NationStates Jolt Archive

You agreed with the post of the guy who said, more or less, "Let's shoot all muslims!".
Thus Canuck's post comparing you with the Nazis for agreeing with that guy who said to kill millions of innocent people.
By the way, I think we've gone through at least two godwins in this thread.

Wrong.

Like I already posted, "I still stand by what [NS] Canada City said and agree with him to the fullest...also when he says they should be shot, it could be interpretated the didnt mean all Muslims, simply the ones that are included in the following, in [NS] Canada City's own words, "Burning down buildings, the protest signs in the UK, and palestines celebrating when the towers were hit."

But isnt that the problem with everything, interpretation?"

guess what I am, I wanna see what you say

I would say totally an arab lover, obviously uninformed, possibly an arab and maybe anti semetic.

Yeah, I'm an American and I AM Jewish...regardless of what that muslims tells you.
Whatever, it really is irrelevant. I was just trying to point out to Tropical Sands that my issue was with you and not the Israeli people.

But you dont have to be Israeli to be subjected to Anti-Semiticsm...you just have to be Jewish.
I fully understand that.

Anyway Tropical Sands your getting way carried away, just because Canuck supports the arabs over the Jews, doesnt mean hes anti semetic at all...
WAIT!! Full stop!! Where in my posts do I indicate that I "support the arabs over the Jews"? You are not going to find it because it isn't there. As I stated earlier, there are extremists on both sides and those are the dangerous ones. As far as Iran is concerned, as long as Israel has nukes, I can certainly understand Iran wanting them, especially after what has happened to Iraq. The entire Middle East should be a nuclear free zone, but I don't see Israel giving up their nukes anytime soon.

And yes, Tropical Sands did get carried away and I thank you for pointing that out.

I'm the one at odds with Canuck here and I dont beleive him to be anti semetic at all, just a big fat leftist:D
Well, I am big, a liitle fat, and left of centre, so you are not too far off the mark. :p

Tropical Sands, you might want to relax a little...while I agree with your position on Israel and your posts on the Israeli-Arab conflict...calling people that dont agree with us anti semetic, is just, well...stupid.
Words of wisdom.

Anyway, Canuck...although I cant stand your siding with the arabs
Again, I don't. Ideally, the Palestinians and Israelis can co-exist peacefully and their economies and relationship can grow in a mutually rewarding manner.

...I'm gonna put that aside for a second and tell you to things. One, I am Jewish.
Okay.

Two, and more importantly, your not anti semetic, dont worry.
I know thanks, and I am not worried.

I would say totally an arab lover,

if thats the way you want to put it
obviously uninformed,
nope
possibly an arab
only partly

and maybe anti semetic.
no

eh, 50%, could have been worse

As far as Iran is concerned, as long as Israel has nukes, I can certainly understand Iran wanting them, especially after what has happened to Iraq. The entire Middle East should be a nuclear free zone, but I don't see Israel giving up their nukes anytime soon.

And that, to me and others who support Israel and not the arabs...would seem like supporting the arabs over the Jews.

You dont see the difference between Israel having nukes and Iran having nukes?

Nobody is directly threatend by Israel having nukes...cuz Israel is not waving em in anyones face.

That same CANNOT be said about Iran.

What say you, my fellow Canuckian?

only partly

Ah ha! Now we're getting somewhere!

Your arab...I knew it all along.

They should put Israel in the middle of Siberia so this shit can stop.. :rolleyes:

They should put Israel in the middle of Siberia so this shit can stop.. :rolleyes:

Or they could wipe out every single arab in the middle east so this shit can stop...:rolleyes:

Just another...great...idea to match yours.

Considering the original material, I don't think CanuckHeaven is anti-semitic but may have commited an ad hominem(I believe the original post was arguing about how since Atlantean advocated killing all muslims, his/her viewpoint shouldn't be listened too. Feel free to show me the original post though)

And Tropical Sands, I beileve you've gone crazy, considering you're accusing EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD of being anti-semitic, possibly including me.
And to point out the fallacy you're using? Many ad hominems, as even if someone is anti semitic, that doesn't mean you can ignore whatever they say on that grounds.

Really too bad, I support your side too.

EDIT:Reread one of your posts. To wit: CH was not talking about Israel in the Hitler reference. He/she was talking about Atlantean's proposal to kill all muslims. I advise you to take a break from this argument, really. You seem to have just ignored a rather crucial point there, and that's a rather large falacy.

EDIT2:Even more points:

Specifically, Atlantean agreed with this(Note:Original poster made it clear that this refers to all muslims, not only the terrorists and such) :

And prior to this, Atlantean said...

There we go. Thorough proof that CH is not an anti-semite, and in fact, may have been correct in his/her statement that what atlantean agreed with is a whole lot worse then the palastinien(sic?) terrorists.
Thanks for taking the time to sort through this horrible mess. In regards to anyone posting on this forum, they have the right to say whatever they feel like, and likewise when someone goes off on a hateful, racist, angry rant, I often exercize the right to let them know about it.

Thanks for taking the time to sort through this horrible mess. In regards to anyone posting on this forum, they have the right to say whatever they feel like, and likewise when someone goes off on a hateful, racist, angry rant, I often exercize the right to let them know about it.

Which is one of the things I respect about you CanuckHeaven. There is one thing we have in common. We do not like racists.

And that, to me and others who support Israel and not the arabs...would seem like supporting the arabs over the Jews.
You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it may be, as far as I am concerned.

You dont see the difference between Israel having nukes and Iran having nukes?
My preference would be that neither of them have nukes. In the early 80's, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Iraq's nuclear program, which was condemned by the UN, and if I am not mistaken, was vetoed by the US. When Israel did that, all it did was inflame problems in the Middle East.

Nobody is directly threatend by Israel having nukes...cuz Israel is not waving em in anyones face.
The very fact that Israel has them (illegally I might add), is in itself a threat.

That same CANNOT be said about Iran.
I don't see it that way at all. The fact remains that the US has nukes and are waving them in Iran's face, so Isreal doesn't need to.

What say you, my fellow Canuckian?
As usual, quite a lot!! :D

Ah ha! Now we're getting somewhere!

Your arab...I knew it all along.
And your jewish so your point is...

And your jewish so your point is...
That this makes him right and you a barbarian, by default.

Which is one of the things I respect about you CanuckHeaven. There is one thing we have in common. We do not like racists.
*CH is overwhelmed!! :)

It would be great if we could find more things in common, but one is better than none!!

The problem is, creating any new country anywhere forces someone out. The days when a superpower could redraw a region's borders and create new political entities without penalty, died earlier in the century. This particular colonial technique has not given rise to much long-term success. Witness Iraq.

great point..worked wonders in africa and south east asia also.

And your jewish so your point is...

No point...as it was a joke....Jesus, come on UN..relax a bit.

That this makes him right and you a barbarian, by default.

Oh come on, lighten up. Can't you take a joke? Stop being such a German

My preference would be that neither of them have nukes. In the early 80's, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Iraq's nuclear program, which was condemned by the UN, and if I am not mistaken, was vetoed by the US. When Israel did that, all it did was inflame problems in the Middle East.


The very fact that Israel has them (illegally I might add), is in itself a threat.


I don't see it that way at all. The fact remains that the US has nukes and are waving them in Iran's face, so Isreal doesn't need to.

Yes, I'm aware of Israel's pre emptive strike....and I stand by it 100%. The problem is that...while the UN and the Europeans and even the Americans can sit around and talk about the situation, Israel is threatend by it first hand....The only thing keeping Israel alive is its decicivness and boldness...they need to stay one step ahead of the arabs.

It didnt inflame problems.....you wanna see inflaming problems? Give an arab country nuclear capabilities.

AKA....the Iranian situation right now.

Though I, along with most people in the world, wish no one had nukes...if they had to be in the hands of someone...I would totally trust the Israelis...for they are not the aggressors...but the defenders securing a place and existance for their country and their children. I dont see what threat Israel's nukes pose.

America isnt waving the nukes in Irans face, but rather we are sticking up for Israel when Iran waves nukes in Israels face.

So far, all of your logic has failed you. You have made illogical assumptions based on faulty criteria that led you to falsely accuse me of being an anti-Semite. Even after I invited you to go back and re-read what I initially wrote, you came back still insisting that I was anti-Semetic. However, you graciously gave me the opportunity to "prove" that I wasn't anti-Semetic by taking part in a test as if this test would somehow magically "prove" that I was indeed anti-Semetic or not. Because I refused to take part in your flawed test, you made the illogical assumption that I indeed was anti-Semetic. You make matters worse by suggesting that I don't know what logic is, even though you have failed to use any in this whole discussion.

You keep saying "illogical assumptions" but you've yet to actually point out any logical rules or principles I've violated. You're still using the term "logic" as if its is a subjective term. You might as well say I'm being unscientific.

And no, I didn't decide you were anti-Semitic based on the fact you wouldn't answer a few questions. And calling a few questions a "test" is hyperboile. I decided you were an anti-Semite because what you seemed to be saying at the time appeared to fit the criteria for anti-Semitism. Although, it seems I may have gone a bit overboard on you. So I am sorry if I called you an anti-Semite if you aren't one.

Oh well Im an anti freakin semite. After reading much of this thread this seems to be the only response you, IDF, or AI can come up with. I still find so hard to believe how you can not understand how anger over Israel policy =/= anti-semitism

Anger over "Israeli policy" is not the same as saying Israel doesn't have the right to exist or is a racist state. Both the EUMC and the US State Dept. define both positions as anti-Semitism and not legitimite "anger over Israeli policy."

Of course, I'm sure you'll ignore what the US State Dept. says in its 04' report on global anti-Semitism. You only support your country when it fits into your pre-conceived ideals.

http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2005/Jan/05-93928.html?chanlid=eur

Anyway Tropical Sands your getting way carried away, just because Canuck supports the arabs over the Jews, doesnt mean hes anti semetic at all...I'm the one at odds with Canuck here and I dont beleive him to be anti semetic at all, just a big fat leftist:D

Tropical Sands, you might want to relax a little...while I agree with your position on Israel and your posts on the Israeli-Arab conflict...calling people that dont agree with us anti semetic, is just, well...stupid.

Perhaps I do get a bit carried away. I can just be extremely militant and I get furious when I see support for terrorists and things that have occured on this thread. Jews have been persecuted by Goyim who don't know a thing about Jews for centuries, had their land stolen, put in ghettos, systematically murdered, and Goyim who still don't know a thing about Jews are taking the side of people who blow up Jewish women and children in sandwich stands over a legitimate, legal Jewish State.

And while I may have gone overboard with some of the anti-Semitism accusations, I think for the most part they are justified. The new anti-Semitism is in fact anti-Israel and anti-Zionism. They simply repackaged classicial anti-Semitism, which was no longer acceptable after the Holocaust, as anti-Zionism, which is something that is seen to be socially and politically acceptable because it isn't a direct attack on Jews. But who are they really fooling? Saying "Oh, I'm not against Jews... but you make racist policies and I want to take away your state." That is why I listed the criteria for how to tell the two apart from the EUMC and tried to demonstrate how the pseudo anti-Zionism of some posters is in fact the new anti-Semitism.

Ok, you've calmed down. Good.
And may I note, you seem to have a "Jews are always the victim" falacy going there. Very common fallacy, but still falacious. I'd try to disprove it, but I'm sleepy now.
Good night.

*CH is overwhelmed!! :)

It would be great if we could find more things in common, but one is better than none!!

We have agreed on a few other things but yea, I agree with what you said about finding more things we have in common.

So I am sorry if I called you an anti-Semite if you aren't one.
Thank you, apology accepted. ;)

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. There is nothing to worry about. The president is planning right now to invade them and make them a democratic nation whether they like it or not. The president will soon take care of Iran just like he did Iraq and after that the rest of the world including france, and with the exception of the U.K.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. There is nothing to worry about. The president is planning right now to invade them and make them a democratic nation whether they like it or not. The president will soon take care of Iran just like he did Iraq and after that the rest of the world including france, and with the exception of the U.K.

I'd just like to state here that the above statement does not reflect the views of any conservative, living or dead.

Guys like this give us a baaaaaaaaad name.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. There is nothing to worry about. The president is planning right now to invade them and make them a democratic nation whether they like it or not. The president will soon take care of Iran just like he did Iraq and after that the rest of the world including france, and with the exception of the U.K.
Welcome back!! I have missed your timely, poignant posts. :D

I'd just like to state here that the above statement does not reflect the views of any conservative, living or dead.

Guys like this give us a baaaaaaaaad name.

Bushanomics better be roleplaying but I do agree with your post Myotisinia.

"In The Case for Israel, Alan Dershowitz describes a definition of anti-Semitism as "taking a trait or an action that is widespread, if not universal, and blaming only the Jews for it. That is what Hitler and Stalin did, and that is what former Harvard University president A. Lawrence Lowell did in the 1920s when he tried to limit the number of Jews admitted to Harvard because 'Jews cheat.' When a distinguished alumnus objected on the grounds that non-Jews also cheat, Lowell replied, 'You're changing the subject. I'm talking about Jews.' So, too, when those who single out only the Jewish nation for criticism are asked why they don't criticize Israel's enemies, they respond, 'You're changing the subject. We're talking about Israel."

The fact of it is, Israel is receiving more criticism and more harsh criticism than other nations that have far worse histories. The labeling of the IDF as a "terrorist" group while labeling the Tamil Tigers (who are in fact a recognized terrorist group) a poor old "outgunned guerilla" group demonstrates this too. Example again, same source, bold mine:

"The EUMC developed a working definition of anti-Semitism that defined ways in which attacking Israel or Zionism could be anti-Semitic, the definition states:

"Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

* Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by
claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist
endeavor.
* Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not
expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
* Using the symbols and images associated with classic
anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to
characterize Israel or Israelis.
* Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the
Nazis.
* Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of
Israel."

This pseudo anti-Zionism has become an outlet for real anti-Semites and terrorist supporters to lash out at Israel while attempting to maintain a facade of legitimacy. The vast majority of the people on this forum who have claimed "it isn't anti-Semitic, but anti-Zionist" so far have demonstrated that their anti-Zionism is in fact the pseudo anti-Zionism that fits the criteria for the new anti-Semitism.

The same Dershovitz who has had his ass handed to him over his various claims by Proffessor Norman Finklestein. And I've pointed out before that the state of Israel does not speak for or represent all Jews. But you seem to have missed that one.


Your refusal to simply answer a few questions about Israel, that would expose you as being anti-Semitic, supports quite clearly that you are indeed anti-Semitic and that you don't want it to come to the light. Of course, you could answer the questions and prove me wrong (or right), or you could just let your silence incriminate you..

Its not for you to set up hoops for him to jump through. Highlight a clearly anti-jewish statement if hes made one and take him up on it. Otherwise its an unfounded allegation.

Anger over "Israeli policy" is not the same as saying Israel doesn't have the right to exist or is a racist state. Both the EUMC and the US State Dept. define both positions as anti-Semitism and not legitimite "anger over Israeli policy."

Of course, I'm sure you'll ignore what the US State Dept. says in its 04' report on global anti-Semitism. You only support your country when it fits into your pre-conceived ideals.

http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2005/Jan/05-93928.html?chanlid=eur
I wont ignore what they said in the report, I will simply not care. Its only a label that they and you have put on me, and I can careless

I wont ignore what they said in the report, I will simply not care. Its only a label that they and you have put on me, and I can careless

OoOooO..Rebel!

OoOooO..Rebel!
your a funny one

your a funny one

Eh, can you blame a guy for trying?