals.
Ain't that the triad of a serial killer?
20080321
The Vatican Originally Participated in Oppression In Croatia
It took the Catholic Church two years to cry out against death camps in Croatia during WW2.
Meanwhile it continued to oppress natives in North America until the 1970s.
In the interwar period the Catholic church in Croatia had been a staunch supporter of Croatian nationalism, and it welcomed the establishment of the Croatian state. The Vatican had always supported the stand of the Croatian church and had encouraged Croatian separatism. The Ustaša extermination drive against Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies presented the church with a dilemma.
Many Catholic priests, mainly of the lower rank, took an active part in the murder operations. Generally speaking, the reaction of the Catholic church was a function of military and political developments affecting Croatia; when the standing of the NDH regime was weakening and the war was drawing to an end, protests by the church against Ustaša crimes became more and more outspoken. This was not the case in the earlier stages. A bishops’ conference that met in Zagreb in November 1941 was not even prepared to denounce the forced conversion of Serbs that had taken place in the summer of 1941, let alone condemn the persecution and murder of Serbs and Jews. It was not until the middle of 1943 that Aloysius Stepinac, the archbishop of Zagreb, publicly came out against the murder of Croatian Jews (most of whom had been killed by that time), the Serbs, and other nationalities. The Vatican followed a similar line. In the early stage, the Croatian massacres were explained in Rome as “teething troubles of a new regime” (the expression of Monsignor Domenico Tardini of the Vatican state secretariat). When the course of the war was changing, the leaders of the Catholic church began to criticize the Ustaša, but in mild terms; it was only at the end, when Allied victory was assured, that Vatican spokesmen came out with clear denunciations. In some instances, Croatian clerics did help Jews. Their main effort was to save the lives of the Jewish partners in mixed marriages, and most of these did in fact survive. The church also extended help to the Zagreb Jewish community in providing food, medicines and clothing for Jews in the concentration camps. -- http://emperors-clothes.com/croatia/encr.htm
Meanwhile it continued to oppress natives in North America until the 1970s.
In the interwar period the Catholic church in Croatia had been a staunch supporter of Croatian nationalism, and it welcomed the establishment of the Croatian state. The Vatican had always supported the stand of the Croatian church and had encouraged Croatian separatism. The Ustaša extermination drive against Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies presented the church with a dilemma.
Many Catholic priests, mainly of the lower rank, took an active part in the murder operations. Generally speaking, the reaction of the Catholic church was a function of military and political developments affecting Croatia; when the standing of the NDH regime was weakening and the war was drawing to an end, protests by the church against Ustaša crimes became more and more outspoken. This was not the case in the earlier stages. A bishops’ conference that met in Zagreb in November 1941 was not even prepared to denounce the forced conversion of Serbs that had taken place in the summer of 1941, let alone condemn the persecution and murder of Serbs and Jews. It was not until the middle of 1943 that Aloysius Stepinac, the archbishop of Zagreb, publicly came out against the murder of Croatian Jews (most of whom had been killed by that time), the Serbs, and other nationalities. The Vatican followed a similar line. In the early stage, the Croatian massacres were explained in Rome as “teething troubles of a new regime” (the expression of Monsignor Domenico Tardini of the Vatican state secretariat). When the course of the war was changing, the leaders of the Catholic church began to criticize the Ustaša, but in mild terms; it was only at the end, when Allied victory was assured, that Vatican spokesmen came out with clear denunciations. In some instances, Croatian clerics did help Jews. Their main effort was to save the lives of the Jewish partners in mixed marriages, and most of these did in fact survive. The church also extended help to the Zagreb Jewish community in providing food, medicines and clothing for Jews in the concentration camps. -- http://emperors-clothes.com/croatia/encr.htm
20070322
The Armenian Genocide Revisited (quote)
No person of Turkish heritage would accept what the Turkish Government has to say about this issue, as the final word. Just like no person of Armenian heritage should care about what the Armenian side has to say. What every person needs to do is look at the facts. If there were REAL proof of government-sponsored evil planned against the Armenians, a people who peacefully lived with and prospered beside the Turks for over five centuries, it would be Turks crying out against such horrors before most everyone else... one's humanity and integrity should ideally supersede loyalty to one's ethnic tribe.
It turns out that the Russians trained Armenians to fight for national identity in Anatolia (Turkey).
Much of what is Armenian Genocide happened to the Armenians who were guerrillas terrorizing the Turks.
And the Turks had to kick out the Armenians out of Turkey to prevent a civil war.
Certainly, Armenians got killed as a result of massacres... often by their Muslim neighbors, in reprisal for the murderous acts committed by the Armenians (when they sided with the Russian enemy in hopes of carving out their own independence); but anybody who calls acts of massacres a "genocide" doesn't know the meaning of the word. (At least the way most of us perceive the meaning, as with what Hitler did to the Jews; the legal definition of genocide is essentially meaningless, and can be applied to almost any conflict.) If a genocide is how you like to describe what happened to the Armenians, then you need to refer to what American soldiers committed in My Lai as a "genocide."
Ironically, if anyone acted genocidally, with the intention of systematically wiping out people because of their ethnic or religious identity, it was the people who are traditionally accepted as the victims of this conflict. Another irony is that while Armenians have been doing their utmost to portray Turks as Nazis (in an effort to equate themselves with Holocaust victims, the one group best known to have fallen prey to genocide), Turks did their best to save Jews during World War II... while Armenians actively supported the Nazi cause.
For prior to the "Genocides" of 1914-1915, many Armenians were well established in the Ottoman Empire.
The only reason for this "genocide" was to prevent Turkish people from being slaughtered by Armenian militants in their villages.
It appears obvious that the Turkish authorities, anxious for the safety of their lines of communication, had no other alternative than to order the removal of their rebellious subjects to some place distant from the seat of hostilities, and their internment there.
The enforcement of this absolutely necessary precaution led to further risings on the part of the Armenians. The remaining Muslims were almost defenceless, because the regular garrisons were at the front as well as the greater part of the police and able-bodied men. Already infuriated at the reports of the atrocities committed at Van by the insurgents, in fear for their lives and those of their relatives, they were at last driven by the cumulative effect of these events into panic and retaliation and, as invariably happens in such cases, the innocent suffered with the guilty.
C.F. Dixon-Johnson, British author of the 1916 book, "The Armenians."
It turns out that the Russians trained Armenians to fight for national identity in Anatolia (Turkey).
Much of what is Armenian Genocide happened to the Armenians who were guerrillas terrorizing the Turks.
And the Turks had to kick out the Armenians out of Turkey to prevent a civil war.
Certainly, Armenians got killed as a result of massacres... often by their Muslim neighbors, in reprisal for the murderous acts committed by the Armenians (when they sided with the Russian enemy in hopes of carving out their own independence); but anybody who calls acts of massacres a "genocide" doesn't know the meaning of the word. (At least the way most of us perceive the meaning, as with what Hitler did to the Jews; the legal definition of genocide is essentially meaningless, and can be applied to almost any conflict.) If a genocide is how you like to describe what happened to the Armenians, then you need to refer to what American soldiers committed in My Lai as a "genocide."
Ironically, if anyone acted genocidally, with the intention of systematically wiping out people because of their ethnic or religious identity, it was the people who are traditionally accepted as the victims of this conflict. Another irony is that while Armenians have been doing their utmost to portray Turks as Nazis (in an effort to equate themselves with Holocaust victims, the one group best known to have fallen prey to genocide), Turks did their best to save Jews during World War II... while Armenians actively supported the Nazi cause.
For prior to the "Genocides" of 1914-1915, many Armenians were well established in the Ottoman Empire.
The only reason for this "genocide" was to prevent Turkish people from being slaughtered by Armenian militants in their villages.
It appears obvious that the Turkish authorities, anxious for the safety of their lines of communication, had no other alternative than to order the removal of their rebellious subjects to some place distant from the seat of hostilities, and their internment there.
The enforcement of this absolutely necessary precaution led to further risings on the part of the Armenians. The remaining Muslims were almost defenceless, because the regular garrisons were at the front as well as the greater part of the police and able-bodied men. Already infuriated at the reports of the atrocities committed at Van by the insurgents, in fear for their lives and those of their relatives, they were at last driven by the cumulative effect of these events into panic and retaliation and, as invariably happens in such cases, the innocent suffered with the guilty.
C.F. Dixon-Johnson, British author of the 1916 book, "The Armenians."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)