Thanks for finally stating your epistemic standard out loud: “credible hearsay and correlating patterns” is enough for you to accuse Jews of trying to assassinate a U.S. president. That is not “knowing history.” That is how conspiracy theories work. "Quite obvious" and "no reason to think false" don’t count as proof. You started with a claim you probably genuinely believed in, realized there was no evidence for it, and instead of admitting to that, reverted to trolling. That's bad faith discussion and against HN rules. I’m not playing “atrocity analogy” whack-a-mole as you pivot to minimizing the Holodomor to cover for a claim you cannot document. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence.
I didn't accuse "Jews" of trying to assassinate a US president, I accused Israel of doing so.
>You started with a claim you probably genuinely believed in, realized there was no evidence for it, and instead of admitting to that, reverted to trolling.
I still believe it, as the claim was from Margaret Truman Daniel, who had first hand knowledge of what happened to her parents. You clearly don't agree, despite Israel having done the same thing at the same time to other Western politicians. There's no "trolling" or violation of "HN rules" going on, other than perhaps the antisemitic conflation of Jewishness with Israel, particularly when it comes to who is blamed for the terrorism committed by the latter. It is a form of ethnoracial essentialism and bigotry that also impacts Muslims in the US and other ethnic and racial groups (such as the targeting of Chinese citizens in Indonesia as a form of blame for the country of China's actions).