The Jews are at it again

[Dogmaphobe]

Muslims are also easily offended. So are Christians. So are Blacks. And so are you.

I'm not. But yes, I wrote (if you had bothered to read what I wrote) that Christians and Muslims are also easily offended.

It's kind of like blasphemy, when they really can't get away with blasphemy, they try this new tactic.

I'm not so sure about Christians being easily offended, at least not in comparison to Jews and Muslims. When is the last time a christian went and suicide bombed a place because someone drew a cartoon of Jesus? Does the press rush to the defense of Christians every time someone says something mean about them?

Any time anyone mentions gun control, Christians go bezerk.

Not all gun owners are Christian and not all Christians own guns. Thats like saying all Muslims are terrorists and all Jews are banking executives.

All Muslims ARE terrorists. Especially Sunni Muslims.

No they aren't.

A relatively small number are terrorist.

A sizeable percentage supports the terrorism.

The majority supports the mission the terrorism is hoping to achieve.

To say they are all terrorist is inaccurate, though, even considering the shared mission of spreading Islam until nothing else remains.

 

[Taz]

I'm not. But yes, I wrote (if you had bothered to read what I wrote) that Christians and Muslims are also easily offended.

It's kind of like blasphemy, when they really can't get away with blasphemy, they try this new tactic.

I'm not so sure about Christians being easily offended, at least not in comparison to Jews and Muslims. When is the last time a christian went and suicide bombed a place because someone drew a cartoon of Jesus? Does the press rush to the defense of Christians every time someone says something mean about them?

Any time anyone mentions gun control, Christians go bezerk.

Not all gun owners are Christian and not all Christians own guns. Thats like saying all Muslims are terrorists and all Jews are banking executives.

All Muslims ARE terrorists. Especially Sunni Muslims.

I'm no fan of Islam but that's obviously not the case otherwise they would have suicide bombed themselves into extinction by now.

They need more time. They’re not too bright, plus, they’re cowards at heart.

 

[Taz]

I'm not. But yes, I wrote (if you had bothered to read what I wrote) that Christians and Muslims are also easily offended.

It's kind of like blasphemy, when they really can't get away with blasphemy, they try this new tactic.

I'm not so sure about Christians being easily offended, at least not in comparison to Jews and Muslims. When is the last time a christian went and suicide bombed a place because someone drew a cartoon of Jesus? Does the press rush to the defense of Christians every time someone says something mean about them?

Any time anyone mentions gun control, Christians go bezerk.

Not all gun owners are Christian and not all Christians own guns. Thats like saying all Muslims are terrorists and all Jews are banking executives.

All Muslims ARE terrorists. Especially Sunni Muslims.

No they aren't.

A relatively small number are terrorist.

A sizeable percentage supports the terrorism.

The majority supports the mission the terrorism is hoping to achieve.

To say they are all terrorist is inaccurate, though, even considering the shared mission of spreading Islam until nothing else remains.

They all want the whole world to live under sharia law. If they don’t, their not real Muslims anyways.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, I got called an anti-Semite because I was talking about how History is a narrative and not just facts.

My example for this point was that Jews suffered 6 million murders by the Nazis in the period 1933-1945, but that in the US every year billions of animals are murdered for food by humans.

Clearly the number of billions is a lot more than millions, and clearly this is done in a shorter time frame, one year compared to about 12 years.

Most people would see the Holocaust as being far worse than the killing of animals for human consumption. The pure facts would suggest that it's the other way around. The narrative of History here is more important than the facts.

I also got called an anti-Semite because I said I worked for some rich Jews.
I worked at this place which was exclusive for Jews, you could not be a member without being Jews. Also you have to be absolutely loaded. You could not get in without paying what would, to me, be more than I earn in a year, and you'd have to pay a lot more on top of that. Basically, everyone there was at the very least a multi-millionaire, some may have been billionaires.

Well, here's going for a third time of not being anti-Semitic but getting called an anti-Semite, not because I'm anti-Semitic, but because some people find it politically convenient to get their own way by calling people anti-Semitic, not necessarily directly, but more or less.

I also got angry when the Jews managed to get a high school teacher in TAIWAN of all places fired because his school taught kids about the Nazis by doing a little parade.

FA chief Martin Glenn apologises after 'offensive and inappropriate' Star of David and Nazi swastika comparisons

English soccer. Would you believe it?

The top manager in the English league is called Guardiola. He played for and managed Barcelona to great success, and now manages the oil rich Manchester City.

Guardiola is from Catalonia, and he's really pissed with the Spanish government for being a bunch of fuckheads. So he wears a little yellow ribbon thing to show his support.

However, like the NBA has done, politics is to be kept out of sport. The English, Scots, Welsh had a big fight with UEFA over wearing poppies. Sort of political, especially for the Catholics in Ireland. But they won that fight. But they're threatening Guardiola, but he's a little too good for them to get into a full flight.

So, FA chief Martin Glenn basically said:

“We have rewritten Law 4 of the game so that things like a poppy are OK but things that are going to be highly divisive are not.

That could be strong religious symbols, it could be the Star of David, it could the hammer and sickle, it could be a swastika, anything like Robert Mugabe on your shirt – these are the things we don’t want.”

All of a sudden the Jewish Council is on their backs, demanding that this be taken as an insult. Personally I can't see a comparison at all. He talked about religious symbols and included some rather well known symbols. It's not a comparison other than to say they're both symbols, which is fact.

So, we have another example of political pressure being applied in this manner by Jews. They're demanding we never, ever say anything that might be "offensive" to them. Problem is they're easily offended, massively offended.

They're not the only ones. Christians do it, Muslims do it, the Chinese do it all the time.

Perhaps the problem was that the Star of David was included in a list that, otherwise, contained people and symbols generally considered to be 'bad' in Western thought. The hammer and sickle of the Soviet Union, the enemy of the cold war; the swastika is self-explanatory; and Mugabe, who has been accused of crimes against humanity, and of being a corrupt, racist dictator.

It's still being easily offended, but it was also a poorly thought out comment.

Oh, and yes, making the title of the thread "The Jews are at it again" certainly hints at either anti-semitism or trolling.

Why is including the Star of David into the list a problem?

The swastika is considered bad, yet you go to India (lots of Hindus in the UK) and you'll see the swastika everywhere. It's a religious symbol.

Ah, you think the title is anti-Semitic. How? I've given specific examples of how people on this forum have thrown the "anti-Semite" label at people who don't agree with them. And not I'm getting it again.

This is the exact problem I'm talking about. People who use certain tactics to stop people talking about stuff.

I've written threads about how violence and Christianity go hand in hand. It's funny how I didn't get accused of being anti-Christian then, isn't it?

Why is it every time you write a post about Jews that is also negative, you get accused of being anti-Semitic? I mean, every fucking time.

 

[Montrovant]

Okay, I got called an anti-Semite because I was talking about how History is a narrative and not just facts.

My example for this point was that Jews suffered 6 million murders by the Nazis in the period 1933-1945, but that in the US every year billions of animals are murdered for food by humans.

Clearly the number of billions is a lot more than millions, and clearly this is done in a shorter time frame, one year compared to about 12 years.

Most people would see the Holocaust as being far worse than the killing of animals for human consumption. The pure facts would suggest that it's the other way around. The narrative of History here is more important than the facts.

I also got called an anti-Semite because I said I worked for some rich Jews.
I worked at this place which was exclusive for Jews, you could not be a member without being Jews. Also you have to be absolutely loaded. You could not get in without paying what would, to me, be more than I earn in a year, and you'd have to pay a lot more on top of that. Basically, everyone there was at the very least a multi-millionaire, some may have been billionaires.

Well, here's going for a third time of not being anti-Semitic but getting called an anti-Semite, not because I'm anti-Semitic, but because some people find it politically convenient to get their own way by calling people anti-Semitic, not necessarily directly, but more or less.

I also got angry when the Jews managed to get a high school teacher in TAIWAN of all places fired because his school taught kids about the Nazis by doing a little parade.

FA chief Martin Glenn apologises after 'offensive and inappropriate' Star of David and Nazi swastika comparisons

English soccer. Would you believe it?

The top manager in the English league is called Guardiola. He played for and managed Barcelona to great success, and now manages the oil rich Manchester City.

Guardiola is from Catalonia, and he's really pissed with the Spanish government for being a bunch of fuckheads. So he wears a little yellow ribbon thing to show his support.

However, like the NBA has done, politics is to be kept out of sport. The English, Scots, Welsh had a big fight with UEFA over wearing poppies. Sort of political, especially for the Catholics in Ireland. But they won that fight. But they're threatening Guardiola, but he's a little too good for them to get into a full flight.

So, FA chief Martin Glenn basically said:

“We have rewritten Law 4 of the game so that things like a poppy are OK but things that are going to be highly divisive are not.

That could be strong religious symbols, it could be the Star of David, it could the hammer and sickle, it could be a swastika, anything like Robert Mugabe on your shirt – these are the things we don’t want.”

All of a sudden the Jewish Council is on their backs, demanding that this be taken as an insult. Personally I can't see a comparison at all. He talked about religious symbols and included some rather well known symbols. It's not a comparison other than to say they're both symbols, which is fact.

So, we have another example of political pressure being applied in this manner by Jews. They're demanding we never, ever say anything that might be "offensive" to them. Problem is they're easily offended, massively offended.

They're not the only ones. Christians do it, Muslims do it, the Chinese do it all the time.

Perhaps the problem was that the Star of David was included in a list that, otherwise, contained people and symbols generally considered to be 'bad' in Western thought. The hammer and sickle of the Soviet Union, the enemy of the cold war; the swastika is self-explanatory; and Mugabe, who has been accused of crimes against humanity, and of being a corrupt, racist dictator.

It's still being easily offended, but it was also a poorly thought out comment.

Oh, and yes, making the title of the thread "The Jews are at it again" certainly hints at either anti-semitism or trolling.

Why is including the Star of David into the list a problem?

The swastika is considered bad, yet you go to India (lots of Hindus in the UK) and you'll see the swastika everywhere. It's a religious symbol.

Ah, you think the title is anti-Semitic. How? I've given specific examples of how people on this forum have thrown the "anti-Semite" label at people who don't agree with them. And not I'm getting it again.

This is the exact problem I'm talking about. People who use certain tactics to stop people talking about stuff.

I've written threads about how violence and Christianity go hand in hand. It's funny how I didn't get accused of being anti-Christian then, isn't it?

Why is it every time you write a post about Jews that is also negative, you get accused of being anti-Semitic? I mean, every fucking time.

If you can't see the issue with your title, you are either hopelessly naive or lying to yourself. "The Jews are at it again"? That sounds like a person who thinks the Jews are once again doing something wrong. That may not be the point of your OP, but it is probably the most common way just the title will be interpreted. If you started a thread titled "The Christians are at it again" I would go into it expecting something bad about Christians.

If I see a title in the Race Relations forum that says "The blacks are at it again," I'm guessing it will be anti-black. If I see a title that says "The whites are at it again," I'm guessing it will be anti-white. The phrase "at it again" implies something negative, I think. I can't recall reading or hearing the phrase in connection with something good, anyway.

As to including the Star of David into the list, I explained that. You can point out the Hindu take on a swastika all you want, the reality is that a majority of people probably associate that symbol with the Nazis. I doubt the FA chief brought it up as a Hindu symbol. As I said, it was a poorly thought out statement.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, I got called an anti-Semite because I was talking about how History is a narrative and not just facts.

My example for this point was that Jews suffered 6 million murders by the Nazis in the period 1933-1945, but that in the US every year billions of animals are murdered for food by humans.

Clearly the number of billions is a lot more than millions, and clearly this is done in a shorter time frame, one year compared to about 12 years.

Most people would see the Holocaust as being far worse than the killing of animals for human consumption. The pure facts would suggest that it's the other way around. The narrative of History here is more important than the facts.

I also got called an anti-Semite because I said I worked for some rich Jews.
I worked at this place which was exclusive for Jews, you could not be a member without being Jews. Also you have to be absolutely loaded. You could not get in without paying what would, to me, be more than I earn in a year, and you'd have to pay a lot more on top of that. Basically, everyone there was at the very least a multi-millionaire, some may have been billionaires.

Well, here's going for a third time of not being anti-Semitic but getting called an anti-Semite, not because I'm anti-Semitic, but because some people find it politically convenient to get their own way by calling people anti-Semitic, not necessarily directly, but more or less.

I also got angry when the Jews managed to get a high school teacher in TAIWAN of all places fired because his school taught kids about the Nazis by doing a little parade.

FA chief Martin Glenn apologises after 'offensive and inappropriate' Star of David and Nazi swastika comparisons

English soccer. Would you believe it?

The top manager in the English league is called Guardiola. He played for and managed Barcelona to great success, and now manages the oil rich Manchester City.

Guardiola is from Catalonia, and he's really pissed with the Spanish government for being a bunch of fuckheads. So he wears a little yellow ribbon thing to show his support.

However, like the NBA has done, politics is to be kept out of sport. The English, Scots, Welsh had a big fight with UEFA over wearing poppies. Sort of political, especially for the Catholics in Ireland. But they won that fight. But they're threatening Guardiola, but he's a little too good for them to get into a full flight.

So, FA chief Martin Glenn basically said:

“We have rewritten Law 4 of the game so that things like a poppy are OK but things that are going to be highly divisive are not.

That could be strong religious symbols, it could be the Star of David, it could the hammer and sickle, it could be a swastika, anything like Robert Mugabe on your shirt – these are the things we don’t want.”

All of a sudden the Jewish Council is on their backs, demanding that this be taken as an insult. Personally I can't see a comparison at all. He talked about religious symbols and included some rather well known symbols. It's not a comparison other than to say they're both symbols, which is fact.

So, we have another example of political pressure being applied in this manner by Jews. They're demanding we never, ever say anything that might be "offensive" to them. Problem is they're easily offended, massively offended.

They're not the only ones. Christians do it, Muslims do it, the Chinese do it all the time.

Perhaps the problem was that the Star of David was included in a list that, otherwise, contained people and symbols generally considered to be 'bad' in Western thought. The hammer and sickle of the Soviet Union, the enemy of the cold war; the swastika is self-explanatory; and Mugabe, who has been accused of crimes against humanity, and of being a corrupt, racist dictator.

It's still being easily offended, but it was also a poorly thought out comment.

Oh, and yes, making the title of the thread "The Jews are at it again" certainly hints at either anti-semitism or trolling.

Why is including the Star of David into the list a problem?

The swastika is considered bad, yet you go to India (lots of Hindus in the UK) and you'll see the swastika everywhere. It's a religious symbol.

Ah, you think the title is anti-Semitic. How? I've given specific examples of how people on this forum have thrown the "anti-Semite" label at people who don't agree with them. And not I'm getting it again.

This is the exact problem I'm talking about. People who use certain tactics to stop people talking about stuff.

I've written threads about how violence and Christianity go hand in hand. It's funny how I didn't get accused of being anti-Christian then, isn't it?

Why is it every time you write a post about Jews that is also negative, you get accused of being anti-Semitic? I mean, every fucking time.

If you can't see the issue with your title, you are either hopelessly naive or lying to yourself. "The Jews are at it again"? That sounds like a person who thinks the Jews are once again doing something wrong. That may not be the point of your OP, but it is probably the most common way just the title will be interpreted. If you started a thread titled "The Christians are at it again" I would go into it expecting something bad about Christians.

If I see a title in the Race Relations forum that says "The blacks are at it again," I'm guessing it will be anti-black. If I see a title that says "The whites are at it again," I'm guessing it will be anti-white. The phrase "at it again" implies something negative, I think. I can't recall reading or hearing the phrase in connection with something good, anyway.

As to including the Star of David into the list, I explained that. You can point out the Hindu take on a swastika all you want, the reality is that a majority of people probably associate that symbol with the Nazis. I doubt the FA chief brought it up as a Hindu symbol. As I said, it was a poorly thought out statement.

No, not naive, not lying to myself either.

Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe it's you who is naive.

Maybe you don't see that there's a group of people who will attack anyone who they don't agree with, and they'll use "anti-Semite" as their key word to attack people with.

In my title I couldn't have used Israelis. Why not? Because the group attacking this man weren't Israelis. They were British Jews.

The people who attack the school in Taiwan for teaching their kids about Nazis and got the principle of the school fired for doing so were also Jews. Probably Israeli. But what connects the two is that they're Jewish.

The point I am making is that there are Jews who will attack in this manner. Is it anti-Semitic to point out that these people are doing this? That this is a tactic of theirs?

Nothing I've said is false. It's all true.

Not only that, I'm being attacked in the manner I've described happens, for stating facts. Which clearly shows that I'm right that this is happening. Therefore why am I being attacked?

Yes, it sounds like Jews are doing something wrong. I believe Jews are doing something wrong.

Am I supposed to go through life believing that Jews can do no wrong? What kind of bullshit is that?

Jews, like everyone else, do things wrong. Why can't I point it out without being called an anti-Semite?

Yes, if you see something that says "blacks are at it again" you'd assume that black people are being criticized for doing something wrong.

Well I'm accusing Jewish people of doing something wrong. It's pretty clear. Does accusing someone of doing something wrong make you an anti-whatever?

No

The problem here seems to be more with how YOU are interpreting things, rather than what I'm saying. Your initial response to Jews + negative this is that the person saying this is anti-Semitic.

This means their tactics are working.

 

[Montrovant]

Okay, I got called an anti-Semite because I was talking about how History is a narrative and not just facts.

My example for this point was that Jews suffered 6 million murders by the Nazis in the period 1933-1945, but that in the US every year billions of animals are murdered for food by humans.

Clearly the number of billions is a lot more than millions, and clearly this is done in a shorter time frame, one year compared to about 12 years.

Most people would see the Holocaust as being far worse than the killing of animals for human consumption. The pure facts would suggest that it's the other way around. The narrative of History here is more important than the facts.

I also got called an anti-Semite because I said I worked for some rich Jews.
I worked at this place which was exclusive for Jews, you could not be a member without being Jews. Also you have to be absolutely loaded. You could not get in without paying what would, to me, be more than I earn in a year, and you'd have to pay a lot more on top of that. Basically, everyone there was at the very least a multi-millionaire, some may have been billionaires.

Well, here's going for a third time of not being anti-Semitic but getting called an anti-Semite, not because I'm anti-Semitic, but because some people find it politically convenient to get their own way by calling people anti-Semitic, not necessarily directly, but more or less.

I also got angry when the Jews managed to get a high school teacher in TAIWAN of all places fired because his school taught kids about the Nazis by doing a little parade.

FA chief Martin Glenn apologises after 'offensive and inappropriate' Star of David and Nazi swastika comparisons

English soccer. Would you believe it?

The top manager in the English league is called Guardiola. He played for and managed Barcelona to great success, and now manages the oil rich Manchester City.

Guardiola is from Catalonia, and he's really pissed with the Spanish government for being a bunch of fuckheads. So he wears a little yellow ribbon thing to show his support.

However, like the NBA has done, politics is to be kept out of sport. The English, Scots, Welsh had a big fight with UEFA over wearing poppies. Sort of political, especially for the Catholics in Ireland. But they won that fight. But they're threatening Guardiola, but he's a little too good for them to get into a full flight.

So, FA chief Martin Glenn basically said:

“We have rewritten Law 4 of the game so that things like a poppy are OK but things that are going to be highly divisive are not.

That could be strong religious symbols, it could be the Star of David, it could the hammer and sickle, it could be a swastika, anything like Robert Mugabe on your shirt – these are the things we don’t want.”

All of a sudden the Jewish Council is on their backs, demanding that this be taken as an insult. Personally I can't see a comparison at all. He talked about religious symbols and included some rather well known symbols. It's not a comparison other than to say they're both symbols, which is fact.

So, we have another example of political pressure being applied in this manner by Jews. They're demanding we never, ever say anything that might be "offensive" to them. Problem is they're easily offended, massively offended.

They're not the only ones. Christians do it, Muslims do it, the Chinese do it all the time.

Perhaps the problem was that the Star of David was included in a list that, otherwise, contained people and symbols generally considered to be 'bad' in Western thought. The hammer and sickle of the Soviet Union, the enemy of the cold war; the swastika is self-explanatory; and Mugabe, who has been accused of crimes against humanity, and of being a corrupt, racist dictator.

It's still being easily offended, but it was also a poorly thought out comment.

Oh, and yes, making the title of the thread "The Jews are at it again" certainly hints at either anti-semitism or trolling.

Why is including the Star of David into the list a problem?

The swastika is considered bad, yet you go to India (lots of Hindus in the UK) and you'll see the swastika everywhere. It's a religious symbol.

Ah, you think the title is anti-Semitic. How? I've given specific examples of how people on this forum have thrown the "anti-Semite" label at people who don't agree with them. And not I'm getting it again.

This is the exact problem I'm talking about. People who use certain tactics to stop people talking about stuff.

I've written threads about how violence and Christianity go hand in hand. It's funny how I didn't get accused of being anti-Christian then, isn't it?

Why is it every time you write a post about Jews that is also negative, you get accused of being anti-Semitic? I mean, every fucking time.

If you can't see the issue with your title, you are either hopelessly naive or lying to yourself. "The Jews are at it again"? That sounds like a person who thinks the Jews are once again doing something wrong. That may not be the point of your OP, but it is probably the most common way just the title will be interpreted. If you started a thread titled "The Christians are at it again" I would go into it expecting something bad about Christians.

If I see a title in the Race Relations forum that says "The blacks are at it again," I'm guessing it will be anti-black. If I see a title that says "The whites are at it again," I'm guessing it will be anti-white. The phrase "at it again" implies something negative, I think. I can't recall reading or hearing the phrase in connection with something good, anyway.

As to including the Star of David into the list, I explained that. You can point out the Hindu take on a swastika all you want, the reality is that a majority of people probably associate that symbol with the Nazis. I doubt the FA chief brought it up as a Hindu symbol. As I said, it was a poorly thought out statement.

No, not naive, not lying to myself either.

Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe it's you who is naive.

Maybe you don't see that there's a group of people who will attack anyone who they don't agree with, and they'll use "anti-Semite" as their key word to attack people with.

In my title I couldn't have used Israelis. Why not? Because the group attacking this man weren't Israelis. They were British Jews.

The people who attack the school in Taiwan for teaching their kids about Nazis and got the principle of the school fired for doing so were also Jews. Probably Israeli. But what connects the two is that they're Jewish.

The point I am making is that there are Jews who will attack in this manner. Is it anti-Semitic to point out that these people are doing this? That this is a tactic of theirs?

Nothing I've said is false. It's all true.

Not only that, I'm being attacked in the manner I've described happens, for stating facts. Which clearly shows that I'm right that this is happening. Therefore why am I being attacked?

Yes, it sounds like Jews are doing something wrong. I believe Jews are doing something wrong.

Am I supposed to go through life believing that Jews can do no wrong? What kind of bullshit is that?

Jews, like everyone else, do things wrong. Why can't I point it out without being called an anti-Semite?

Yes, if you see something that says "blacks are at it again" you'd assume that black people are being criticized for doing something wrong.

Well I'm accusing Jewish people of doing something wrong. It's pretty clear. Does accusing someone of doing something wrong make you an anti-whatever?

No

The problem here seems to be more with how YOU are interpreting things, rather than what I'm saying. Your initial response to Jews + negative this is that the person saying this is anti-Semitic.

This means their tactics are working.

No, this has nothing to do with Jewish "tactics." This has to do with the impression given by a title that says "X group is at it again." As I pointed out, regardless of the group, that gives an impression of a person who is anti-X group. Being anti-Jew would mean antisemitic. I also thought I was pretty clear that it was the title which hinted at antisemitism, not the content of the OP.

However, when you seem to blame all Jews for the actions of a few....well, that is venturing into antisemitism. Pointing out when Jews do something wrong is not. Implying or stating that all Jews are doing something wrong is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, I got called an anti-Semite because I was talking about how History is a narrative and not just facts.

My example for this point was that Jews suffered 6 million murders by the Nazis in the period 1933-1945, but that in the US every year billions of animals are murdered for food by humans.

Clearly the number of billions is a lot more than millions, and clearly this is done in a shorter time frame, one year compared to about 12 years.

Most people would see the Holocaust as being far worse than the killing of animals for human consumption. The pure facts would suggest that it's the other way around. The narrative of History here is more important than the facts.

I also got called an anti-Semite because I said I worked for some rich Jews.
I worked at this place which was exclusive for Jews, you could not be a member without being Jews. Also you have to be absolutely loaded. You could not get in without paying what would, to me, be more than I earn in a year, and you'd have to pay a lot more on top of that. Basically, everyone there was at the very least a multi-millionaire, some may have been billionaires.

Well, here's going for a third time of not being anti-Semitic but getting called an anti-Semite, not because I'm anti-Semitic, but because some people find it politically convenient to get their own way by calling people anti-Semitic, not necessarily directly, but more or less.

I also got angry when the Jews managed to get a high school teacher in TAIWAN of all places fired because his school taught kids about the Nazis by doing a little parade.

FA chief Martin Glenn apologises after 'offensive and inappropriate' Star of David and Nazi swastika comparisons

English soccer. Would you believe it?

The top manager in the English league is called Guardiola. He played for and managed Barcelona to great success, and now manages the oil rich Manchester City.

Guardiola is from Catalonia, and he's really pissed with the Spanish government for being a bunch of fuckheads. So he wears a little yellow ribbon thing to show his support.

However, like the NBA has done, politics is to be kept out of sport. The English, Scots, Welsh had a big fight with UEFA over wearing poppies. Sort of political, especially for the Catholics in Ireland. But they won that fight. But they're threatening Guardiola, but he's a little too good for them to get into a full flight.

So, FA chief Martin Glenn basically said:

“We have rewritten Law 4 of the game so that things like a poppy are OK but things that are going to be highly divisive are not.

That could be strong religious symbols, it could be the Star of David, it could the hammer and sickle, it could be a swastika, anything like Robert Mugabe on your shirt – these are the things we don’t want.”

All of a sudden the Jewish Council is on their backs, demanding that this be taken as an insult. Personally I can't see a comparison at all. He talked about religious symbols and included some rather well known symbols. It's not a comparison other than to say they're both symbols, which is fact.

So, we have another example of political pressure being applied in this manner by Jews. They're demanding we never, ever say anything that might be "offensive" to them. Problem is they're easily offended, massively offended.

They're not the only ones. Christians do it, Muslims do it, the Chinese do it all the time.

Perhaps the problem was that the Star of David was included in a list that, otherwise, contained people and symbols generally considered to be 'bad' in Western thought. The hammer and sickle of the Soviet Union, the enemy of the cold war; the swastika is self-explanatory; and Mugabe, who has been accused of crimes against humanity, and of being a corrupt, racist dictator.

It's still being easily offended, but it was also a poorly thought out comment.

Oh, and yes, making the title of the thread "The Jews are at it again" certainly hints at either anti-semitism or trolling.

Why is including the Star of David into the list a problem?

The swastika is considered bad, yet you go to India (lots of Hindus in the UK) and you'll see the swastika everywhere. It's a religious symbol.

Ah, you think the title is anti-Semitic. How? I've given specific examples of how people on this forum have thrown the "anti-Semite" label at people who don't agree with them. And not I'm getting it again.

This is the exact problem I'm talking about. People who use certain tactics to stop people talking about stuff.

I've written threads about how violence and Christianity go hand in hand. It's funny how I didn't get accused of being anti-Christian then, isn't it?

Why is it every time you write a post about Jews that is also negative, you get accused of being anti-Semitic? I mean, every fucking time.

If you can't see the issue with your title, you are either hopelessly naive or lying to yourself. "The Jews are at it again"? That sounds like a person who thinks the Jews are once again doing something wrong. That may not be the point of your OP, but it is probably the most common way just the title will be interpreted. If you started a thread titled "The Christians are at it again" I would go into it expecting something bad about Christians.

If I see a title in the Race Relations forum that says "The blacks are at it again," I'm guessing it will be anti-black. If I see a title that says "The whites are at it again," I'm guessing it will be anti-white. The phrase "at it again" implies something negative, I think. I can't recall reading or hearing the phrase in connection with something good, anyway.

As to including the Star of David into the list, I explained that. You can point out the Hindu take on a swastika all you want, the reality is that a majority of people probably associate that symbol with the Nazis. I doubt the FA chief brought it up as a Hindu symbol. As I said, it was a poorly thought out statement.

No, not naive, not lying to myself either.

Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe it's you who is naive.

Maybe you don't see that there's a group of people who will attack anyone who they don't agree with, and they'll use "anti-Semite" as their key word to attack people with.

In my title I couldn't have used Israelis. Why not? Because the group attacking this man weren't Israelis. They were British Jews.

The people who attack the school in Taiwan for teaching their kids about Nazis and got the principle of the school fired for doing so were also Jews. Probably Israeli. But what connects the two is that they're Jewish.

The point I am making is that there are Jews who will attack in this manner. Is it anti-Semitic to point out that these people are doing this? That this is a tactic of theirs?

Nothing I've said is false. It's all true.

Not only that, I'm being attacked in the manner I've described happens, for stating facts. Which clearly shows that I'm right that this is happening. Therefore why am I being attacked?

Yes, it sounds like Jews are doing something wrong. I believe Jews are doing something wrong.

Am I supposed to go through life believing that Jews can do no wrong? What kind of bullshit is that?

Jews, like everyone else, do things wrong. Why can't I point it out without being called an anti-Semite?

Yes, if you see something that says "blacks are at it again" you'd assume that black people are being criticized for doing something wrong.

Well I'm accusing Jewish people of doing something wrong. It's pretty clear. Does accusing someone of doing something wrong make you an anti-whatever?

No

The problem here seems to be more with how YOU are interpreting things, rather than what I'm saying. Your initial response to Jews + negative this is that the person saying this is anti-Semitic.

This means their tactics are working.

No, this has nothing to do with Jewish "tactics." This has to do with the impression given by a title that says "X group is at it again." As I pointed out, regardless of the group, that gives an impression of a person who is anti-X group. Being anti-Jew would mean antisemitic. I also thought I was pretty clear that it was the title which hinted at antisemitism, not the content of the OP.

However, when you seem to blame all Jews for the actions of a few....well, that is venturing into antisemitism. Pointing out when Jews do something wrong is not. Implying or stating that all Jews are doing something wrong is.

Are they not at it again?

You see this is being an impression that I am anti-Semitic.

But the problem here is that I couldn't write a topic that goes into so many areas. It would be too large and the debate would fizzle out so quickly and turn into something it shouldn't be.

Right wing Christian "values"

Here's a thread I started called "Right wing Christian "values""

Am I anti-Christian?

Where is the right wing Christian OUTRAGE?

Another one

The extreme Christian right v. the extreme Muslim right

Here's one critical of Christians AND Muslims.

First Beheading By Radical Muslim On Our Soil

"
Does Christianity not "spawn violence around the globe"? I mean, Iraq, Afghanistan are two examples of Christian violence that has killed far more people.
"

Here's a post I replied to criticizing Christians again.

Why did I not get shouted down for being anti-Christian?

You think I'm blaming ALL JEWS for this? Again, this is what you're interpreting rather than what I'm saying.

As I've said, this involves a group of people who are connected by something, which is their religion. They put a lot of effort into trying to stop people talking in a certain manner. Not all Jews do this. However this particular group are Jews.

But you're willing to jump quickly to conclusions.

Just as when I said "I worked for rich Jews" the assumption was I'm anti-Semitic because I used the term "rich" and "Jews" in the same sentence.

That's ridiculous. But it's done for a reason. It's done to shut people up.

 

[impuretrash]

Western society has been held hostage by white guilt since the end of WWII and it's destroying our nations. Christianity is perceived by and large, as a white thing, and in the eyes of the media and the left, whiteness deserves no quarter. On the other hand, anything Jewish or "brown" gets placed on a pedestal, deified almost.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Western society has been held hostage by white guilt since the end of WWII and it's destroying our nations. Christianity is perceived by and large, as a white thing, and in the eyes of the media and the left, whiteness deserves no quarter. On the other hand, anything Jewish or "brown" gets placed on a pedestal, deified almost.

Have you ever noticed with national days, apart from the 4th July, get celebrated in the US?

There's Mexico's Cinco de Mayo and 17th March, St. Patrick's Day.

Both Mexico and Ireland are seen as the downtrodden. It's cool to be the downtrodden. It's not cool to be the aggressor.

The English don't take 23rd April off for St. George's Day. It's not a holiday, it's hardly celebrated. St. Patrick's Day is celebrated more in England than St. George's Day.

The issue with "white guilt" is that the white people have been the aggressors.

WW2 was white people. Yes the Japanese were fighting their war too, but WW2 in the western consciousness is more about Hitler. Hitler and Stalin were bad guys. The name of the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor aren't really well know in the West.

You look at the world today, and the US is the country going further than anyone to bomb and kill. They're supported usually by the British, sometimes by the French with the Spanish pretending they're doing stuff. They're all white countries.

There is an issue with people not understanding what's going on. For example in the UK with Muslim sex gangs going around doing things and people being afraid to say anything for fear of seeming like the bad white people.

However with Jews it's not like that. They fought for independence and did exceedingly well, on a computer simulation they'd have lost every single time.

They made their state and they've had to fight a very tough battle. I understand this, and I understand that they'll use every tool available to them, including the one I'm talking about in this thread.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't talk about it though.

 

[impuretrash]

Hitler replaced traditional western perceptions of evil. Nothing is taboo anymore except for "white supremacy". Being a good person used to be defined by how you live your life but now? Now your goodness is measured in public acts proving how unlike Hitler you are. Will there ever come a point when white people are let off the hook for Hitler? Or for slavery? When will we ever be allowed to talk about stuff without fear of reprisal? Not any time soon it seems.

So there's this subgenre of heavy metal called black metal, and for those who don't know, from it's very inception it's been virulently anti-christian. So anyway, it's been around since the 90s and nobody really seems to take offense. Until last month a member of a black metal band says something about Islam. The media erupts into hysterics, then antifa threatens violence, and the entire US tour is cancelled.

 

[Montrovant]

Perhaps the problem was that the Star of David was included in a list that, otherwise, contained people and symbols generally considered to be 'bad' in Western thought. The hammer and sickle of the Soviet Union, the enemy of the cold war; the swastika is self-explanatory; and Mugabe, who has been accused of crimes against humanity, and of being a corrupt, racist dictator.

It's still being easily offended, but it was also a poorly thought out comment.

Oh, and yes, making the title of the thread "The Jews are at it again" certainly hints at either anti-semitism or trolling.

Why is including the Star of David into the list a problem?

The swastika is considered bad, yet you go to India (lots of Hindus in the UK) and you'll see the swastika everywhere. It's a religious symbol.

Ah, you think the title is anti-Semitic. How? I've given specific examples of how people on this forum have thrown the "anti-Semite" label at people who don't agree with them. And not I'm getting it again.

This is the exact problem I'm talking about. People who use certain tactics to stop people talking about stuff.

I've written threads about how violence and Christianity go hand in hand. It's funny how I didn't get accused of being anti-Christian then, isn't it?

Why is it every time you write a post about Jews that is also negative, you get accused of being anti-Semitic? I mean, every fucking time.

If you can't see the issue with your title, you are either hopelessly naive or lying to yourself. "The Jews are at it again"? That sounds like a person who thinks the Jews are once again doing something wrong. That may not be the point of your OP, but it is probably the most common way just the title will be interpreted. If you started a thread titled "The Christians are at it again" I would go into it expecting something bad about Christians.

If I see a title in the Race Relations forum that says "The blacks are at it again," I'm guessing it will be anti-black. If I see a title that says "The whites are at it again," I'm guessing it will be anti-white. The phrase "at it again" implies something negative, I think. I can't recall reading or hearing the phrase in connection with something good, anyway.

As to including the Star of David into the list, I explained that. You can point out the Hindu take on a swastika all you want, the reality is that a majority of people probably associate that symbol with the Nazis. I doubt the FA chief brought it up as a Hindu symbol. As I said, it was a poorly thought out statement.

No, not naive, not lying to myself either.

Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe it's you who is naive.

Maybe you don't see that there's a group of people who will attack anyone who they don't agree with, and they'll use "anti-Semite" as their key word to attack people with.

In my title I couldn't have used Israelis. Why not? Because the group attacking this man weren't Israelis. They were British Jews.

The people who attack the school in Taiwan for teaching their kids about Nazis and got the principle of the school fired for doing so were also Jews. Probably Israeli. But what connects the two is that they're Jewish.

The point I am making is that there are Jews who will attack in this manner. Is it anti-Semitic to point out that these people are doing this? That this is a tactic of theirs?

Nothing I've said is false. It's all true.

Not only that, I'm being attacked in the manner I've described happens, for stating facts. Which clearly shows that I'm right that this is happening. Therefore why am I being attacked?

Yes, it sounds like Jews are doing something wrong. I believe Jews are doing something wrong.

Am I supposed to go through life believing that Jews can do no wrong? What kind of bullshit is that?

Jews, like everyone else, do things wrong. Why can't I point it out without being called an anti-Semite?

Yes, if you see something that says "blacks are at it again" you'd assume that black people are being criticized for doing something wrong.

Well I'm accusing Jewish people of doing something wrong. It's pretty clear. Does accusing someone of doing something wrong make you an anti-whatever?

No

The problem here seems to be more with how YOU are interpreting things, rather than what I'm saying. Your initial response to Jews + negative this is that the person saying this is anti-Semitic.

This means their tactics are working.

No, this has nothing to do with Jewish "tactics." This has to do with the impression given by a title that says "X group is at it again." As I pointed out, regardless of the group, that gives an impression of a person who is anti-X group. Being anti-Jew would mean antisemitic. I also thought I was pretty clear that it was the title which hinted at antisemitism, not the content of the OP.

However, when you seem to blame all Jews for the actions of a few....well, that is venturing into antisemitism. Pointing out when Jews do something wrong is not. Implying or stating that all Jews are doing something wrong is.

Are they not at it again?

You see this is being an impression that I am anti-Semitic.

But the problem here is that I couldn't write a topic that goes into so many areas. It would be too large and the debate would fizzle out so quickly and turn into something it shouldn't be.

Right wing Christian "values"

Here's a thread I started called "Right wing Christian "values""

Am I anti-Christian?

Where is the right wing Christian OUTRAGE?

Another one

The extreme Christian right v. the extreme Muslim right

Here's one critical of Christians AND Muslims.

First Beheading By Radical Muslim On Our Soil

"
Does Christianity not "spawn violence around the globe"? I mean, Iraq, Afghanistan are two examples of Christian violence that has killed far more people.
"

Here's a post I replied to criticizing Christians again.

Why did I not get shouted down for being anti-Christian?

You think I'm blaming ALL JEWS for this? Again, this is what you're interpreting rather than what I'm saying.

As I've said, this involves a group of people who are connected by something, which is their religion. They put a lot of effort into trying to stop people talking in a certain manner. Not all Jews do this. However this particular group are Jews.

But you're willing to jump quickly to conclusions.

Just as when I said "I worked for rich Jews" the assumption was I'm anti-Semitic because I used the term "rich" and "Jews" in the same sentence.

That's ridiculous. But it's done for a reason. It's done to shut people up.

I would guess, by the titles of the first few threads, that you are against right wing Christians. I'd have to go read the threads to have a better idea, but the titles certainly hint at a bias against right wing Christians.

I'm not jumping to conclusions, I'm actually going by your statements. You said, "Yes, it sounds like Jews are doing something wrong. I believe Jews are doing something wrong." as well as "Well I'm accusing Jewish people of doing something wrong." You may have meant that some Jews do things wrong, or that you were accusing certain Jewish people of doing something wrong, but it was not clear from the way you wrote the statements.

I don't care if you believe some Jews are doing bad things, as it's clearly true. It's true of people of any and all faiths, or no faith. People are people, good and bad. I don't consider you an antisemite for pointing out if some Jew does something wrong, of if you say you worked for rich Jews. However, when you start a thread with the title "The Jews are at it again," you've begun with an impression you have a problem with Jews. The title doesn't indicate anything about individuals, or even groups of Jews, but Jews in general. As with the FA chief's statement, poor wording, giving a bad impression.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why is including the Star of David into the list a problem?

The swastika is considered bad, yet you go to India (lots of Hindus in the UK) and you'll see the swastika everywhere. It's a religious symbol.

Ah, you think the title is anti-Semitic. How? I've given specific examples of how people on this forum have thrown the "anti-Semite" label at people who don't agree with them. And not I'm getting it again.

This is the exact problem I'm talking about. People who use certain tactics to stop people talking about stuff.

I've written threads about how violence and Christianity go hand in hand. It's funny how I didn't get accused of being anti-Christian then, isn't it?

Why is it every time you write a post about Jews that is also negative, you get accused of being anti-Semitic? I mean, every fucking time.

If you can't see the issue with your title, you are either hopelessly naive or lying to yourself. "The Jews are at it again"? That sounds like a person who thinks the Jews are once again doing something wrong. That may not be the point of your OP, but it is probably the most common way just the title will be interpreted. If you started a thread titled "The Christians are at it again" I would go into it expecting something bad about Christians.

If I see a title in the Race Relations forum that says "The blacks are at it again," I'm guessing it will be anti-black. If I see a title that says "The whites are at it again," I'm guessing it will be anti-white. The phrase "at it again" implies something negative, I think. I can't recall reading or hearing the phrase in connection with something good, anyway.

As to including the Star of David into the list, I explained that. You can point out the Hindu take on a swastika all you want, the reality is that a majority of people probably associate that symbol with the Nazis. I doubt the FA chief brought it up as a Hindu symbol. As I said, it was a poorly thought out statement.

No, not naive, not lying to myself either.

Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe it's you who is naive.

Maybe you don't see that there's a group of people who will attack anyone who they don't agree with, and they'll use "anti-Semite" as their key word to attack people with.

In my title I couldn't have used Israelis. Why not? Because the group attacking this man weren't Israelis. They were British Jews.

The people who attack the school in Taiwan for teaching their kids about Nazis and got the principle of the school fired for doing so were also Jews. Probably Israeli. But what connects the two is that they're Jewish.

The point I am making is that there are Jews who will attack in this manner. Is it anti-Semitic to point out that these people are doing this? That this is a tactic of theirs?

Nothing I've said is false. It's all true.

Not only that, I'm being attacked in the manner I've described happens, for stating facts. Which clearly shows that I'm right that this is happening. Therefore why am I being attacked?

Yes, it sounds like Jews are doing something wrong. I believe Jews are doing something wrong.

Am I supposed to go through life believing that Jews can do no wrong? What kind of bullshit is that?

Jews, like everyone else, do things wrong. Why can't I point it out without being called an anti-Semite?

Yes, if you see something that says "blacks are at it again" you'd assume that black people are being criticized for doing something wrong.

Well I'm accusing Jewish people of doing something wrong. It's pretty clear. Does accusing someone of doing something wrong make you an anti-whatever?

No

The problem here seems to be more with how YOU are interpreting things, rather than what I'm saying. Your initial response to Jews + negative this is that the person saying this is anti-Semitic.

This means their tactics are working.

No, this has nothing to do with Jewish "tactics." This has to do with the impression given by a title that says "X group is at it again." As I pointed out, regardless of the group, that gives an impression of a person who is anti-X group. Being anti-Jew would mean antisemitic. I also thought I was pretty clear that it was the title which hinted at antisemitism, not the content of the OP.

However, when you seem to blame all Jews for the actions of a few....well, that is venturing into antisemitism. Pointing out when Jews do something wrong is not. Implying or stating that all Jews are doing something wrong is.

Are they not at it again?

You see this is being an impression that I am anti-Semitic.

But the problem here is that I couldn't write a topic that goes into so many areas. It would be too large and the debate would fizzle out so quickly and turn into something it shouldn't be.

Right wing Christian "values"

Here's a thread I started called "Right wing Christian "values""

Am I anti-Christian?

Where is the right wing Christian OUTRAGE?

Another one

The extreme Christian right v. the extreme Muslim right

Here's one critical of Christians AND Muslims.

First Beheading By Radical Muslim On Our Soil

"
Does Christianity not "spawn violence around the globe"? I mean, Iraq, Afghanistan are two examples of Christian violence that has killed far more people.
"

Here's a post I replied to criticizing Christians again.

Why did I not get shouted down for being anti-Christian?

You think I'm blaming ALL JEWS for this? Again, this is what you're interpreting rather than what I'm saying.

As I've said, this involves a group of people who are connected by something, which is their religion. They put a lot of effort into trying to stop people talking in a certain manner. Not all Jews do this. However this particular group are Jews.

But you're willing to jump quickly to conclusions.

Just as when I said "I worked for rich Jews" the assumption was I'm anti-Semitic because I used the term "rich" and "Jews" in the same sentence.

That's ridiculous. But it's done for a reason. It's done to shut people up.

I would guess, by the titles of the first few threads, that you are against right wing Christians. I'd have to go read the threads to have a better idea, but the titles certainly hint at a bias against right wing Christians.

I'm not jumping to conclusions, I'm actually going by your statements. You said, "Yes, it sounds like Jews are doing something wrong. I believe Jews are doing something wrong." as well as "Well I'm accusing Jewish people of doing something wrong." You may have meant that some Jews do things wrong, or that you were accusing certain Jewish people of doing something wrong, but it was not clear from the way you wrote the statements.

I don't care if you believe some Jews are doing bad things, as it's clearly true. It's true of people of any and all faiths, or no faith. People are people, good and bad. I don't consider you an antisemite for pointing out if some Jew does something wrong, of if you say you worked for rich Jews. However, when you start a thread with the title "The Jews are at it again," you've begun with an impression you have a problem with Jews. The title doesn't indicate anything about individuals, or even groups of Jews, but Jews in general. As with the FA chief's statement, poor wording, giving a bad impression.

Well, I don't like religion. It's weird.

However, again, if a person's an asshole, they're an asshole. If they're a good person, I might like them.

I'm that kind of person.

You're the kind of person who jumps to conclusions, well, that's the way it is.

You are jumping to conclusions even if you don't think you are.

I need to put a title, I'll put a title that gets people to look at the title, I'll make it as clear as I can what it's about. I did that. But you seem to think the title then implies everything about the topic. Jumping to conclusions.

Do you get annoyed with Star Wars. "Hey, the stars aren't fighting each other! This is wrong"?

No? Well...

 

[GHook93]

Okay, I got called an anti-Semite because I was talking about how History is a narrative and not just facts.

My example for this point was that Jews suffered 6 million murders by the Nazis in the period 1933-1945, but that in the US every year billions of animals are murdered for food by humans.

Clearly the number of billions is a lot more than millions, and clearly this is done in a shorter time frame, one year compared to about 12 years.

Most people would see the Holocaust as being far worse than the killing of animals for human consumption. The pure facts would suggest that it's the other way around. The narrative of History here is more important than the facts.

I also got called an anti-Semite because I said I worked for some rich Jews.
I worked at this place which was exclusive for Jews, you could not be a member without being Jews. Also you have to be absolutely loaded. You could not get in without paying what would, to me, be more than I earn in a year, and you'd have to pay a lot more on top of that. Basically, everyone there was at the very least a multi-millionaire, some may have been billionaires.

Well, here's going for a third time of not being anti-Semitic but getting called an anti-Semite, not because I'm anti-Semitic, but because some people find it politically convenient to get their own way by calling people anti-Semitic, not necessarily directly, but more or less.

I also got angry when the Jews managed to get a high school teacher in TAIWAN of all places fired because his school taught kids about the Nazis by doing a little parade.

FA chief Martin Glenn apologises after 'offensive and inappropriate' Star of David and Nazi swastika comparisons

English soccer. Would you believe it?

The top manager in the English league is called Guardiola. He played for and managed Barcelona to great success, and now manages the oil rich Manchester City.

Guardiola is from Catalonia, and he's really pissed with the Spanish government for being a bunch of fuckheads. So he wears a little yellow ribbon thing to show his support.

However, like the NBA has done, politics is to be kept out of sport. The English, Scots, Welsh had a big fight with UEFA over wearing poppies. Sort of political, especially for the Catholics in Ireland. But they won that fight. But they're threatening Guardiola, but he's a little too good for them to get into a full flight.

So, FA chief Martin Glenn basically said:

“We have rewritten Law 4 of the game so that things like a poppy are OK but things that are going to be highly divisive are not.

That could be strong religious symbols, it could be the Star of David, it could the hammer and sickle, it could be a swastika, anything like Robert Mugabe on your shirt – these are the things we don’t want.”

All of a sudden the Jewish Council is on their backs, demanding that this be taken as an insult. Personally I can't see a comparison at all. He talked about religious symbols and included some rather well known symbols. It's not a comparison other than to say they're both symbols, which is fact.

So, we have another example of political pressure being applied in this manner by Jews. They're demanding we never, ever say anything that might be "offensive" to them. Problem is they're easily offended, massively offended.

They're not the only ones. Christians do it, Muslims do it, the Chinese do it all the time.

Not sure if ur an antisemite, but I am 100% sure you’re a dumbass!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[impuretrash]

Not sure if ur an antisemite, but I am 100% sure you’re a dumbass!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

u shur told him hyuk hyuk

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, I got called an anti-Semite because I was talking about how History is a narrative and not just facts.

My example for this point was that Jews suffered 6 million murders by the Nazis in the period 1933-1945, but that in the US every year billions of animals are murdered for food by humans.

Clearly the number of billions is a lot more than millions, and clearly this is done in a shorter time frame, one year compared to about 12 years.

Most people would see the Holocaust as being far worse than the killing of animals for human consumption. The pure facts would suggest that it's the other way around. The narrative of History here is more important than the facts.

I also got called an anti-Semite because I said I worked for some rich Jews.
I worked at this place which was exclusive for Jews, you could not be a member without being Jews. Also you have to be absolutely loaded. You could not get in without paying what would, to me, be more than I earn in a year, and you'd have to pay a lot more on top of that. Basically, everyone there was at the very least a multi-millionaire, some may have been billionaires.

Well, here's going for a third time of not being anti-Semitic but getting called an anti-Semite, not because I'm anti-Semitic, but because some people find it politically convenient to get their own way by calling people anti-Semitic, not necessarily directly, but more or less.

I also got angry when the Jews managed to get a high school teacher in TAIWAN of all places fired because his school taught kids about the Nazis by doing a little parade.

FA chief Martin Glenn apologises after 'offensive and inappropriate' Star of David and Nazi swastika comparisons

English soccer. Would you believe it?

The top manager in the English league is called Guardiola. He played for and managed Barcelona to great success, and now manages the oil rich Manchester City.

Guardiola is from Catalonia, and he's really pissed with the Spanish government for being a bunch of fuckheads. So he wears a little yellow ribbon thing to show his support.

However, like the NBA has done, politics is to be kept out of sport. The English, Scots, Welsh had a big fight with UEFA over wearing poppies. Sort of political, especially for the Catholics in Ireland. But they won that fight. But they're threatening Guardiola, but he's a little too good for them to get into a full flight.

So, FA chief Martin Glenn basically said:

“We have rewritten Law 4 of the game so that things like a poppy are OK but things that are going to be highly divisive are not.

That could be strong religious symbols, it could be the Star of David, it could the hammer and sickle, it could be a swastika, anything like Robert Mugabe on your shirt – these are the things we don’t want.”

All of a sudden the Jewish Council is on their backs, demanding that this be taken as an insult. Personally I can't see a comparison at all. He talked about religious symbols and included some rather well known symbols. It's not a comparison other than to say they're both symbols, which is fact.

So, we have another example of political pressure being applied in this manner by Jews. They're demanding we never, ever say anything that might be "offensive" to them. Problem is they're easily offended, massively offended.

They're not the only ones. Christians do it, Muslims do it, the Chinese do it all the time.

Not sure if ur an antisemite, but I am 100% sure you’re a dumbass!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Ah, insults.

That's what it always ends up at. Yeah, apparently I'm a dumbass because I can make my argument.

 

[defcon4]

Western society has been held hostage by white guilt since the end of WWII and it's destroying our nations. Christianity is perceived by and large, as a white thing, and in the eyes of the media and the left, whiteness deserves no quarter. On the other hand, anything Jewish or "brown" gets placed on a pedestal, deified almost.

Christianity has been subverted be it RC or Protestant.

 

[the Beast]

Jews are closer too Progressive and Communism in thems journal in life.

 

[fncceo]

Jews suffered 6 million murders by the Nazis in the period 1933-1945, but that in the US every year billions of animals are murdered for food by humans.

Eating meat is worse than the Holocaust and Jews are equivalent to animals .

Wow! All I can say is ... Wow!

I can't even fathom the mind that could be that evil. It's totally incomprehensible to me.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Jews suffered 6 million murders by the Nazis in the period 1933-1945, but that in the US every year billions of animals are murdered for food by humans.

Eating meat is worse than the Holocaust and Jews are equivalent to animals .

Wow! All I can say is ... Wow!

I can't even fathom the mind that could be that evil. It's totally incomprehensible to me.

So, Animal lives don't matter?