Elijah wrote:

Racist propaganda from Israelis get the label "Jewish propaganda".


Again, you are generalizing as well as confusing religion with
nationality. If you were a Lutheran and were spreading propaganda
about the influence of illegal immigrants on the German economy would
I be correct to label that "Lutheran propaganda"?

If that would be the State religion then yes.




If I could
read something thoughtful from an Israeli I would react otherwise but even
as a
German I canot invent sophistication that isn't there. Of course I know that
there are many Israelis who are in favor og peace and against the military
policy of Sharon. But in that particular forum you can't find that position.


I would suggest participating in a different forum. The likelihood of
your learning anything new, interesting or thought-provoking from them
seems slim, and the likelihood of their learning anything from you
seems equally slim, if they are as entrenched and passionate about
their ugly position as you say they are.

You are joking? If I would follow your advice I had to leave all sorts of
groups because such lower educated people you can meet everywhere.

I do not participate to become the hero of the masses but to meet the very few
whose mind reacts on mine.

The choice of exactly computerchess is historical. Computerchess opens a whole
lot of interdisciplinary fields.






Just
because he said something worse doesn't make what you said okay. And
again, I do not think you are "teaching" anyone about the evils of
lying.

If you think so but I am convinced that I have found a good example to teach
some Jews a good lesson. The question is for example is if Israel as a
democracy, as it's claimed, can permit itself racism against the Palestinians
and lies against the whole World.

Others might find better examples.



Again, not normal at all, and indeed it is an intentional propaganda
lie, but not a Jewish one.

Nobody than Jews is interested in such a branding procedure. The reason cannot
be humanism, because then Israel would treat the Palestinians with much more
charity. You know what's the driving motivation I think. I'm not talking about
sex this time.


Rolf

"Roman M. Parparov" wrote:

As a German, you should have known what your nation willingly did to
Jews. 99% of Germans repented of that horrible action. You probably
belong to the 1% that long for Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels,
Borman & Co. return.

As for "anti-Palestinian" - prove any statement that was made by
Israelis on this issue that hasn't been true so far.

Then we had to talk about ethics and you would call me Anti-Semite for the
accusation of inhuman treatment of the Palestinians with racism as accomplice.
Not that this must bother you as Israeli of course. Since you always have the
Holocaust as the Ace in your sleeves. Sarcasm out.

Rolf



--
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email: http://www.nasa.proj.ac.il
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)51-34-18-34 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
-- Jean-Paul Kauffmann

(TommyBoy) wrote:

Labeling someone a Nazi is nothing to be taken lightly. One had better
be right, damn right, or one is spitting on the graves of those
millions who died at the hands of those butchers. Those were real
Nazis. To call some lightweight offender (or even non-offender) a Nazi
is to dilute that terrible evil.

The more so as the original assumption, that all Nazis are authentic butchers,
is false! Not to speak of all Germans being Nazis, hence being butchers.

Rolf

(Parrthenon) wrote:

NAZI ******* vs. LYING JEWISH *******

By Larry Parr

Rolf Tueschen overstepped, though not by so much as Roman Parparov
below in reply.

Mr. Tueschen called an Israeli named Omid David "a lying Jewish
*******" because the latter called a German politician a "Nazi *******." Mr.
Tueschen argues that the politician was or is not a "Nazi *******," and he
turned the tables. He termed Mr. David a "lying" (accurate gerundival
adjective, he avers) "Jewish *******" (accurate ID and noun-for-noun
response,
he avers).

No, Moellemann isn't a Nazi ******* and also not a Nazi. That is important.



First, the truth of the matter is what counts, and a German has every
bit as much a right to call a Jew a ******* as anyone else, including say, an
officially denominated "righteous gentile." Some of us are opposed to p.c.
categories of who get to speak about whom.

Secondly, Mr. Tueschen went too far because Mr. David did not call
the
German politician a "German *******"; he called him a "Nazi *******." Mr.
Tueschen, who defends himself on the basis of offering an accurate
symmetrical
response, would have done a bit better to have written "lying Likud *******"
or, in truth, he should have found some fringe Israeli party that advocates
die
enloesung for Arabs and tossed that epithet at Mr. David. BUT ....


The evil is that Omid David calls a German a Nazi ******* for nothing than
being a German politician who had criticised Sharon and Israel's policy against
the Palestinians. Know what I mean? For that he has called him a Nazi
_*******_. Who else than an Israeli or Jew can make such an insult? Only
someone who follows a special Holocaust agenda, the Goldhage theory that every
German was involved in the liquidation of the Jews. Involved= knowing the final
details of the mass murder. But as I told you long ago, this is false. The
average Germans didn't know what was going on and even the experts didn't.
Already the liquidation of the disabled Germans was a veiled secret action.
Murder wasn't a public term. Killing likewise wasn't. Death wasn't. That
someone simply died after the removal from his original institution with
helping people with charity, that was almost normal and tolerated as a kind of
favour for the patient's alleged pain. Nobody could imagine that patients could
be intentionally murdered!

Likewise the later liquidation of the Jews after their transportation to "the
East". It is official reading of history that not the murder was the goal but
the industrial process at minimum costs. Something comparable, excuse me, this
will be discussed only after some further 30 years of silence, to many
practices worldwide, where people die too early because of unhealthy conditions
of their work. Even most famous companies, from the USA included, make use of
children's work, mostly in Asia, where they work under unhealthy conditions. No
protection against chemical pollution etc.

It was a war in Central Europe. And likewise the war against Poland, the
Ukraine and the whole Soviet Union was inhuman and racistic, the whole ideology
of the "Untermensch" [= subhuman ] included, the murderous liquidation of the
Jews in an industrial process with work at low costs and maximal exploitation
was inhuman and racistic too.
The exploitation was the most important factor - NOT the killing! But the
avoiding of death certainly wasn't priority number one in the heads of the
leading Nazis. That is why _they_ were condemed to death by hanging at
Nuremberg. However the assumption that the whole German people were accomplice
of a genocide that is mere propaganda. But that is exactly what Goldhagen
implied and the so called Holocaust industry does exploit, see Finkelstein and
others. Finkelstein is an American Jew BTW.

Thanks for the beautiful argumentation again, although many objections could be
made in details. Time is short however even on Sundays.

Rolf




Thirdly, even if Mr. Tueschen had done so, he would still have failed
in his symmetry. That's because no Israeli political party, even the most
extreme that would commit unspeakable crimes, has committed anything like the
crimes of the Nazis. Actual criminality still trumps blabbing about it.

Fourthly, given that symmetry simply was not possible in the
expression offered by Mr. Tueschen, he should have contented himself by
calling
Mr. David "a lying *******," period.

Having said the above, Rolf Tueschen's crime is not all that great
in
the give-and-take of polemics. He hit the nail a glancing blow.

Turning to Roman Parparov.

Mr. Parparov begins with a blood libel: "As a German you should
have
known what your nation willingly did to Jews." The accurate statement is
"German government," not the "German ... nation." Hitler never received a
majority of the vote in a free election, and even if he had, there would have
been a very large minority despising everything the man and his movement
stood
for. When WWII began, there were no crowds in Berlin cheering the departing
troops marching eastwards -- unlike the millions who shouted for war in mass
demonstrations in all capitals on the eve of WWI. There is every reason to
believe that this thing called a "German ... nation" found even the
propaganda
face of Nazism appalling, let alone the real face.

If some Germans repented of an action that they deplored or had no
part in, then they acted irrationally. They ought to have been condemning
the
actions of the Nazis, not repenting of them. Sin is not collective. The
moment we start thinking that way, we open the door to collective punishment
of
the kind the Nazis meted out in Lidice or the Israeli government -- in a
watered-down, less murderous way -- metes out to Palestinians on a daily
basis.

Finally, Mr. Parparov offers this bit of idiocy: "As for
'anti-Palestinian - prove any statement that was made by Israelis on this
issue
that hasn't been true so far."

Wow! Here we have the statement of an Old World ideologue. The
thinking behind this sentence is so far removed from the democratic
understanding of political life that one does not know where to begin. We
shall try.

First, everyone here understands, as does Mr. Parparov himself,
that
even Israelis fail in omniscience. They must make false statements about
Palestinians every single day in every single way. If not, then they are not
merely the Chosen People, they are infallible gods. The same can be said
about
every one of us addressing any other people every single day in every single
way.

Secondly, if Mr. Parparov's statement is absurd in the literal
sense,
then what was he trying to say to us in the sense of political metaphor? If
he
is on the right-wing fringe of Israeli politics, then he is saying that
Palestinians are fit for liquidation because even the strongest statements
against them are ... true. If he is not on that fringe, then his statement
could have many gradations of meaning, though all of them assume the right to
punish a people collectively for the acts of some.

Finally, what about a statement made by some Israeli in government
that was palpably untrue about Palestinians? Mr. Parparov has asked for
proof,
and I can offer none. Still, the claim by the assassinated Israeli tourism
minister that Palestinians are "cockroaches" strikes me as untrue in an
anatomical sense. If Mr. Parparov argues that the statement is true in the
metaphorical sense, then we are reminded of what the leftist literary critic
Malcolm Cowley wrote in the 1930s about Stalin's victims. He was reviewing
Robert Vogeler's Prisoner of the NKVD and admitted that the work carried the
conviction of truth. But it was "the truth of the orchard sprayer as seen
through the eyes of the wolly aphis and codling moth."

Cockroaches, like aphae and moths, are fit for ... spraying. Whether
it be with Zyklon or some other substance is irrelevant so long as the job
gets
done.

Right?

"Bob Musicant" wrote:


Rolf,
A number of years ago, back around the time of the Gulf War, William F.
Buckley wrote an article dealing with this subject. He concluded, correctly
I think, that because of certain group histories, words that might be
considered neutral when applied to one group have quite a different meaning
when applied to another group. I think the way he put it was that you can
say things about Episcopalians that you just can't say about Jews. To
illustrate this with a personal example, I have a friend who was born in a
displaced persons camp (or D.P. setting) in Belgium shortly after the end of
WWII. He entered the US as an infant, and has spent his whole life in the
U.S. On occasion I would kid him about not being a real American, of just
being a "damn Belge" trying to pass. To the extent that there is any,
admittedly minimal, humor in this, it is that it is essentially impossible
in American culture to insult someone from Belgium on the basis of ancestry
or group identity. The same sort of "humor" directed towards an American
of Japanese ancestry would be another matter altogether, given the history
of the treatment of Japanese within the U.S. Thus, same words, very
different meaning. I don't think that it is mere political correctness that
should guide one's speech in this regard.

Now when David referred to a German as a "Nazi," he should have been aware
that it is quite a different matter to call a German a Nazi, than it would
be, for example, for an American of a liberal political orientation to call
a conservative American a "Nazi." In the latter case, it would be most
likely be understood as slightly overheated rhetoric in an effort to make a
point about political differences. In the case to which you refer, the
nature of the attack comes off as quite different, being more personal and
venomous, and suggestive of moral depravity. It could well be that David
meant it in that more poisonous, and I suspect it is that latter connotation
you picked up on when you responded as you did.


Please note that we are talking about the stamping as a Nazi ******* of a
German politician. The trick is that the lame excuse by the officials in that
particular forum already made use of that fact. You can name a politician all
kind of stuff but if you do that to a member of the forum then you are wrong by
definition.

That is where I begin my argument. And we are not talking about joking. This is
more serious.

The branding of a German politician who just criticised Israeli policies - as a
Nazi ******* lends your attention into the direction of the Holocaust. Hence a
German is forbidden to criticise Israeli policies. Also if it's about racism
and inhumanism against the Palestinian people.

Not in my books. I don't cue! I will always object to such short cuts. If
Israel wants to be taken for serious as a democracy then they must follow the
rules. Hence they are forbidden of any discrimination of their minorities.
Period.

All the other propagandistic lies, as for instance the continual twist of the
Palestinians as the Arabs, so that suddenly Israel becomes the minority that
claims compassion, have no chance in my books.

You know why?

I can explain. As a German who was born after the war and who was educated
against all kind of inhumanism and propaganda lies I simply can't tolerate or
accept that even the former victims or their children and grand children excuse
their own inhuman activities with their victim status. That doesn't work in my
books. I also do not accept the method of "Adam&Eve", where someone or a whole
nation claims superior rights, extra rights, just because of a timely advantage
in distant history. Even if Adam&Eve are the authentic parents and founders of
the concerned family.
I won't buy that trick!

B ecause. If I accepted such a twisted logic as logic, then I could also begin
to find all kind of excuses for the Nazis in my own country. You can't have it
both ways. For Germans you teach the general laws and for Israelis you claim
extra rights, sort of extra-terrestical laws. Not in my books. Yes, it might be
a prejudice! But it's the prejudice of the existence of a common law for all
mankind likewise. With no exceptions for a specific religion or race.








By the same token, because of history, as well as the fact that you are
German and the target of your remarks is an Israeli, your response to David
as a "lying Jewish *******" evokes in listeners quite a different sense of
what your meaning is than if you had addressed a poster from Oslo as a
"lying Norwegian *******." The latter sounds merely odd, at least to my
ears. So I don't think the criticism of you in that group was unfair.

Finally, I fail to understand how you could think your response to the
Israeli showed any sort of psychological sophisitication. Sounds like mere
name-calling to me.

Well, you know, that is the same debate we once had about the labelling of
Bobby Fischer. You might have a good knowledge through the publicly known codex
of psychiatric illnesses. But you have't studied osychiatry and medical science
basics. Diagnosing etc.

Omid David, the concerned Israeli is very young. He has some appearance of
needing some kind of omnipotence. He has a blind spot exactly where normally he
should reflect the possible mistakes in the Israeli position. Where I asked him
if Jews could also be wrong at certain occasions - I'm still waiting for his
answer!

You know what I mean?

Often it helps a lot if you attack such a person with his own means. Suddenly
it makes 'click' and he begins to smile, bingo, you've healed someone.

That works sometimes but not always. Then you have a new patient to deal with.
It's no longer about peanuts. Paranoia is lurking through the bathroom
window...

If a whole group insists, it might well be a phenomenon called mass hytery. Who
knows. That is a different topic however - -

Thanks for your effort and please don't interprete something into my words that
couldn't be intended due to my ignorance of the English idioms. Just read the
most naive possible version. I use my school English. In German I could have
used a vocabulary where Omid David - instead of feeling in sulted - would have
thanked me for the compliments. When in fact I just told him to **** off. So
far about language skills.

I for one found it always very impolite to outplay such higher skills against a
foreigner. Just a general remark, not that you did use such methods.

Rolf



Bob Musicant

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote:

Mr. Tuschen pointed out some "facts" which seemed to clearly indicate that
his target was both a liar and a propagandist, though no supportting evidence
was given of the third charge. In view of this, you think it is "fair" for
them to kill the messenger? Mr. Tueschen is automatically a Nazi because he
inserted the word "*******," in an attempt to equalize the negative
connotation
associated with the term "Nazi"? On the contrary, this action is evidence
that Mr. Tuschen felt the need to *insert* something nasty, to go along with
"Jewish" and "liar", in order to compensate.
A true Nazi would have felt that the term "Jewish" alone, was more than
sufficient -- trumping "liar" by a wide margin.


Did you forget that I just reacted on the term 'Nazi *******', because that was
it what Omid David had written about the late German politician Moellemann.

******* was the only expression I did not create for my reaction.

Rolf

Why are you addressing this to rec.games.chess.misc? Find some other forum.

"Rolf Tueschen" wrote in message
...
I want to know how you judge this.

In a private forum a Jewish chess programmer (Omid David) always writes
hate
propaganda pro Israel and against Arafat and his Palestinians. Nothing
wrong
with that IMO, what would you expect from an Israeli?

But his lies go so far that he for example calls a late German politician,
a
former Vice Chancellor of Germany, Juergen W. Moellemann from Muenster, a
"Nazi
*******"!

When I read it I couldn't believe my eyes. Moellemann well criticised the
policy of Sharon but he never was a whatever Nazi! Nor a Neo-Nazi. Nor an
anti-Semite.

So, when I read that Nazi-******* insult (Jewish Propaganda) I tried to
teach
the guy a lesson from psychology. I turned around the insult and directed
it
against himself.

I called Omid David, the brave Israeli, a Jewish ******* and because he
had
spread lies about an honest German politician, who is dead BTW, I added
the
adjective "lying", so that the whole expression was 'lying Jewish
*******'.

After this hell broke lose.

I was defamed as an Anti-Semite.

What do you, from the international community, think about the expression?
Is
it impossible to characterize a Jew who's lying as a lying *******? Just
because I am a German I should not be allowed to speak the truth? And if
someone speaks the truth about a Jewish liar, is he therefore an
Anti-Semite???

Not that i needed advice. I am old enough to know how to deal with a liar.
But
I would be interested in your opinion how you think about a German who
calls a
Jewish liar a 'lying Jewish *******'. Is it forbidden because of the
Holocaust?


Rolf

"Rolf Tueschen" wrote in message
...
earlier remarks by Bob Musicant snipped

Please note that we are talking about the stamping as a Nazi ******* of a
German politician. The trick is that the lame excuse by the officials in
that
particular forum already made use of that fact. You can name a politician
all
kind of stuff but if you do that to a member of the forum then you are
wrong by
definition.

That is where I begin my argument. And we are not talking about joking.
This is
more serious.

The branding of a German politician who just criticised Israeli policies -
as a
Nazi ******* lends your attention into the direction of the Holocaust.
Hence a
German is forbidden to criticise Israeli policies. Also if it's about
racism
and inhumanism against the Palestinian people.

Not in my books. I don't cue! I will always object to such short cuts. If
Israel wants to be taken for serious as a democracy then they must follow
the
rules. Hence they are forbidden of any discrimination of their minorities.
Period.

All the other propagandistic lies, as for instance the continual twist of
the
Palestinians as the Arabs, so that suddenly Israel becomes the minority
that
claims compassion, have no chance in my books.

You know why?

I can explain. As a German who was born after the war and who was educated
against all kind of inhumanism and propaganda lies I simply can't tolerate
or
accept that even the former victims or their children and grand children
excuse
their own inhuman activities with their victim status. That doesn't work
in my
books. I also do not accept the method of "Adam&Eve", where someone or a
whole
nation claims superior rights, extra rights, just because of a timely
advantage
in distant history. Even if Adam&Eve are the authentic parents and
founders of
the concerned family.
I won't buy that trick!

B ecause. If I accepted such a twisted logic as logic, then I could also
begin
to find all kind of excuses for the Nazis in my own country. You can't
have it
both ways. For Germans you teach the general laws and for Israelis you
claim
extra rights, sort of extra-terrestical laws. Not in my books. Yes, it
might be
a prejudice! But it's the prejudice of the existence of a common law for
all
mankind likewise. With no exceptions for a specific religion or race.

Well, you know, that is the same debate we once had about the labelling of
Bobby Fischer. You might have a good knowledge through the publicly known
codex
of psychiatric illnesses. But you have't studied osychiatry and medical
science
basics. Diagnosing etc.

Omid David, the concerned Israeli is very young. He has some appearance of
needing some kind of omnipotence. He has a blind spot exactly where
normally he
should reflect the possible mistakes in the Israeli position. Where I
asked him
if Jews could also be wrong at certain occasions - I'm still waiting for
his
answer!

You know what I mean?

Often it helps a lot if you attack such a person with his own means.
Suddenly
it makes 'click' and he begins to smile, bingo, you've healed someone.

That works sometimes but not always. Then you have a new patient to deal
with.
It's no longer about peanuts. Paranoia is lurking through the bathroom
window...

If a whole group insists, it might well be a phenomenon called mass
hytery. Who
knows. That is a different topic however - -

Thanks for your effort and please don't interprete something into my words
that
couldn't be intended due to my ignorance of the English idioms. Just read
the
most naive possible version. I use my school English. In German I could
have
used a vocabulary where Omid David - instead of feeling in sulted - would
have
thanked me for the compliments. When in fact I just told him to **** off.
So
far about language skills.

I for one found it always very impolite to outplay such higher skills
against a
foreigner. Just a general remark, not that you did use such methods.

Rolf

Rolf,

rec.games.chess.misc is an extraordinary place. A place where an educated,
middle-aged, European professional can tell an audience of similarly
educated people from around the world that he called a young Israeli a
"lying Jewish *******," ask for their opinions about his justification for
such an action, and receive at least some thoughtful responses.

I will get back to that in a moment, but first a few observations:

1. I think it was misleading on your part to describe Moellemann in your
first message as just an honest German politician who had simply been
critical of the policies of the Ariel Sharon government. I am also
critical, very much so, of Sharon and his policies, and I don't think I will
ever be called a "Nazi *******." You left out that Moellemann was under
investigation for corruption at the time of his suicide and that his remarks
were regarded by at least a portion of the German public as raising
questions about whether he had gone beyond mere criticism of a policy, into
the zone of outright anti-Semitism. Such questions about his true feelings
are a legitimate reaction to the form that his criticism of German
television host Michael Friedman took. (Saying that Friedman's "intolerant,
spiteful manner" encouraged anti-Semitism).

2. I did not mention it in my first reply to you, but like the forum
managers, I also think that there is a large difference between harsh
criticism of a public figure like Moellemann, dead or alive, in an internet
forum, and your personal attack on another member of the forum.
Particularly so when the politician in question was one who made it a point
of pride to be "controversial" and flamboyant. I am keeping in mind the
possibility that David's comments could have been understood as slanderous
of the German people as a whole, a fact that you could find personally
offensive, and I would have no problem if you had confined your response to
pointing that out to David by appropriate means.

3. More serious questions about your motives and the possibility of your
having some unspoken agenda arise when you steer the discussion (in your
response to Larry Parr in this thread) around to the history of the
Holocaust and your belief that the death of European Jews in concentration
camps was simply a side effect of a policy of industrial exploitation, akin
to the practice of modern American companies of exploiting cheap labor by
permitting unhealthy conditions to exist in their Asian factories. (For
purposes of clarity, I am quoting the relevant passage from your message to
Larry at the bottom of this message). This is nothing but a restatement of
the thesis of David Irving. (A good account of the discrediting of this
English "historian" will be found in the book "Lying About Hitler: History,
Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, by Richard J. Evans").

4. You have on a number of occasions tried to present your personal views
and remarks as being the product of a professional psychological background.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, you have said in this forum convinces me that
you have made any use of your education other than as a prop by which you
justify your own prejudices and idiosyncrasies. In my own work as an
attorney who specializes in cases involving medical issues, as well as in my
personal life in which I have been acquainted with large numbers of persons
involved in the work of psychotherapy, I have encountered a fair number of
professional therapists who manage to remain ignorant of fairly fundamental
principles despite their education and experience. I would have to count
you as being a member of that group. Why are you asking this group what it
thinks of your use of the term "lying Jewish *******" as part of an effort
to "educate" a young man? Why don't you make it the subject of a paper at a
professional gathering? Do you expect us to believe that fellow
psychologists would nod their heads in agreement and say, "Of course, a very
sensible thing Dr. Tueschen did, pefectly understandable, and beneficial to
Mr. David, besides." ?

Getting back to what an extraordinary place rgcm is, and the kind of
response its members give to a psychologist who thinks he will teach
something to another person by calling him a "lying Jewish *******," the
correct response from the outset should have been that the speaker is at
best a fool (Dummkopf), and more likely, a mean, spiteful person who tries
to cover his anger and hatred with pseudo-intellectual blather (Geplapper).

Bob Musicant

Rolf Tueschen, in a message to Larry Parr, wrote:
"Something comparable, excuse me, this will be discussed only after some
further 30 years of silence, to many practices worldwide, where people die
too early because of unhealthy conditions of their work. Even most famous
companies, from the USA included, make use of children's work, mostly in
Asia, where they work under unhealthy conditions. No protection against
chemical pollution etc.

"It was a war in Central Europe. And likewise the war against Poland, the
Ukraine and the whole Soviet Union was inhuman and racistic, the whole
ideology of the "Untermensch" [= subhuman ] included, the murderous
liquidation of the Jews in an industrial process with work at low costs and
maximal exploitation was inhuman and racistic too.

"The exploitation was the most important factor - NOT the killing! But the
avoiding of death certainly wasn't priority number one in the heads of the
leading Nazis."

On 06 Nov 2003 18:54:57 GMT, (Rolf Tueschen)
wrote:

I want to know how you judge this.

I judge that you are seriously misrepresenting the character of
Moellemann. What is much worse - dishonest, in fact - is that you have
not made clear why he is being called a Nazi.

Rather than summarizing these omissions I suggest that you do so.

You cannot expect the readers of this forum to know much about a minor
German politician such as Moellemann; you cannot expect them to know
that his death occurred the day before the police were scheduled to
search his offices; etc. ect.

If you ask people to "judge", let them know the whole story.

Jürgen


In a private forum a Jewish chess programmer (Omid David) always writes hate
propaganda pro Israel and against Arafat and his Palestinians. Nothing wrong
with that IMO, what would you expect from an Israeli?

But his lies go so far that he for example calls a late German politician, a
former Vice Chancellor of Germany, Juergen W. Moellemann from Muenster, a "Nazi
*******"!

When I read it I couldn't believe my eyes. Moellemann well criticised the
policy of Sharon but he never was a whatever Nazi! Nor a Neo-Nazi. Nor an
anti-Semite.

So, when I read that Nazi-******* insult (Jewish Propaganda) I tried to teach
the guy a lesson from psychology. I turned around the insult and directed it
against himself.

I called Omid David, the brave Israeli, a Jewish ******* and because he had
spread lies about an honest German politician, who is dead BTW, I added the
adjective "lying", so that the whole expression was 'lying Jewish *******'.

After this hell broke lose.

I was defamed as an Anti-Semite.

What do you, from the international community, think about the expression? Is
it impossible to characterize a Jew who's lying as a lying *******? Just
because I am a German I should not be allowed to speak the truth? And if
someone speaks the truth about a Jewish liar, is he therefore an Anti-Semite???

Not that i needed advice. I am old enough to know how to deal with a liar. But
I would be interested in your opinion how you think about a German who calls a
Jewish liar a 'lying Jewish *******'. Is it forbidden because of the Holocaust?


Rolf

"Bob Musicant" wrote:

Rolf,

rec.games.chess.misc is an extraordinary place. A place where an educated,
middle-aged, European professional can tell an audience of similarly
educated people from around the world that he called a young Israeli

No no no. If he was just a young Israeli, he had been of no interest to me. The
truth is, Omid David is a young computerchess expert, he will participate in
the Wch right in the end of November (Graz in Austria). If such a man calls a
German politician a Nazi ******* this is of special interest for me. So please,
if you collect all sorts of data from the many messages in this thread then
please take them all and don't forget exactly those who would oppose your view.



a
"lying Jewish *******," ask for their opinions about his justification for
such an action, and receive at least some thoughtful responses.

Also that was NOT the question at all. The true question was if the response on
that malicious 'Nazi *******' insult, namely the expression 'lying Jewish
*******' was a good reaction or something worse or even evil when it came from
a German. I thnk you don't like that question as a topic and therefore you put
more attention on other interesting side topics. But no matter what you did, I
find all the topics very interesting to discuss.




I will get back to that in a moment, but first a few observations:

1. I think it was misleading on your part to describe Moellemann in your
first message as just an honest German politician who had simply been
critical of the policies of the Ariel Sharon government.

There you go with your first lie. If you search with care you will find where I
have written that "B) he was not innocent like a new born baby" or such
similar. Moellemann - like all politicians - had some weak points. But I don't
see what these points should have to do with our debate here. And you also fail
to make it clearer.



I am also
critical, very much so, of Sharon and his policies, and I don't think I will
ever be called a "Nazi *******." You left out that Moellemann was under
investigation for corruption at the time of his suicide and that his remarks
were regarded by at least a portion of the German public as raising
questions about whether he had gone beyond mere criticism of a policy, into
the zone of outright anti-Semitism.


Have you smoked something forbidden tonight, or what is the reason for your
fantasies? I left out that Moellemann should have been involved in corruption
before his suicide? What are you talking about? Suicide? Who told you that? Is
it proven? And you want to be an attorney? Hehehe. Give me break. Since when
lawyers take fantasies for facts? Really a funny man you are. Excuse me, but
this becomes disgusting.

That is the same malicious method of this Omid David and now you from the
distance, perhaps with internet data here copied there pasted. What a hoax!

But let's read how you will substatiate your theory of Moellemann's
anti-semitism.


Such questions about his true feelings
are a legitimate reaction to the form that his criticism of German
television host Michael Friedman took. (Saying that Friedman's "intolerant,
spiteful manner" encouraged anti-Semitism).

Hehehe. You are now in defense of Friedman? Hehe. A Jew in the highest Jewish
institution called Council in Germany, who was just convicted by a Court for
possession of cocaine, who had contact to the Ukrainian pimp organization who's
actually in court trial - because Friedman had ordered prostitutes from? You
are defending this guy? That he does NOT encourage Anti-Semitism? You bet! He's
the prototype of someone who is certainly not favorable for any cause.

That is interesting for me. You claim that you criticise Sharon and nobody ever
called you Anti-Semite. But how come? Amir Ban another computerchess expert and
Wch claims that the critic against Sharon is the veiled trick of Anti-Semites.
Or are you personally a Jewby chance? Then of course you can't be an
Anti-Semite? Tell me, what's the trick here? Something doesn't sound kosher
IMO.


BTW could you elaborate why corruption, if it could be proven, note it hasn't
been proven yet, only you are fantasising as if it was, why corruption could be
speaking for Anti-Semitism?

BTW could you further explain why a suicide, if it was a suicide, but it was
said that this never could be proven, only you as a lawyer, you seem to know
that it was a suicide, how a suicide could speak for Anti-Semitism?

BTW could you further explain why the opposition to the cocaine man Friedman
could speak for Anti-Semitism???

Three BTWs and perhaps no answer from your side? That could be fatal?

A forth one?

C'mon!

Why in hell all these aspects justify calling Moellemann a Nazi *******? Could
you please elaborate, attorney?




2. I did not mention it in my first reply to you, but like the forum
managers, I also think that there is a large difference between harsh
criticism of a public figure like Moellemann, dead or alive, in an internet
forum, and your personal attack on another member of the forum.
Particularly so when the politician in question was one who made it a point
of pride to be "controversial" and flamboyant.

Hehe. Excuse me. You confuse a bit your data, methinks, attorney!

It was not Moellemann but Friedmann who is proud of his controversial style.
Excuse me, but the truth should be protected a little bit IMO.


I am keeping in mind the
possibility that David's comments could have been understood as slanderous
of the German people as a whole, a fact that you could find personally
offensive, and I would have no problem if you had confined your response to
pointing that out to David by appropriate means.


Nazi ******* was NOT a malicious insult to a German? And it is excused because
Moellemann was a bit corrupt, commited suicide and had attacked the cocaine man
Friedman??? Attorney, please, could you please clarify?




3. More serious questions about your motives and the possibility of your
having some unspoken agenda

Uhm, this is becoming nasty methinks.
But I won't talk with you about my message to Larry Parr if you allow. This
would be double talking since I want to concentrate myself on the important
points. You have none methinks. So you must take some from my messages to Parr.
What a lame strategy.


arise when you steer the discussion (in your
response to Larry Parr in this thread) around to the history of the
Holocaust and your belief that the death of European Jews in concentration
camps was simply a side effect of a policy of industrial exploitation, akin
to the practice of modern American companies of exploiting cheap labor by
permitting unhealthy conditions to exist in their Asian factories. (For
purposes of clarity, I am quoting the relevant passage from your message to
Larry at the bottom of this message). This is nothing but a restatement of
the thesis of David Irving. (A good account of the discrediting of this
English "historian" will be found in the book "Lying About Hitler: History,
Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, by Richard J. Evans").


And you want to insinuate that the case of Irving did exactly prove what? Do
you want to play games here? Confusing the people about what the court case
meant? What the hell has Irving to do with Omid Davids insult against
Moellemann, dear attorney???



4. You have on a number of occasions tried to present your personal views
and remarks as being the product of a professional psychological background.

Yes, and I am proud of having opposed your psychiatric nonsense diagnosing of
Bobby Fischer.


Nothing, absolutely nothing, you have said in this forum convinces me that
you have made any use of your education other than as a prop by which you
justify your own prejudices and idiosyncrasies. In my own work as an
attorney who specializes in cases involving medical issues, as well as in my
personal life in which I have been acquainted with large numbers of persons
involved in the work of psychotherapy, I have encountered a fair number of
professional therapists who manage to remain ignorant of fairly fundamental
principles despite their education and experience. I would have to count
you as being a member of that group. Why are you asking this group what it
thinks of your use of the term "lying Jewish *******" as part of an effort
to "educate" a young man?


Did I ask that question, attorney? Hehe. Not in my books. You are fantasising,
attorney.


Why don't you make it the subject of a paper at a
professional gathering? Do you expect us to believe that fellow
psychologists would nod their heads in agreement and say, "Of course, a very
sensible thing Dr. Tueschen did, pefectly understandable, and beneficial to
Mr. David, besides." ?

Watch your blood pressure, attorney. Afterwards I am responsible for your
problems.



Getting back to what an extraordinary place rgcm is, and the kind of
response its members give to a psychologist who thinks he will teach
something to another person by calling him a "lying Jewish *******," the
correct response from the outset should have been that the speaker is at
best a fool (Dummkopf), and more likely, a mean, spiteful person who tries
to cover his anger and hatred with pseudo-intellectual blather (Geplapper).

The question is also what Mr. Attorney Musicante is hiding? A hatred against
Bobby Fischer? [To those of the readers who are new here, please search in
Google about Musicant and Bobby Fischer, A reveiling event will open.]


Bob Musicant

Rolf Tueschen, in a message to Larry Parr, wrote:
"Something comparable, excuse me, this will be discussed only after some
further 30 years of silence, to many practices worldwide, where people die
too early because of unhealthy conditions of their work. Even most famous
companies, from the USA included, make use of children's work, mostly in
Asia, where they work under unhealthy conditions. No protection against
chemical pollution etc.

"It was a war in Central Europe. And likewise the war against Poland, the
Ukraine and the whole Soviet Union was inhuman and racistic, the whole
ideology of the "Untermensch" [= subhuman ] included, the murderous
liquidation of the Jews in an industrial process with work at low costs and
maximal exploitation was inhuman and racistic too.

"The exploitation was the most important factor - NOT the killing! But the
avoiding of death certainly wasn't priority number one in the heads of the
leading Nazis."

He the attorney snipped the most important part of the quote where I added that
for this reason because of their murderous intentions these nazis were
condemned to death by hanging in the Nuremberg trials.

Now we have seen what your true motives are, attorney. You are a crook, nothing
else.
You want to make a case where is none.

Let's see if you can answer the three or four open questions, you had
prematurely answered already. Why it is allowed to call Moellemann the late
german politician a nazi *******? Your chance now to rehabilitate your bad
status as a crook, attorney.

Rolf