A question for those of you who support Israel....
POSTED BY: STDOUBT
UPDATED: Sunday, March 8, 2026 23:09
VIEWED: 8531
PAGE 3 of 6
A few points for the israel-semite thing:
1. 85% of american jews do not support the aggressive zionist agenda.
2. the average jew is about 95% european by their genetic makeup, and only about 5% semitic according to genetics tests.
3. The arabs, against who the zionists wage war, are closer to 90+% semitic.
So there are many ways to look at the whole situation. Recently I read an analysis saying that there was a WWII-holocaust direct analogy (rather than the classic reverse one) in that, once again, the less semitic population was carrying out genocidal attacks against the more semitic one. The authors point was, even though the jews had been the victims in WWII and were the perpetrators in [WWIII] in each case, it was the less semitic group exterminating the more semitic group, which makes both actions anti-semitic, sort of by definition. So, if one follows that logic, (not to say I support the piece) then Israel itself is, or the zionists are, anti-semitic, which would make the opposite of anti-semitic being pro-semitic, or anti-anti-semitic, which would be consistant with being anti-zionist as long as zionist is in its current form, aggressively anti-arab.
I notice Jon Stewart, a longtime friend of Israel, has just added an arab commentator so he can make fun of Israel. It's a noble step. I can't say that he's anti-Israel yet, by which I mean anti-the israeli aggression, not anti-the state of israel and its people, but he has gotten to the point of balance.
Another curious thing...
Anti-semitic is never used to be anti-arab, inspite of their more semite-ness.
According to our society, anti-semite meaning anti-jewish, is a sin, yet some other anti-ethnics are not. We are always to expect that this is because of the holocaust, but I'm not sure it holds up.
Try all of these on for size, and see what kind of offendometer rating you get on each of them (how offensive would society consider each)
Anti-semitic, Anti-jew
Anti-arab
Anti-black
Anti-japanese
Anti-celt
Anti-slavic
Anti-tibetan
Anti-korean
Anti-hmong
anti-polish
anti-indian, anti-native american
anti-irish
anti-croatian
anti-serb
anti-witch
anti-vietnamese
Yet the above groups were all enslaved, and/or genocided during the history of our nation, sometime multiply. It's not holocaust denial or conspiracy theory but accept historical fact that more slavs were exterminated in genocidal pograms during the WWII era than jews, and yet anti-slav, a prevalent attitude even in our own society, does not generate a reaction. And President Waznorvininsky just doesn't sound like the sort of thing you're likely to ever hear.
It might be connected more to who runs our media. When you consider the internet revolution, and the number of russians in it, that may change and come back in 50 years and jewish jokes may be commonplace, but polish jokes may be a hate crime.
Just a thought.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In fact it's all to simple. Why do people vote for old men to lead them? If you put their minds under the microscope you would find there's very little rationality left. Old men are not among us to lead but to tell about the old days and encourage the youngsters to enjoy life and respect nature.
Putting them in charge is looking for trouble.
They are incapable of listening to reason cause they have their minds made up a long time ago. They are not practical at all.
It's always the same; old men start a war, millions of young people have to die for the great ideal. And that's just because most younsters do not yet have the intellectual baggage to see through the scam or are just to afraid to stand up and thwart the old man's scemes.
Why is everybody so afraid to let a young woman take the lead? In celtic tribes a woman's opinion was highly valued and mostly they were far more free then women in modern day western world. They fought furiously alongside their companions against their oppressors. But alas as always they were to much divided to counter the roman facist mass murderers macho freaks. Julius caesar did it just for power and standing. In those days rome was a stinking hellhole filled with decadent citizens. Unable to produce beauty these facists just stole from everywhere trampelling all different cultures along the way. It was them that spread the jews over the world and untill this day we are still suffering because of these right-wing monsters. A new roman empire began with the german nazi's, they also stole from all over the world destroying everything that refused to comply to their ideals. In the wake of the war the old men decided to 'give' a large portion of arab territory to the jews. However these jews were no longer the valiant warriors that stould up to the roman aggressor so many years ago. They now have become the conqueror backed up by a new facist empire: america. They simply do not belong there, only evil can come from it.
Amidst a culture that is completely strange to them (althought they share the same ancestors) their reaction is one of fear and violence. The israelians have destroyed all ancient olive trees and crops, confiscated most sources of water and bombed the palestinians into oblivian. Now they are attacking libanon because two of their soldiers got kidnapped. They now have become child murderers. A UN building got shelled even after ten warnings from the staff, three of them got killed.
'Old men never touched a drop of blood but they are drowning in it'. More then 2000 years they have been in charge now and indeed the result has been war and endless bloodshed untill this day. The problem with you americans is that you know nothing of the world just as the romans, you just huddle around a silly flag and kneel in fear to the throne of the wargod. 40% of you doesn't even believe in evolution. need i say more? But hey, the arabs are the bloodthirsty half-beasts aren't they? NO! When all your family is wiped out by an american-made bomb they have nothing to live for anymore except the only thing that is left: REVENGE! Just like that victim of the reavers who had to watch the madness, he had only one option left: to become a reaver.
One final question: why is it that a lot of democratic presidents get shot? And why was clinton spared?? Because now the nazi's are in total control of america and your democrates are cowards or monsters in disguise.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Semitic is not an ethnicity. You cannot be genetically Semitic. And there is no such genetic analysis, DNA or otherwise, that identifies or could identify Arabs or anyone as being Semitic.
There are essentially two distinct definitions of Semitic. The technical definition is that of a language group spoken by various peoples, extinct and extant, the Phoenicians, Akkadians, Hebrews, Arabs, etc. So from a technical standpoint, it makes little sense to refer to anyone as being Semitic, since people are not languages. We sometimes imply, based on our identification of the language someone speaks, that they are Semitic, but for obvious reasons, that is a poor indicator of ethnicity, and is never used, except by anti-Semites, to imply that any such genetic ethnicity exists.
The other definition of Semitic is Jewish, particularly when one talks about anti-Semitism. This always means anti-Jewish. The reference to Jews as singularly Semitic is something that derived from anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:Quote:
Originally posted by DukKati:
I almost forgot my solution for over crowded prisons. . . put them "GANGSTAS" and the rest up front also then we shall see who's "BAAAD". They be to busy trying to keep their pants up to fight soooooo....
Wow, DukKati! Talk about showing your arse. Do you have any other racist, stereotypical bullyou'd like to share?
Quote:
Originally posted by DukKati:
That should solve the over crowded prison issue.
Yeah, of course, because there's no other types of people in prison.Quote:
Well ... I know my knower works . . .
I'm not so sure it does.
_______________________________________________
First; I thought we were past the racial issue that "Racecard" is far to played out and is becoming a sick reminder of how ignorant people wish to remain ignorant. I see it used by "Niggers"(If you wish to get offended here please feel free) not by "Black" people.
Second; "GANGSTAS" are of differing races not just one. One thing they have in common is how they wish to portray themselves.
Third; You posted... "Yeah, of course, because there's no other types of people in prison"...I am going to assume that you are NOT a racist, and this statement was a misprint because you obviously are so distraught at the thought of every "GANGSTA" being of one race. Please let me assure you they are not. They are of every race and color.(Refer to Second explanation)
Fourth; I like showing my arse. I have been told by the girls who like it that its sexy.
Fifth; I was a "GANGSTA". Now ,I am a man.
I've been through the system.
It dont work.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thank you Dreamtrove.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
A few points for the israel-semite thing:
There were some Jewish activists protesting new settlements in the West Bank a few years back. THEY got called "anti-semitic" by the orthodox Zionists. See, that goes to the ridiculousness of the label. They have usurped the power of the label and broadened it to include anti-Zionist. If you don't support Zionism, you must hate Jews.
I criticize Israeli leaders all the time. I called Ariel Sharon, Ariel Shitler. I detest Zionism. Does that make me anti-Israel, let alone anti-Jewish?
Does criticizing American leaders make you anti-American? Does calling Bush "Bushit" make you anti-American? Does detesting capitalism make you anti-American? Does any of these criticisms make you a racist?
No. The race card is pulled in to fight dirty in debates. It is used to invalidate arguments via discrediting the character of the opponent, rather than discrediting the merits of the argument itself. I have no respect for any debater who resorts to this tactic.
-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
as a reason to support Israel...
How 'bout-- what will happen to non-combatant Jews in TelAviv and Jerusalem if the Muslims win?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hopefully not what happens to Muslim non-combatants right now.
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
How 'bout-- what will happen to non-combatant Jews in TelAviv and Jerusalem if the Muslims win?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Criticizing Ariel Sharon doesn’t make anyone anti-Semitic, or anti-Israeli.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I criticize Israeli leaders all the time. I called Ariel Sharon, Ariel Shitler. I detest Zionism. Does that make me anti-Israel, let alone anti-Jewish?
Calling former PM Sharon “Ariel Shilter,” suggests that your disagreement with Israel or Sharon might be more a product of immaturity then true criticism, because people with serious educated arguments don’t use those kinds of derogatory tactics. By itself that’s not anti-Semitism either.
If you argue that former PM Sharon intentionally targeted civilians and you can demonstrate with a rational argument that is true, then you might have a legitimate criticism of Israel. That’s not anti-Semitism either.
But if you argue that Sharon intentionally targeted civilians because he is an Israeli, then that is anti-Semitism.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I call him Ariel Shitler because his policies so offended me that I insult him for fun, not to make a point. Calling him names is not a tactic, it's entertainment.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
because people with serious educated arguments don’t use those kinds of derogatory tactics.
I have never said anyone did anything just because they are Israeli. Whenever I criticize Israeli action, I qualify that I am speaking of the government and leadership of Israel. I qualify that my criticisms do not apply to all Israelis, and certainly not to all Jews. But that never matters to people who want to see anti-semitism in all anti-Israeli remarks (as in anti-Israeli govt, not anti-Israeli people).
Quote:See, this is what mean. I never asserted any such thing. I never said Israel as a people. I never said that they had a policy of targeting civilians. In fact I made it a point to clarify that they didn't have a policy, and that I was speaking of LEADERS. But it doesn't matter. You want to read anti-semitism, you'll twist my words to find it. When this happens, the debate is over. There is no intellectual honesty in slinging accusations of racism as part of the debate. Because "people with serious educated arguments don’t use those kinds of derogatory tactics."
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal on the Get Real thread:
First of all, your assertion that Israel as a people holds a policy of targeting civilians to satiate their collective hatred seems to close to an ethnic slur for me to be comfortable with. It sounds too much like the “baby-killing Jew”
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DukKati:
Fifth; I was a "GANGSTA". Now ,I am a man.
The phrase "non sequitur" comes to mind.
----
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being" - Carl Jung
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME