posted on January 23, 2003 08:26:00 PM new
On another chat topic- Give Us Your Oil & We\'ll Let Your Babies Live.
The thread has taken on a debate over ‘anti-semitism’ and it’s meaning.
And so I have decided to start a new thread.
Stusi put the question to me- How do I feel about Jews.
2 People in the same industry as me for which I have the highest regard, not high but highest.
1 identifies himself as Jewish & the other Muslim.
They have both given me assistance over the years with no strings attached and for that I respect them to no end, although I do reciprocate when I can.
But I do not judge all Muslims or Jews by the actions of one person.
However I will disagree with and ‘attack’ verbally and economically; bigots, liars, terrorists, bullies, thieves, whether they be individuals, Political or, religious/quasi-religious or quasi-humanitarian groups or other groups if I see inhumane or ‘unfair/wrong acts or opinions being perpetrated because I believe them to be acts against humanity.
That does not mean that If I disagree with George dubya Bush I am right in attacking ALL Americans.
I believe that as Humans, we are all self-interested but it is not something that should be condoned when it unduly represses others.
I think that by far, the nation, which has shown the greatest RACIST policies in recent times, is ISRAEL.
I know that many will consider me an anti-Semite just for saying that but think it a small price to pay in order to give a balanced view and hopefully a humane outcome.
This article says it all, I think that if you read it with an open mind you will agree that Israel is being run by racists/supremesists
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis4.htm
The sense of compassion is the beginning of humanity, the sense of shame is the beginning of righteousness, and sense of courtesy is the beginning of decorum, the sense of right and wrong is the beginning of wisdom.” Chinese sage Mencius (4th century BC),
posted on January 23, 2003 08:42:54 PM new
Not only that, but the Israelis cleverly hide it by providing Israeli Arab citizens with more rights, civil and religious freedoms, and opportunities than any "Arab" nation on the planet.
posted on January 23, 2003 09:50:51 PM new
YEs deSqirel, Like the right to NOT own land in Israel unles you are Jewish.
But you can convert.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis1.htm
"The Talmud and post-Talmudic rabbinic law also recognise the conversion of a non-Jew to Judaism (as well as the purchase of a non-Jewish slave by a Jew followed by a different kind of conversion) as a method of becoming Jewish, provided that the conversion is performed by authorised rabbis in a proper manner. This 'proper manner' entails for females, their inspection by three rabbis while naked in a 'bath of purification', a ritual which, although notorious to all readers of the Hebrew press, is not often mentioned by the English media in spite of its undoubted interest for certain readers. "
posted on January 24, 2003 03:28:35 AM new
Charitability??
Why not we let Hebrews/Jews/Semites/Zionists/&NeoNazis live in our lands.
Perhaps we should not permit Jews to own land in USA or Australia unless they convert to Christianity(subject to conversion before 3 priests/inspectors in the nude), Same as Christians are not permited to own land in israel.
As a political statement it should still be OK for Muslim Semites, because at least they permit us to own land.
posted on January 24, 2003 05:55:47 AM newHowever I will disagree with and ‘attack’ verbally and economically; bigots, liars, terrorists, bullies, thieves, whether they be individuals
BEING HOW YOU HAVE SHOWN YOURSELF TO BE A BIGOT, THAT MEAN YOU EXPECT TO BE ATTACKED VERBALLY AUSTBOUNTY?
posted on January 24, 2003 06:34:53 AM new
Religion = Dogma
1"pole
I'm not a Bigot, but Yes I am inviting attack,
attack all you like, but please try to use logic so people can follow along with your train of thought.
Please show us some logic, as I have.
We understand that religious zelots like you can't/refuse to use logic.
Israel=Chauvinism
I think I have clearly demonstrated that.
After all, you don't even PERMIT women to APROACH the whaling wall.
Yes I am inviting attack/debate.
Dogma is not acceptable.
Otherwise how can I debate if a Zionist , for example, were to say that the Hebrews are the 'chosen ones'.
posted on January 24, 2003 09:05:50 AM newOtherwise how can I debate if a Zionist , for example, were to say that the Hebrews are the 'chosen ones'.
When you make comments like, "the Jews control the media," and "the Jewish lobby is running the country" then you have shown yourself to be the worst kind of bigot. I'm sure you're aware that the Nazi party was full of such sentiment.
posted on January 24, 2003 08:32:35 PM new
I am not necessarily pro Israel, but regarding your Professor Shahak...what a load of hoo-haw!!
the link you quote for his writings is connected to the William Branham homepage http://www.biblebelievers.org, an end-times Christian page apparently maintained by the followers of the above Mr. Branham...a gentleman who is proclaimed and followed by this group as no less than a new biblical "prophet to the gentiles" to wit:
"The man God chose to bring His Message to this generation was William M. Branham - He became, not by choice, but by a Divine call, the Voice of God to this Endtime Age."
Professor Shahak's writings are clearly anti-Israeli, and by my reading of them I would also say anti-Jewish as well.(I say anti Jewish here so you won't nit pick about the meaning of the term anti-semitic).While he may well be remembered as a humanitarian by Palestinians, I sincerely doubt his writings are given any serious consideration by mainstream scholars of Judaic history. The fact that he is widely quoted and published by radical fundamentalist christians, neo Nazis and Islamist organizations puts his credibility at even further risk.
Perhaps you failed to notice on the above page that the French edition of Shahak's book is published by the neo-Nazi publishing house La Vieille Taupe of Paris, which is headed by the well know holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. I bet they really enjoy his ridiculous,unsubtantiated tirades about historical Jewish atrocities. Right up there with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!
posted on January 25, 2003 12:15:09 AM new
I have led a sheltered life in my country, and yes I have learned that Sadam is a tyrant.
I believe that all Semites are Arabs.
And it seems that the rullers of ALL the Arab nations are fanatics, Hebrews included.
If you feel so strongly, why not give America back to the Indians & Australia back to the Aboriginals, there is NO doubt to their claim in comparison.
In my country people seem to asymilate & 'forget' where they came from after a few generations.
How on earth do the Hebrews do it after 2000 years.
Compared to the rest of us it seems prety fanatical.
"The exile atones for all the sins of the Jews."
"With him who dwells outside Palestine it is as though God were not with him."
"Those Jews who dwell outside Palestine do not enjoy eternal life."
"In the United States, relatively free of the anti-Semitism that infected Europe, Jewish support of Zionism was primarily financial and spiritual. Leaders, most prominently Louis Brandeis, urged support for the Zionists but few American Jews thought about emigration to Palestine."
posted on January 25, 2003 05:53:17 AM new
Oooooh! You're soooooo logical, Dr Streicher! Next, you'll quote engineers who can prove that the gas chambers NEVER KILLED anybody!! Just put on yer armband & march on down to dat ole beer-hall why doncha??!!
posted on January 25, 2003 07:00:34 AM new
austbounty- There are some Jews who are chauvinistic in modern terms eg.-Hassidim. However, your preaching is falling on deaf ears. Anyone can read anything including different versions of the bible and choose to believe that what they have read is gospel. To suggest that only one interpretation is correct is a bigoted attitude unto itself. You are reading an overtly slanted article and trying to force it down the throats of others. You are entitled to your opinions, while thinking that since it is the written word that it must be others who are bigoted not to agree. Using Jewish and Neo-Nazi in the same sentence as other than adversaries is unto itself anti-Jewish. "All semites are Arabs"? Doesn't this contradict your own previous dictionary-based definition? You are a bigot, a rascist and a bible thumper of the worst kind. Your comments are being reported to AuctionWatch as inflammatory and hurtful.
posted on January 25, 2003 03:11:43 PM new
As long as critisism is only directed to Muslims and 'other' arabs it's not inflammatory and hurtful??
When I stop seeing critisism of ALL Muslims on these boards because of the fanatisism of a some I will stop my attacks.
Why not report Rumsfeld to AW too, for insiting hatred and war.
Check out the thread-
"Scary piece about our hawks of war"
http://www.auctionwatch.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=165779
According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld,
>the new organisation, known by its Orwellian moniker as the
>Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG, will
>provoke terrorist attacks which would then require
>"counter-attack" by the United States on countries
>"harbouring the terrorists".
posted on January 25, 2003 04:05:37 PM new
>I believe that all Semites are Arabs.
You can if you want to -- that's your right.
But both Jews and Arabs make up Semites. See the part in the Bible Old Testiment where Abraham, Father of Nations, had two sons: one of whom started the Jews and the other the Arabs. The difference between the two is not blood-related, because they share the same blood.
posted on January 25, 2003 04:19:08 PM new
austbounty- criticism of ALL Muslims on these boards? Are you a Muslim? Why the selective sensitivity if you are not? Who and where was this? And two wrongs make a right? Then you will stop your attacks? So they ARE attacks? You are a vengeful sicko. Go blow yourself up!
[ edited by stusi on Jan 25, 2003 05:30 PM ]
posted on January 25, 2003 06:41:01 PM new
Stusi
Muslim?
"Why the selective sensitivity if you are not?"
Why, are you Jewish?
Are there no Jews on this board?
I said attack "verbally".
If you can't see comments anti-certain-semites (meaning Muslim Arabs) on these boards then you are blind.
Stutsi cant understand why anyone would be sympathetic to the problem of muslims unless they were one themselves.
I think that prety well proves that you can't see straight.
Borilla, tooo confusing.
So semites are Hebrews and Arabs,
but all Jews are not Semites
but anti-semites only hate jews.
How on earth did the term anti-Semite get railroaded into being read as anti Jewish when all Jews are not Semites, it doesn't make sence, does it?.
posted on January 25, 2003 07:25:33 PM new
I usually make it a point to avoid this kind of thread as I am no expert on Jewish-Arab relations. I only know that I am like most Americans -- I wish we were the Hell outta there and that whole mess.
But since you asked . . .
>Stutsi cant understand why anyone would be sympathetic to the problem of muslims unless they were one themselves.
Maybe. Most of my friends are muslims of all stripes, but I'm not one. Do I feel sorry for them in a special way? No, I only feel sorry for the innocent who are being harmed. I believe that individuals are innocent, but arab and jewish nations are not.
>How on earth did the term anti-Semite get railroaded into being read as anti Jewish when all Jews are not Semites
Ignorance of the full meaning of the term and bias used in the media, whom Americans rely upon for their education.
posted on January 26, 2003 01:53:17 AM new
I'll try not to buy into this anti-semitism debate any more.
It seems that this 'Wilhelm Marr' who snowygret mentions is known ast the Nazi 'Father of Antisemitism' acording to some web sites I have looked at which seem Pro-Jewish, the term was coined by him in the closing of the C19th to desensitize followers on the hatred of Jews.
My reason for believing this term is meant to be inclusive of ALL semites is because most dictionaries DO include ALL Semites except for one American Dictionary which I found online.
I shall continue to look into this claim, but on the face it appears I may have been wrong in my claim that the term has been 'railroaded' to excude non-Jewish Semites.
I hope that some of you that are against other Semites are as open minded as me.
But I still believe that Zionism is wrong in spite of the fact that Jews have "yearned' for their own land for 2000 years.
posted on January 26, 2003 07:07:08 AM new
austbounty- The truth is that even if there was one person here who condemned all Muslims(and I am still waiting for you to say who and where), for you to use that as an excuse for a tirade-in-waiting against Israel and Jews is lame. For the record, I am Jewish and do not hate all Muslims. For you to claim to have even bothered to look up a definition that is commonly accepted and then to say that you found a different meaning and that is why you have a "new" political philosophy is bogus. You are clearly trying to justify a pre-existing mindset and blaming it on a dictionary. Your own biased religious beliefs are the root of your prejudice. At best you enjoy rocking the boat with semantics, at worst you are cowardly in stating your true agenda. Like the Catholic-Protestant struggle in Ireland and many others, religion-based strife is deadly and insidious. If there was no such thing as religion, struggles for land would at least be more understandable. BTW- both my Webster dictionaries use anti-Jewish as the only definition of anti-semitism. The only one railroading anyone here is you! What exactly is your religious affiliation?
posted on January 26, 2003 08:05:26 AM new
A word about Zionism. Any country which proclaims its desire to conquer other countries, even if unprovoked, so it can have more land, is imperialistic and should be condemned. Germany did this around 1940 with its "Lebensraum(living room)" ideology. Megalomaniacs have done this many times throughout history. Israel, to my knowledge has never done this, rather only claiming any land it won as spoils to the victor in war. Zionism is pride in maintaining the sovereignty of its existing borders. Its hand has been forced at times by aggression to consider annexing certain surrounding regions. There is a BIG difference. Those who do not want to see this are usually those who have an agenda rooted in anti-semitism.
posted on January 26, 2003 02:36:59 PM newi know I sound extreme, but a strong re-action is required to oppose a stong action.
Well, it's certainly debatable whether the "Jewish Lobby" as you call it, is running the country. But what kind of "strong reaction" do you favor? Taking away Jews' property rights? Making them wear yellow stars and tatooing them? Rounding them up in concentration camps?
Dancing around your definition of anti-semitism isn't fooling anyone. And as extreme as this forum is, I think you'll find no support here for your twisted political ideology.
posted on January 26, 2003 03:43:43 PM new
There are differences in dictionarys,The international (english)version or and the American dictionary.The American dictionary has had certain words and the meaning changed,or dropped, and or, no explanation as the international version has written.
This may cause a problem with the definitions between two Countrys.
posted on January 26, 2003 05:19:50 PM new
Some dictionaries have a definition of only Semite and some only antiSemite
Some of you are saying that only the American dictionary of English is correct.
I have simply said that I will defer my personal decision as to the origins and meaning of the word antiSemite.
And you call me a coward (at worst).
I have told you that I MAY BE WRONG in my claim that the term has been ‘railroaded’ the reason I have come forward with this information is to give you a fair chance at honest and open debate. It is also to demonstrate that if I make a false claim its not malice and I am happy to admit if it is out of ignorance.
Perhaps the word anti-Semite should be changed to mean anyone that speaks against Israel, or Zionists, as it is often used.
Now, how about you reading some other dictionaries, unless your 100% certain.
As far as media is concerned, let’s just say there is no Jewish representation, or propoganda anti-other-semites.
And No, I’m not Muslim, I’m Greek Orthodox, not that I care much for religion.
I’ve told you my agenda is to give a balanced view.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0258700.html
Semite
A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians. A Jew. Bible A descendant of Shem.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/S0258700.html
Semite
NOUN: 1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians. 2. A Jew. 3. Bible A descendant of Shem.
(from Cambridge Dictionary of American English)
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=antisemitism*1+0
The word Semite doesn’t exist in the American Cambridge
Perhaps they just don’t want to confuse Americans into associating the two words.
Look it up online and they redirect you to anti-semite.
They also throw in Nazi for good measure, to help you understand what an antisemite is.
anti-Semitism
noun [U]
hate or strong dislike of Jews, or actions that express hate or dislike of Jews
Nazi anti-Semitism forced him to emigrate to the U.S.A.
anti-Semitic
adjective
anti-Semitic literature
anti-Semite
noun [C]
a person who hates or strongly dislikes Jews
He denied that he was an anti-Semite.
