Kristallnacht: When America Failed the Jews

On November 11, 1938, a front-page story appeared in The New York Times. It read: “A wave of destruction, looting, and incendiarism unparalleled in Germany since the Thirty Years War and in Europe generally since the Bolshevist Revolution swept over Great Germany today as National Socialist cohorts took vengeance on Jewish shops, offices and synagogues for the murder by a young Polish Jew of Ernst vom Rath, third secretary of the German Embassy in Paris.”

Another Times story was headlined, “All Vienna’s Synagogues Attacked.”

These stories refer to Kristallnacht, the rampant violence on November 9-10, 1938, when Nazi storm troopers throughout Germany and Austria ransacked Jewish homes; broke the windows of Jewish-owned stores and looted their merchandise; set fire to synagogues; randomly attacked Jewish men, women and children; and arrested thousands of men.

When the violence ended, at least 96 Jews were dead, 1,300 synagogues and 7,500 businesses were destroyed, and countless Jewish cemeteries and schools were vandalized. A total of 30,000 Jews were sent to concentration camps. The broken glass strewn through the streets from the mayhem led the pogrom to be called “Crystal Night”– or Kristallnacht.

The initial reaction of the White House was to refer questions to the State Department. After five days of public outrage, Franklin Roosevelt recalled the US ambassador from Germany and held a press conference in which he proclaimed: “The news of the past few days from Germany has deeply shocked public opinion in the U.S. Such news from any part of the world would inevitably produce a similar profound reaction among American people in every part of the nation. I myself could scarcely believe that such things could happen in a 20th century civilization.”

The president agreed to allow 15,000 German Jews who were already in the United States to remain, but he resisted calls to increase the overall quota of immigrants allowed to come from the Nazi-occupied countries. He could have saved tens of thousands of Jews over the course of the next seven years if he had pushed for an increase in the quota, or given Jews special exemptions — as he did when he sent a list of 200 names to the State Department with instructions that they be given emergency visas.

Even American Jews found it difficult to return to the United States. State Department officials did not believe the US government had any obligation to protect citizens who chose to live abroad. “Their real status,” Assistant Secretary of State George Messersmith wrote on November 25, 1939, “does not differ very much from that of the many thousands of unfortunate persons deserving of our sympathy, and having no claim to American citizenship, who would desire to come to this country in order to escape from danger zones…”

Neither Roosevelt nor other world leaders could pretend they did not know that the Jews of Europe were in peril after Kristallnacht. But had there been any doubt, it should have been erased on January 21, 1939, when Hitler told the Czech foreign minister, “We are going to destroy the Jews.” Nine days later he spoke of “the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe.”

Roosevelt’s failure to take any action against Germany, or to mobilize an international coalition to challenge Hitler, sent the message that the world would not intervene to save the Jews. This reinforced Hitler’s conviction that Jews were sub-human and could be exterminated without fear of opposition or retribution.

One survey found that 94 percent of the American public disapproved of the Nazi treatment of Jews, but 72 percent opposed admitting a large number of German Jews to the United States. In the xenophobic and antisemitic climate of the time, Roosevelt was not willing to buck public opinion. He would not even bend to save Jewish children whose parents were prepared to send them away in the hope of saving their lives.

Legislation was introduced in Congress that would have permitted 20,000 Jewish children to enter the United States on an emergency basis. Roosevelt sided with the two-thirds of the American public that opposed the legislation, and it died in the Senate in 1939, after opponents argued that the Jewish children would flood orphanages; that it wasn’t fair to help foreign children at the expense of American ones; that Nazi or Communist children might slip in; that a precedent would be set for making exceptions to quotas for other countries; and that this would open the door to demands later that the parents be admitted as well.

Apologists for Roosevelt rationalize his failure to save European Jewry by arguing that America needed to focus all of its resources on the war effort, and that defeating the Nazis was the only way to save the Jews. In 1938-39, however, the war had not yet begun and there was no excuse for failing to rescue Jews.

Today, antisemitism is surging in many parts of the world and the mullahs in Iran and terrorists in Lebanon and Gaza issue genocidal threats against the Jewish people. Based on historical experience, Jews should be excused if they wonder whether they can count on the US government to act in their defense.

Mitchell Bard is author of “48 Hours of Kristallnacht: Night of Destruction/Dawn of the Holocaust — An Oral History” and “Forgotten Victims: The Abandonment of Americans in Hitler’s Camps.”

https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/11/09/kristallnacht-when-america-failed-the-jews/

NYT wrote:Roosevelt’s failure to take any action against Germany, or to mobilize an international coalition to challenge Hitler, sent the message that the world would not intervene to save the Jews. This reinforced Hitler’s conviction that Jews were sub-human and could be exterminated without fear of opposition or retribution.

Unfortunately, it was not Roosevelt's decision.  I don't know why Europeans have such a hard time comprehending this, but policy is initiated by Congress under Article I of the US Constitution.  Only Congress can start a war, as evidenced by Roosevelt going to Congress even after Pearl Harbor.

In the case of intervention in Europe, Roosevelt was faced with four successive 'Neutrality Acts' passed by Congress, specifically prohibiting the US from entering Europe's war.  Either you have a rule of law, or you do not.

Original Quill wrote:

NYT wrote:Roosevelt’s failure to take any action against Germany, or to mobilize an international coalition to challenge Hitler, sent the message that the world would not intervene to save the Jews. This reinforced Hitler’s conviction that Jews were sub-human and could be exterminated without fear of opposition or retribution.

Unfortunately, it was not Roosevelt's decision.  I don't know why Europeans have such are hard time realizing this, but policy is initiated by Congress.  Only Congress can start a war, as evidenced by Roosevelt going to Congress even after Pearl Harbor.

In the case of intervention in Europe, Roosevelt was faced with four successive 'Neutrality Acts' passed by Congress, specifically prohibiting the US from entering Europe's war.  Either you have a rule of law, or you do not.

This was not about starting a war Quill.

It was about saving lives and allowing Jews entry and a haven from persecution.

The buck stops with Roosevelt and congress. They knew what was going on and even worse resticted the number of Jews that could seek sanctuary in the US.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Unfortunately, it was not Roosevelt's decision.  I don't know why Europeans have such are hard time realizing this, but policy is initiated by Congress.  Only Congress can start a war, as evidenced by Roosevelt going to Congress even after Pearl Harbor.

In the case of intervention in Europe, Roosevelt was faced with four successive 'Neutrality Acts' passed by Congress, specifically prohibiting the US from entering Europe's war.  Either you have a rule of law, or you do not.

This was not about starting a war Quill.

It was about saving lives and allowing Jews entry and a haven from persecution.

The buck stops with Roosevelt and congress. They knew what was going on and even worse resticted the number of Jews that could seek sanctuary in the US.

Congress, yes. Roosevelt, no. They certainly knew what was going on. The anti-war contingent in Congress was adamant: No participation in Europe's war. Single out the Congressmen and Senators if you want; but Roosevelt was blameless.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

This was not about starting a war Quill.

It was about saving lives and allowing Jews entry and a haven from persecution.

The buck stops with Roosevelt and congress. They knew what was going on and even worse resticted the number of Jews that could seek sanctuary in the US.

Congress, yes.  Roosevelt, no.  They certainly knew what was going on.  The anti-war contingent in Congress was adamant: No participation in Europe's war.  Single out the Congressmen and Senators if you want; but Roosevelt was blameless.

You are deflecting from the main point here.
They voted against Jewish children being allowed a safe haven in the US.
There was no war at this time.
The buck stops with Roosevelt, just as it does with the British with their White Paper of 1939, which restricted Jews entering the British Mandate for Palestine.
Put it this way, imagine how many more Jews would have died, if the British had placed control of the Mandate for Palestine, in the hands of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Congress, yes.  Roosevelt, no.  They certainly knew what was going on.  The anti-war contingent in Congress was adamant: No participation in Europe's war.  Single out the Congressmen and Senators if you want; but Roosevelt was blameless.

You are deflecting from the main point here.
They voted against Jewish children being allowed a safe haven in the US.
There was no war at this time.
The buck stops with Roosevelt, just as it does with the British with their White Paper of 1939, which restricted Jews entering the British Mandate for Palestine.
Put it this way, imagine how many more Jews would have died, if the British had placed control of the Mandate for Palestine, in the hands of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time?

It was the law...four Neutrality Acts.  It still is a Constitutional mandate that Congress decides everything.  Policy begins with Congress.  There was nothing that Roosevelt could do.

If you want more evidence, look at President Trump and his inability to get any legislation passed.  Healthcare?  Tax cuts?  Nada!  It all goes on in Congress. There's no exception to do with war.

Again, if you want to single out Congressmen and Senators who backed the four Neutrality Acts, be my guest.  But Roosevelt was blameless.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

You are deflecting from the main point here.
They voted against Jewish children being allowed a safe haven in the US.
There was no war at this time.
The buck stops with Roosevelt, just as it does with the British with their White Paper of 1939, which restricted Jews entering the British Mandate for Palestine.
Put it this way, imagine how many more Jews would have died, if the British had placed control of the Mandate for Palestine, in the hands of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time?

It was the law...four Neutrality Acts.  It still is a Constitutional mandate that Congress decides everything.  Policy begins with Congress.  There was nothing that Roosevelt could do.

If you want more evidence, look at President Trump and his inability to get any legislation passed.  Healthcare?  Tax cuts?  Nada!  It all goes on in Congress.  There's no exception to do with war.

Again, if you want to single out Congressmen and Senators who backed the four Neutrality Acts, be my guest.  But Roosevelt was blameless.

You are still making apologist excuses Quill.

Lets put it this way

Imagine their was a bill to deny any refugee, espcially if they were Muslim, from Syria?

Would you defend Congress and Trump over this knowing full well Syrianss, Yazidi's, Druze etc were being murdered, enslaved and raped?

Is there not actually one such process at the moment?

Would you claim Trump as being blameless?

I mean lets leap forward a couple of years Quill and show you how exactly its no different today, how FDR was in comparrison to Trump on the plight of refugees?

In a long tradition of “persecuting the refugee,” the State.

Department and FDR claimed that Jewish immigrants could threaten national security

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/#lmYYBEGZDhBd6MHc.99

The reailty is that the Jews were not a threat and yet we see the same arguments being used, as they once were used in history.

Hence you have no argument to defend FDR, without then defending Trump. By extension of poor reasoning.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It was the law...four Neutrality Acts.  It still is a Constitutional mandate that Congress decides everything.  Policy begins with Congress.  There was nothing that Roosevelt could do.

If you want more evidence, look at President Trump and his inability to get any legislation passed.  Healthcare?  Tax cuts?  Nada!  It all goes on in Congress.  There's no exception to do with war.

Again, if you want to single out Congressmen and Senators who backed the four Neutrality Acts, be my guest.  But Roosevelt was blameless.

You are still making apologist excuses Quill.

Lets put it this way

Imagine their was a bill to deny any refugee, espcially if they were Muslim, from Syria?

Would you defend Congress and Trump over this knowing full well Syrianss, Yazidi's, Druze etc were being murdered, enslaved and raped?

Is there not actually one at the moment?

Would you claim Trump as being blameless?

But it's not about what I want, either. I'm just explaining the facts.

I don't think Brits really understand constitutions, having no written instrument themselves. A constitution is a foundational document, not a legislative instrument. When a court finds a law or bill unconstitutional, it is saying, not that the law is wrong, but that it is without authority. It doesn't fit within the power of government to do such.

Now, in the 1930's, not only was Roosevelt without authority to start a war, or even mobilize troops, but the proper authority--Congress--had passed four laws prohibiting him from doing such. It was a double-whammy. He had no power; and they had exercised the true power against him.

BTW...welcome back.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

You are still making apologist excuses Quill.

Lets put it this way

Imagine their was a bill to deny any refugee, espcially if they were Muslim, from Syria?

Would you defend Congress and Trump over this knowing full well Syrianss, Yazidi's, Druze etc were being murdered, enslaved and raped?

Is there not actually one at the moment?

Would you claim Trump as being blameless?

But it's not about what I want, either.  I'm just explaining the facts.

I don't think Brits really understand constitutions, having no written instrument themselves.  A constitution is a  foundational document, not a legislative instrument.  When a court finds a law or bill unconstitutional, it is saying, not that the law is wrong, but that it is without authority.  It doesn't fit within the power of government to do such.

Now, in the 1930's, not only was Roosevelt without authority to start a war, or even mobilize troops, but the proper authority--Congress--had passed four laws prohibiting him from doing such.  It was a double-whammy.  He had no power; and they had exercised the true power against him.

BTW...welcome back.

Thanks for the wlecome back, but you are being as defensive as smelly would be on Trumps view to deny Muslim refugees

I suggest you have a read

I mean lets leap forward a couple of years Quill and show you how exactly its no different today, how FDR was in comparrison to Trump on the plight of refugees?

In a long tradition of “persecuting the refugee,” the State.

Department and FDR claimed that Jewish immigrants could threaten national security

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/#lmYYBEGZDhBd6MHc.99

The reailty is that the Jews were not a threat and yet we see the same arguments being used, as they once were used in history.

Hence you have no argument to defend FDR, without then defending Trump. By extension of poor reasoning.

It wasn’t just America though was it? Britain didn’t change their quota either.

Cass wrote:It wasn’t just America though was it? Britain didn’t change their quota either.

I already mentioned that Cass, with the advent of the British White Paper of 1939.

What i am showing is that the US has not learnt from history clearly. In how now Muslims refugees and even Christians, Druze, Yazidi's etc, if they come from war torn nations like Syria.

I mean I already know this event in history, but read how similar the views were back then in how a fear was used to deny Jews sanctuary within the US.

History is simple repeating itself all over again and there is no excuse for Roosevelt here.

Do not get me wrong, again Domestically he was a great President in pulling out the US out of the Great Depression. Though foreign policy wise, he appeased Stalin, which led to the Cold War.

Didge wrote:I mean lets leap forward a couple of years Quill and show you how exactly its no different today, how FDR was in comparrison to Trump on the plight of refugees?

In a long tradition of “persecuting the refugee,” the State.

Department and FDR claimed that Jewish immigrants could threaten national security

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/#lmYYBEGZDhBd6MHc.99

The reailty is that the Jews were not a threat and yet we see the same arguments being used, as they once were used in history.

Hence you have no argument to defend FDR, without then defending Trump. By extension of poor reasoning.

Trump has a different problem. He is trying to initiate a legal action to prohibit a religion. That is a violation of the First Amendment, prohibiting infringement of religion...any religion.

Roosevelt's problem didn't involve religion, as the Neutrality Acts were not intentionally aimed at religion. They were aimed at staying out of Europe's war, and didn't delve into what issues were at stake in that war. Congress was simply saying, No War!

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I mean lets leap forward a couple of years Quill and show you how exactly its no different today, how FDR was in comparrison to Trump on the plight of refugees?



The reailty is that the Jews were not a threat and yet we see the same arguments being used, as they once were used in history.

Hence you have no argument to defend FDR, without then defending Trump. By extension of poor reasoning.

Trump has a different problem.  He is trying to initiate a legal action to prohibit a religion.  That is a violation of the First Amendment, prohibiting infringement of religion...any religion.

Roosevelt's problem didn't involve religion, as the Neutrality Acts were not intentionally aimed at religion.  They were aimed at staying out of Europe's war, and didn't delve into what issues were at stake in that war.  Congress was simply saying, No War!

This is what really disappoints me Quill..

I see no difference to the fear used back then to now, to deny people sanctuary

I am not even talking about religion, but he perceived a view, based off one single case of spying, that Jews were a threat to the national security of the US. It was not just Jews, but how the US interned Japanese US citizens.

I mean the link I just gave you shows that the US was already involved in the war, so your argument falls flat.

There is no defense here and you have to condemn the actions of Roosevelt and his governement at the time, for their actions.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But it's not about what I want, either.  I'm just explaining the facts.

I don't think Brits really understand constitutions, having no written instrument themselves.  A constitution is a  foundational document, not a legislative instrument.  When a court finds a law or bill unconstitutional, it is saying, not that the law is wrong, but that it is without authority.  It doesn't fit within the power of government to do such.

Now, in the 1930's, not only was Roosevelt without authority to start a war, or even mobilize troops, but the proper authority--Congress--had passed four laws prohibiting him from doing such.  It was a double-whammy.  He had no power; and they had exercised the true power against him.

BTW...welcome back.

Thanks for the wlecome back, but you are being as defensive as smelly would be on Trumps view to deny Muslim refugees

I suggest you have a read

I mean lets leap forward a couple of years Quill and show you how exactly its no different today, how FDR was in comparrison to Trump on the plight of refugees?

In a long tradition of “persecuting the refugee,” the State.

Department and FDR claimed that Jewish immigrants could threaten national security

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/#lmYYBEGZDhBd6MHc.99

The reailty is that the Jews were not a threat and yet we see the same arguments being used, as they once were used in history.

Hence you have no argument to defend FDR, without then defending Trump. By extension of poor reasoning.

Are we talking about merely turning away refugees? I thought we were talking about taking military steps against the Nazis.

I don't know if the Neutrality Acts were the basis of preventing refugees entering the US. I'm only defending Roosevelt's military inaction in Europe.

Didge wrote:

Cass wrote:It wasn’t just America though was it? Britain didn’t change their quota either.

I already mentioned that Cass, with the advent of the British White Paper of 1939.

What i am showing is that the US has not learnt from history clearly. In how now Muslims refugees and even Christians, Druze, Yazidi's etc, if they come from war torn nations like Syria.

I mean I already know this event in history, but read how similar the views were back then in how a fear was used to deny Jews sanctuary within the US.

History is simple repeating itself all over again and there is no excuse for Roosevelt here.

Do not get me wrong, again Domestically he was a great President in pulling out the US out of the Great Depression. Though foreign policy wise, he appeased Stalin, which led to the Cold War.

Sorry just got back from the flicks (see my review).

Of course history is repeating itself. It always has done since the beginning of human existence. There has always been a Us vs Them mindset. It’s about control and power (hence religion) but ultimately it’s about survival.

Certain segments of society here in the US can’t tell anyone apart unless they’re white. It’s the fear factor like you say. Jolly good news about Faux Noise being cancelled in the UK though. If only we were so lucky.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Thanks for the wlecome back, but you are being as defensive as smelly would be on Trumps view to deny Muslim refugees

I suggest you have a read

I mean lets leap forward a couple of years Quill and show you how exactly its no different today, how FDR was in comparrison to Trump on the plight of refugees?



The reailty is that the Jews were not a threat and yet we see the same arguments being used, as they once were used in history.

Hence you have no argument to defend FDR, without then defending Trump. By extension of poor reasoning.

Are we talking about merely turning away refugees?  I thought we were talking about taking military steps against the Nazis.

I don't know if the Neutrality Acts were the basis of preventing refugees entering the US.  I'm only defending Roosevelt's military inaction in Europe.

Where at any point did I mention military action?

If you want to talk about his Military action in Europe, it was poor also.

He signed over Poland to the Soviets, to appease Stalin.

Now back to the point at hand.

If you read the article, there is little difference today in how refugees were denied acces, based on a fear that some could be a threat to national security.

Its history repeating itself all over again.

Cass wrote:

Didge wrote:

I already mentioned that Cass, with the advent of the British White Paper of 1939.

What i am showing is that the US has not learnt from history clearly. In how now Muslims refugees and even Christians, Druze, Yazidi's etc, if they come from war torn nations like Syria.

I mean I already know this event in history, but read how similar the views were back then in how a fear was used to deny Jews sanctuary within the US.

History is simple repeating itself all over again and there is no excuse for Roosevelt here.

Do not get me wrong, again Domestically he was a great President in pulling out the US out of the Great Depression. Though foreign policy wise, he appeased Stalin, which led to the Cold War.

Sorry just got back from the flicks (see my review).

Of course history is repeating itself. It always has done since the beginning of human existence. There has always been a Us vs Them mindset. It’s about control and power (hence religion) but ultimately it’s about survival.

Certain segments of society here in the US can’t tell anyone apart unless they’re white. It’s the fear factor like you say. Jolly good news about Faux Noise being cancelled in the UK though. If only we were so lucky.

Faux Noise???

I agree on the worst aspects on fear being either racism or religious. Though some of the worst aspects have been those religious and intolerant of others for centuries based on poor absolute beliefs

The reality is that because we know some people are terrorists, then some argue to then deny tens of thousands.

Its a very poor argument, as even if you denied all of them entry to stay in the US. It would not stop any terrorism. It would still happen, as terrorists find other means and ways to attack. All that then happens is thousands of refugees continue to suffer at the expense of this fear

Didge wrote:

Cass wrote:

Sorry just got back from the flicks (see my review).

Of course history is repeating itself. It always has done since the beginning of human existence. There has always been a Us vs Them mindset. It’s about control and power (hence religion) but ultimately it’s about survival.

Certain segments of society here in the US can’t tell anyone apart unless they’re white. It’s the fear factor like you say. Jolly good news about Faux Noise being cancelled in the UK though. If only we were so lucky.

Faux Noise???

I agree on the worst aspects on fear being either racism or religious. Though some of the worst aspects have been those religious and intolerant of others for centuries based on poor absolute beliefs

The reality is that because we know some people are terrorists, then some argue to then deny tens of thousands.

Its a very poor argument, as even if you denied all of them entry to stay in the US. It would not stop any terrorism. It would still happen, as terrorists find other means and ways to attack. All that then happens is thousands of refugees continue to suffer at the expense of this fear

My name for Fox News. Once if the biggest mainstream perpetrators of “alt-facts” for the last decade, along with some radio hacks.

The amount of Americans killed by our own white domestic terrorists greatly outnumbered those from foreign countries. Of course the ban is ridiculous and flagrantly about playing to a certain sement base.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are we talking about merely turning away refugees?  I thought we were talking about taking military steps against the Nazis.

I don't know if the Neutrality Acts were the basis of preventing refugees entering the US.  I'm only defending Roosevelt's military inaction in Europe.

Where at any point did I mention military action?

If you want to talk about his Military action in Europe, it was poor also.

He signed over Poland to the Soviets, to appease Stalin.

Now back to the point at hand.

If you read the article, there is little difference today in how refugees were denied acces, based on a fear that some could be a threat to national security.

Its history repeating itself all over again.

That was Congress. Roosevelt had no control. He was prevented by four Neutrality Acts. Again, it's on Congress.

If you think history is repeating itself, where are the Neutrality Acts today? Indeed, where is the Congressional authorization for a war in Syria? Dr. Obama sent over a fully drafted war bill to Congress in 2013, and Congress has yet to look at it.

As an aside, the launching of Tomahawk cruise missiles on Ash Sha’irat Airbase by Trump was an illegal act. But when has Trump ever obeyed the law?

Cass wrote:

Didge wrote:

Faux Noise???

I agree on the worst aspects on fear being either racism or religious. Though some of the worst aspects have been those religious and intolerant of others for centuries based on poor absolute beliefs

The reality is that because we know some people are terrorists, then some argue to then deny tens of thousands.

Its a very poor argument, as even if you denied all of them entry to stay in the US. It would not stop any terrorism. It would still happen, as terrorists find other means and ways to attack. All that then happens is thousands of refugees continue to suffer at the expense of this fear

My name for Fox News. Once if the biggest mainstream perpetrators of “alt-facts” for the last decade, along with some radio hacks.

The amount of Americans killed by our own white domestic terrorists greatly outnumbered those from foreign countries. Of course the ban is ridiculous and flagrantly about playing to a certain sement base.

Yeah i am not a fan of censuring. If people cannot see and research other views made, then clearly something is wrong with people buying into bullshit. Insecurity being one of them. The reality is even the view to censur Al Jazeera was wrong. Even though it is a hotbed of antisemism. Again the world medias should stand united against such hateful media groups like Fox and Al Jazeera.

I do not think you are right about white domestic terrorists in how many they have killed. In numbers of attacks, I agree, not on the number of fatalities with say Islamic terrorism.

It should not even be a case of how many have died in each case, but that there is clearly two ideologies that have people driven by hate to commit hate. Its not just the ideologies though, but an industry within both that  promote hate on the web driving and indoctrinating people to commit such violence. That is where the world is failing, in that its not challenging this hate at its core.

Didge wrote:

Cass wrote:

My name for Fox News. Once if the biggest mainstream perpetrators of “alt-facts” for the last decade, along with some radio hacks.

The amount of Americans killed by our own white domestic terrorists greatly outnumbered those from foreign countries. Of course the ban is ridiculous and flagrantly about playing to a certain sement base.

Yeah i am not a fan of censuring. If people cannot see and research other views made, then clearly something is wrong with people buying into bullshit. Insecurity being one of them. The reality is even the view to censur Al Jazeera was wrong. Even though it is a hotbed of antisemism. Again the world medias should stand united against such hateful media groups like Fox and Al Jazeera.

I do not think you are right about white domestic terrorists in how many they have killed. In numbers of attacks, I agree, not on the number of fatalities with say Islamic terrorism.

It should not even be a case of how many have died in each case, but that there is clearly two ideologies that have people driven by hate to commit hate. Its not just the ideologies though, but an industry within both that  promote hate on the web driving and indoctrinating people to commit such violence. That is where the world is failing, in that its not challenging this hate at its core.

I meant here in America as opposed to world wide. But let’s not forget that they have killed more fellow Muslims than anyone else.

Actually Al Jazerra was not that bad compared to some. Towards the end they had some outstanding journalism going on.

That’s the big problem today, information literacy. In this day of instant gratification whether it be fast food or news outlets, people have given up personal responsibility about researching facts for themselves. It’s one of my biggest headaches as a librarian. I say given up, but in a few instances it’s lack of education, but in today’s modern world, the majority have been taught in school but are too damn lazy to try.

Cass wrote:

Didge wrote:

Yeah i am not a fan of censuring. If people cannot see and research other views made, then clearly something is wrong with people buying into bullshit. Insecurity being one of them. The reality is even the view to censur Al Jazeera was wrong. Even though it is a hotbed of antisemism. Again the world medias should stand united against such hateful media groups like Fox and Al Jazeera.

I do not think you are right about white domestic terrorists in how many they have killed. In numbers of attacks, I agree, not on the number of fatalities with say Islamic terrorism.

It should not even be a case of how many have died in each case, but that there is clearly two ideologies that have people driven by hate to commit hate. Its not just the ideologies though, but an industry within both that  promote hate on the web driving and indoctrinating people to commit such violence. That is where the world is failing, in that its not challenging this hate at its core.

I meant here in America as opposed to world wide. But let’s not forget that they have killed more fellow Muslims than anyone else.

Actually Al Jazerra was not that bad compared to some. Towards the end they had some outstanding journalism going on.

That’s the big problem today, information literacy. In this day of instant gratification whether it be fast food or news outlets, people have given up personal responsibility about researching facts for themselves. It’s one of my biggest headaches as a librarian. I say given up, but in a few instances it’s lack of education, but in today’s modern world, the majority have been taught in school but are too damn lazy to try.

Indeed and that is the problem with Islamism, on what version is right to some when it is Politicized. Its clearly one of the longest religious civil wars gone on history with sadly no sign of abating.

It still astounds me though how in some apsects the US is still a religious hotbed of Christian and tied to racial extremism. To me and i have always said it. Where the Uk ended slavery through Parliment and the US went to war. Its the fact that after the war, consequetive Governments failed to back the civil rights of the African Americans in the South. I hate to say this, but if the South had been utterly destroyed, as we saw what happened to Germany and Japan in WW2. I doubt there would be still today so much resentment/divide to the defeat by the South and more so nostalgia to the Confederacy. The failing came more so after the war, with Grant being a prime candidate in this failing to uphold the ideals of Lincoln.

Good journalists does not make up for the intent and hate being promoted Cass, just as we see with Fox news.

Completely agree on your last point, spot on