Date: 14 Apr 1999 00:56:00 +0200
From: I-AFD_2-AT-anarch.free.de (Nico MYOWNA)
Subject: Re: US-information warfare & KLA



Hi all,

I have wrote in answering roger:
>
> > You cannot compare the Holocaust with this ethinic cleansing by Serbs. I'm
> > going in this question with Milton Friedmann: this horrific ethnic clean-
> > sing isn't a *industrial annihilation* of millions of victims.

And Carp wrote:
>
> Well, yes, nico, we're not at the industrial annihilation point yet.  But
> you could easily say we are at the mass relocation point, which came a
> bit earlier than when the ovens really opened up.

Many jews here in Germany make a diffrent between the horrific Holocaust  
between 1933 and 1945 and other forms of genocide or the word "holocaust".
>
> What bothers me about Friedman and Company with this latest blitz of "this
> is not the holocaust" claptrap is it is very evident that it is the
> fascist Israeli/neo-liberal Jewish community who are making the argument;

Friedmann is a left publicist and living in Germany. Excuse me, but how  
could you think that neo-liberal or left jews have necesary to do with the  
"fascist" jewish community of Israel?

There are a few jews in Europe who condemn the state of Israel and the  
politic of the inheritors of the fascist faction inside the zionist move-  
ment.

> I didn't know we'd put Friedman in charge of definitions, nor did I
> realize there was some exclusivity in using the wird "holocaust;" that it
> had to meet defintions supplied by Israel.  My guess is as long as the
> term is being applied to people of the muslim faith, few in the Jewish
> commumity will ever allow a comparison to the holocaust.

Okay, but Friedmann's words on the "Konkret" (a left publication in Ger- 
many) panel discussion wasn't a definition of the term 'Holocaust'. It was  
a direct historical comparison between the serbian state, the ethnic clean- 
sing and the 3. Reich and the industrial annihilation of milliones of vic-  
tims.
>
> Hmmm.  Then Kampuchea and Pol Pot's actions weren't genocide either,
> because instead of "industrial" techiques the Khmer Rouge used
> +agricultural+ techniques.

Only, if you use the term "holocaust" similar to the term "genocide". I  
think, that your example show that every historical situation is in fact  
unique and that therefore every genocide is diffrent from other former  
genocides.
>
> > Human rights are indivisible.
>
> "Human rights" exist only in storybooks.  "Human rights" are whatever the
> states say they are, and absent the state they are whatever the guy with
> the biggest guns say.

Where have you been in the last 350 years of fights and revolts for demo- 
cracy and human rights? If the state leaders acept today a little the  
"Human rights" and try to give reason for their war of aggression with  
their fight for "Human rights" than make this plain the aims and triumphs  
of our ancestors who fight for this "Human rights" and the intellectual  
emanzipation of the people behind to be no longer only subjekt to the  
state.

Many left, democratic and revolutionary movements around the world fight  
with, under reference to and with a claim for "Human rights". And no po- 
litical refugee could have a chance to leave a country with a "Worldpass-  
port", who based on "Human rights" only, if the "Human rights" exist in  
storybooks only. These is part of an intellectual evolution and could be a  
base for our agitation for anarchy.

The absent of state doesn't mean that "Human rights" or human dignity are  
whatever the guy with the biggest guns say. Your statement seems to show  
that you doesn't beliefe that anarchy is possible and that you beliefe,  
that the man is other man's wulf.

Nico

## CrossPoint v3.11 ##