On Anti-Semitism

[MHunterB]

"No rudeness in your answer, please. "

Pbel, you have forfeited any right to make any such "request" by using a filthy slur in your very first sentence.

If I am not rude to you, it's because I try to uphold my own standards.

 

[SAYIT]

The very term Semite twists the truth.

There is no Semitic race. The term is for a group of people, a language group in fact. It has been used so long now as a code word for Jewish that it means something 'special'.

Since 'they' are 'us', it is in fact impossible to be 'anti-Semitic', but there do exist those who dislike Jews. Well, some people dislike women, so what can you say?

Personally, I do not believe that women are equal to men; they are superior.

Why is it that Jew haters often get the very definition of the word "anti-Semetism" wrong, even after they have been reminded of this, many times?

Anti-Semitism - discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews

With all the BS about Jews they desperately cling to, facts just haven't a fightin' chance of survival.

 

[SAYIT]

On Anti-Semitism

I’ve often asked the ZioNut posters, and by the way there are some Zionists on these boards that are not nutty or extreme that the would twist and lie on these boards.

We all know who they Are…

But my question is simple, what has or how does anti-Semitism Affect the Veracity of what is posted or truth?

No rudeness in your answer, please.

I wouldn't be speaking about truth if I were you, Pbel. Remember how many times you have brought up that fake Sharon quote as if it were the truth. And how do you know that many of the posts are the truth? You seem to be very gullible (I wonder why) as you want to think that everything your pals have posted is the truth. And, Phillip, if you are going to call posters Zionuts, I hope you don't mind being called an Islamonut because you do make the perfect Dhimmi.

He is truly this board's Dhimmiwit.

 

[SAYIT]

No rudeness in your answer, please.[/B]

Go fuck yourself loser!

Ya took the words right outta my mouth.

 

[SAYIT]

On Anti-Semitism

I’ve often asked the ZioNut posters, and by the way there are some Zionists on these boards that are not nutty or extreme that the would twist and lie on these boards.

We all know who they Are…

But my question is simple, what has or how does anti-Semitism Affect the Veracity of what is posted or truth?

No rudeness in your answer, please.

I wouldn't be speaking about truth if I were you, Pbel. Remember how many times you have brought up that fake Sharon quote as if it were the truth. And how do you know that many of the posts are the truth? You seem to be very gullible (I wonder why) as you want to think that everything your pals have posted is the truth. And, Phillip, if you are going to call posters Zionuts, I hope you don't mind being called an Islamonut because you do make the perfect Dhimmi.

I never said Sharon had said that..

A blatant lie.
Your admission that there is no proof of that Sharon "quote" is a relatively recent (the past couple of years) event and the fact that you still bring it up says way more about you than it does Sharon.
Kinda like the days you spent blaming "100 NYC Jews" for funding that POS film that set the "Arab Street" ablaze (again).
It's just your nature, Princess ... you can't help yourself.

 

[irosie91]

if you wish to discuss "racism" and "delusion" deach----why not do so?

Religious belief ---if those beliefs are consistent with standard religions are never considered delusions. But there certainly are people who have delusions of a "religious nature" Such delusions---when described by the patient are usually not difficult to diagnose AS DELUSIONS. As to a "racist" delusion----it is not clear to me to what you refer regarding posts on this board. Can you provide an example since you seem to believe that some of the people here harbor racist "delusions" I have encountered some people who are very misinformed------but no one on this board with "delusions" I would not consider a person who repeats that which he hears in a mosque ---but which is not true-----as being "delusional" HOWEVER----I do question the mental status of Achmadinejad in reference to his DECLARATION IN A UN SPEECH ----"ISLAM IS THE RELIGION FOR THE WHOLE WORLD" based on the obvious inappropriateness of the statement in that particular venue

 

[pbel]

"No rudeness in your answer, please. "

Pbel, you have forfeited any right to make any such "request" by using a filthy slur in your very first sentence.

If I am not rude to you, it's because I try to uphold my own standards.

The reason I said some Zionuts, is because a lot of posters here certainly appear blind to the truth, which makes them appear fanatical rather than open-minded.

Hossfly for example calls himself "a zionut and ditto-head...

Now I broach the subject to analyze my own feelings and to make sure that anything I post is not prejudiced especially when name-calling by some posters can influence your feelings but not the facts that are inscribed in irrefutable sources.

Somehow, My position of a two state solution to the re-negotiated 67 borders seems anti-Semitic to some posters.

I think that the very fact of discussing ME politics and having differing views than Israel is according to some posters an act of anti-Semitism even though most American Jews are closer to my position than say self-proclaimed zionut Hossfly's.

The term is too loosely held.

 

[sealadaigh]

if you wish to discuss "racism" and "delusion" deach----why not do so?

Religious belief ---if those beliefs are consistent with standard religions are never considered delusions. But there certainly are people who have delusions of a "religious nature" Such delusions---when described by the patient are usually not difficult to diagnose AS DELUSIONS. As to a "racist" delusion----it is not clear to me to what you refer regarding posts on this board. Can you provide an example since you seem to believe that some of the people here harbor racist "delusions" I have encountered some people who are very misinformed------but no one on this board with "delusions" I would not consider a person who repeats that which he hears in a mosque ---but which is not true-----as being "delusional" HOWEVER----I do question the mental status of Achmadinejad in reference to his DECLARATION IN A UN SPEECH ----"ISLAM IS THE RELIGION FOR THE WHOLE WORLD" based on the obvious inappropriateness of the statement in that particular venue

i was just asking for a clarification , basically, of maggie's post about dr. poussaint's opinion and to whom on this board she would apply to posters on this board what she thinks dr. poussaint is saying. (i focused on zionist and jewish posters, but did ask her to compare them with pro-palestinian posters.)

she was unclear, granny rosie.

 

[sealadaigh]

"No rudeness in your answer, please. "

Pbel, you have forfeited any right to make any such "request" by using a filthy slur in your very first sentence.

If I am not rude to you, it's because I try to uphold my own standards.

The reason I said some Zionuts, is because a lot of posters here certainly appear blind to the truth, which makes them appear fanatical rather than open-minded.

Hossfly for example calls himself "a zionut and ditto-head...

Now I broach the subject to analyze my own feelings and to make sure that anything I post is not prejudiced especially when name-calling by some posters can influence your feelings but not the facts that are inscribed in irrefutable sources.

Somehow, My position of a two state solution to the re-negotiated 67 borders seems anti-Semitic to some posters.

I think that the very fact of discussing ME politics and having differing views than Israel is according to some posters an act of anti-Semitism even though most American Jews are closer to my position than say self-proclaimed zionut Hossfly's.

The term is too loosely held.

with all the name calling on this board, a little payback os always in order.

perhaps maggie will enlighten us a bit on that with dr. poussaint's opinions on black anti-semitism and his opinion of louis farrakhan.

 

[patrickcaturday]

Oh, and for how it affects the veracity of what the Jew-haters post? That's explained in the work of Dr. Alvin Poussaint - when prejudice is strong enough, it becomes pathological just like any other delusion.

maybe you would enlighten us as to how the good dr. poussaint, who many people disagree with due to the "not guilty becaise of mental defect" defense as well as many other easons, would regard people like hoss, roudy, irose, say it, lipush, and some o the others on this board. you may even want to look at yourself and your own attitudes, although less blatant than thosse previously mentioned.

racism is not included in the DSM-IV, nor do i believe it will be included in the DSM-5 due to come out.

perhaps you may actually want to reread him, or read him, whatever the case may be.

Not to be picky but because you are an intelligent and very precise poster a simple question. In your post when describing the editions of the DSM why did you switch from the Roman Numeral IV to the Arabic Numeral 5. Just curious ...

 

[Hossfly]

On Anti-Semitism

I’ve often asked the ZioNut posters, and by the way there are some Zionists on these boards that are not nutty or extreme that the would twist and lie on these boards.

We all know who they Are…

But my question is simple, what has or how does anti-Semitism Affect the Veracity of what is posted or truth?

No rudeness in your answer, please.

I wouldn't be speaking about truth if I were you, Pbel. Remember how many times you have brought up that fake Sharon quote as if it were the truth. And how do you know that many of the posts are the truth? You seem to be very gullible (I wonder why) as you want to think that everything your pals have posted is the truth. And, Phillip, if you are going to call posters Zionuts, I hope you don't mind being called an Islamonut because you do make the perfect Dhimmi.

I never said Sharon had said that...in fact it is easily provable that he was not heard saying that by any press that we Americans would trust. Do I believe he said that privately. Probably. Does Israel act as though there is any truth to what he supposedly might have said. Sure seems that way. Read the Walt Mearsheimer study of AIPAC"s influence on the American Body Politic.

IslamoNut? Look Hossy, go over and fight it out...winner take all! Just leave America out of it, and you won't see me on these boards!

Just whom do you think you are kidding, Phillip? You kept repeatedly bringing up that fake Sharon hoax (no doubt hoping that if you posted it thousands of times people would start believing that fake quote). Meanwhile, does anyone think that Pbel would ever post anything like that below? No way, Jose!!!

Stop calling criticism of Islam ‘Islamophobia’

Jackson Doughart and Faisal Saeed al-Mutar, Special to National Post | Sep 26, 2012

The English language needs a moratorium on the word Islamophobia, a term often used to describe bigotry against Muslims. Unfortunately, it is also used reflexively to denounce critics of Islam, who contribute to a valuable and ongoing debate concerning the relationship between the West and the worldwide Islamic community. This subject is important because several Western countries, such as Denmark, Great Britain, and the Netherlands, are being forced to reconsider their approaches to immigration and culture in light of deep clashes between the Muslim immigrants and the native population. These tensions have captured much attention in recent weeks with the series of violent protests that have spread to over twenty countries, emanating from the controversial Innocence of Muslims film.
In the opinion of some scholars, journalists, and activists, the nature of European and North American reaction to Islam is an example of prejudice, falling suitably under the umbrella of what they call Islamophobia. In our estimation, however, the use of this term, and its cognates Islamophobic and Islamophobe, is not only misapplied, as in the case of the Dutch dissidents Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but altogether inappropriate and deserving of repudiation.

It is worth acknowledging that some degree of hostility toward Muslims does exist in Western countries. This was perhaps clearest in the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, where the West seemed content to allow the mass killing of Muslims as ethnoreligious factions carved apart Bosnia and Herzegovina. The eventual intervention in 1995, aimed at protecting Muslim civilians from aggression by Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs, earned the West little respect in the Muslim world. The appalling abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib detention facility during the Second Gulf War, widely condemned as acts of torture, could also be cited as an example of anti-Muslim hostility. But to accuse all opponents of Islam of harboring a deep-seated hatred, rooted in irrational fear, is a serious mistake, exemplified by the sweeping and liberal usage of Islamophobia. In fact, the only sentiment in this debate that could actually be described as phobic is the unconditional contempt among many Muslims for people who disagree with them. But one doubts that a formulation like “Infidelophobia” will gain traction anytime soon.
The strategic construction of “Islamophobia,” which is rooted in the word Islam and not Muslim, serves more than a mere lexical purpose. It is designed foremost to associate voluntary religious belief with involuntary skin color, appealing to widespread and legitimate revulsion to racial prejudice, and further to equate bigotry against Muslims with criticism of Islam, blurring any distinction between these two very different actions. While the prejudging of all Muslim citizens as suspicious and untrustworthy is indeed comparable with other forms of racial and religious bigotry, the study and refutation of Islam’s claims to moral and philosophical authority is a just and necessary enterprise, fully compatible with a pluralistic society that values religious liberty. This is because freedom of belief, if it is to have universal and consistent meaning, must include the freedom to criticize beliefs and believers — a concept that is foreign to the social and political world view of Islam.

Beyond its intrusion upon intellectual inquiry, blind tolerance of anti-Western attitudes in the form of fundamentalist Islam has direct repercussions for the health and security of the West. For instance, the killing, assaulting, and intimidating of gay men in Amsterdam by Muslims enraged by homosexuality, the fatwa against Salman Rushdie for the offense of writing The Satanic Verses, the Danish cartoon affair, and the recent attacks upon American embassies in Libya and Egypt, are all examples of violence related to these clashes. It is doubtless that our unwillingness to pursue a battle of ideas with the Islamic religion for the sake of political correctness will lead to more physical confrontations in the future. And since the word Islamophobia implies disapproval of such critical engagement, it ought to be entirely banished from discourse.

In addition to “Islamophobia,” the earnest employment of the term blasphemy, and its advancement by Islam’s apologists as a tenable concept, is a clear enemy of open and secular society. Free expression, which constitutes the bedrock of the West’s process of deliberating controversial questions of value, cannot be balanced or reconciled with the idea of sacred and unchallengeable beliefs, since it contradicts the first principle of free speech: that even the most profane dissent must be protected. Most importantly, the creeping influence of terms like blasphemy and Islamophobia is undignifying to both Muslims and non-Muslims for two reasons. First, it colludes with Islam’s attempt to infantalize its adherents — convincing them that critical thought, especially about the matters of faith, is immoral. Second, it presumes that Muslims, particularly in the West, are not mature enough to handle criticism of their chosen beliefs, and that their subcultures are reducible to archaic texts and practices. This is the real injustice, involving the basest abandoning of scruple and succumbing to cowardice, and can only be rectified by ditching this thoroughly nonsensical expression.

– Jackson Doughart studies at Queen’s University and is a policy writer for the Canadian Secular Alliance.
– Faisal Saeed al-Mutar is a student in Baghdad, Iraq, who writes about religion and secularism.

 

[MikeK]

Oh, and for how it affects the veracity of what the Jew-haters post? That's explained in the work of Dr. Alvin Poussaint - when prejudice is strong enough, it becomes pathological just like any other delusion.

"Jew-haters."

Please describe the mentality which you regard as a "Jew-hater." And then tell us what you believe accounts for that frame of mind.

I've heard the term "Jew-hater" before and it stands out rather exclusively in the categorical sense. That is I've never heard of a Catholic hater, or a Protestant-hater, or a Hindu-hater, or a Moslem-hater (except for some Jews I know). So what is it with this "Jew-hater" designation? And are there Jews who harbor innate hatred for non-Jews?

Because hatred is the emperor of human emotions I can honestly say I, as a reformed Catholic and devout atheist, have never met anyone whom I have cause to believe hates Jews. I've known people who clearly don't care for Jews, and I've met Jews whom it seemed pretty obvious don't care much for gentiles, but that's about it.

I am aware of the fact that Jews have been expelled from every country that ever hosted them in recorded history, and that in the 1930s/40s the Third Reich made an earnest effort to exterminate all the Jews in Europe, but if asked I would be unable to explain the reason for such passionate antipathy. So, inasmuch as you can make such offhand use of the term "Jew-hater" I will assume you can explain the substance of that designation -- and the reason for it.

So, how about it? What is a "Jew-hater" and what accounts for the hatred?

 

[there4eyeM]

The very term Semite twists the truth.
There is no Semitic race. The term is for a group of people, a language group in fact. It has been used so long now as a code word for Jewish that it means something 'special'.
Since 'they' are 'us', it is in fact impossible to be 'anti-Semitic', but there do exist those who dislike Jews. Well, some people dislike women, so what can you say?
Personally, I do not believe that women are equal to men; they are superior.

Who said anything about a Semitic race?
It is you who desperately twists the truth to suit your argument.
The term by definition refers to people who have an irrational or even pathological (some might even say genetic) hate for Jews.
It's just a convenient way to describe some people and I am often amused by those who are clearly upset by the term's very existence.

This response causes one to doubt the capacity of readers here to understand English.

Most "anti-Semites" speak as if 'Jews' were a race. My post clearly states they are not. It states that all people are together, so Jews ('they') cannot be separate, but are one with all people ('us'). Thus the absurdity of the position of an 'anti-Semite'. There is not the slightset hint of offense against anyone or anything 'Jewish'. It even ends on a lighter note, which should in itself been an alert to anyone not so deep into their confusion.

Got it now?

 

[Roudy]

I am aware of the fact that Jews have been expelled from every country that ever hosted them in recorded history, and that in the 1930s/40s the Third Reich made an earnest effort to exterminate all the Jews in Europe, but if asked I would be unable to explain the reason for such passionate antipathy

Spoken like a true Islamo / neo Nazi cocksucker.

 

[editec]

Truth is truth no matter who says it.

But a true fact does not necessarily represent the whole truth.

And usually partisans don't bother with the whole story, when they're seeking to craft their arguments, they seek out only those facts that support their POV.

This is true regardless of the issue at hand.

 

[sealadaigh]

Truth is truth no matter who says it.

But a true fact does not necessarily represent the whole truth.

And usually partisans don't bother with the whole story, when they're seeking to craft their arguments, they seek out only those facts that support their POV.

This is true regardless of the issue at hand.

i don't think that is entirely accurate. some people seek the entire truth because they do not want to make weak arguments and are able to distinguish between real facts, widely accepted factsm and opinions, for the most part.

 

[SAYIT]

The very term Semite twists the truth.
There is no Semitic race. The term is for a group of people, a language group in fact. It has been used so long now as a code word for Jewish that it means something 'special'.
Since 'they' are 'us', it is in fact impossible to be 'anti-Semitic', but there do exist those who dislike Jews. Well, some people dislike women, so what can you say?
Personally, I do not believe that women are equal to men; they are superior.

Who said anything about a Semitic race?
It is you who desperately twists the truth to suit your argument.
The term by definition refers to people who have an irrational or even pathological (some might even say genetic) hate for Jews.
It's just a convenient way to describe some people and I am often amused by those who are clearly upset by the term's very existence.

This responses causes one to doubt the capacity of readers here to understand English.

Most "anti-Semites" speak as if 'Jews' were a race. My post clearly states they are not. It states that all people are together, so Jews ('they') cannot be separate, but are one with all people ('us'). Thus the absurdity of the position of an 'anti-Semite'. There is not the slightset hint of offense against anyone or anything 'Jewish'. It even ends on a lighter note, which should in itself been an alert to anyone not so deep into their confusion.
Got it now?

Yeah. You're embarrassed so you did a little song and dance.
In your OP you clearly stated that "Jews are a group" and "there do exist those who dislike Jews."
As luck would have it a German bigot (Wilhelm Marr), in his search for a modern name for his bigotry, provided one which by virtually any dictionary definition refers to those who "dislike" Jews. It's just that simple. Got it now?
I continue to be amused by those who are driven to distraction by the fact that we have a term for those who "dislike" Jews.

 

[SAYIT]

Truth is truth no matter who says it.

But a true fact does not necessarily represent the whole truth.

And usually partisans don't bother with the whole story, when they're seeking to craft their arguments, they seek out only those facts that support their POV.

This is true regardless of the issue at hand.

i don't think that is entirely accurate. some people seek the entire truth because they do not want to make weak arguments and are able to distinguish between real facts, widely accepted factsm and opinions, for the most part.

And some, unable to deal with the truth or otherwise dissatisfied with it, subscribe to flights of fancy which do satisfy their preconceived or even prejudiced positions and conclusions.

 

[Jroc]

On Anti-Semitism

I’ve often asked the ZioNut posters, and by the way there are some Zionists on these boards that are not nutty or extreme that the would twist and lie on these boards.

We all know who they Are…

But my question is simple, what has or how does anti-Semitism Affect the Veracity of what is posted or truth?

No rudeness in your answer, please.

You mean like claiming things like Arab Israelis are slaves? Or claiming when the Israelis respond militarily to an attack THEY are the terrorists while ignoring the real terrorists?

How are we to ignore the obvious lies delusions and hate coming from Jew haters?

Gunny, You must have been involved in a war where you occupied someone's country by military force...I have. Would you defend America if someone invaded our homes?

That is the base problem in this ME quogmire...Israel was created by the force of Western Colonial military power. Nothing new in the history of man-kind.

If you believe might makes right then the claims of historical justification for the creation of Israel is invalid, an oxymoron because might trumps history, and history has alsways moved to diffrent peoples on this earth.

Israel was recreated as an independent country by the Jews. No colonial power recreated it as happened with the surrounding Arab countries. Get your history straight idiot.

 

[irosie91]

Israel was created by people who migrated to palestine and purchased land there when the fascist shariah laws barring such purchases were lifted----(so that the ottoman owners of the land could get some money)------This happening ----began in the early part of the 1800s For the first hundred years of the endeavor-----jews in palestine did not so much as own a gun-----or weapons in general They did begin to respond to deadly attacks by local arabs in the early 1900s Both the purchase of land by jews and the use of guns by jews is an affront to muslims even more serious than videos mocking the rapist pig The armenian genocide was galvanized by a similar problem----the armenians decided to put up some resistence to forced licking of islamic ass. The biafran genocide was galvanized by a similar resistence exhibited by biafrans Peeballs remembers the biafran genocide----he giggled all the way thru it ------1971-----as the children starved to death in the dust