"Throw the Jews Down the Well"

[j0da]

Now, now, Joshua, hold your horses. ChienFume exercises here some pretty manipulative ranting, therefore he gets what he deserves. I do not see much of emotionally charged attacks against him - could you please indicate which particular comments you have in mind in this regard?

As far as ChienFume goes, he didn't bring any data to the table, so there is not much to discuss. I'm afraid he isn't eligible for writting SOTT editorial, but if he has some substancial information backed up by some references I'm sure he can post it here.

 

[Adaryn]

Eventually, Karma's gonna get you...gonna knock you down from that ivory tower. Go ahead and laugh and scoff while you can.

Looks like a new version of the "thou shall be utterly destroyed" one. Jehovian vengeance and all that. We can feel the hatred in your posts.
BTW, judaism was not set up by Jews, so it's got nothing to do with "race". Judaism's got nothing to do with religion, it's just (quote from CofZ) "revealed legilsation, not revealed truth"

Dr. Kastein, a fervent Zionist, holds that the Law laid down in
the Old Testament must be fulfilled to the letter, but does not pretend
to take the version of history seriously, on which this Law is based. In
this he differs from Christian polemicists of the "every word is true"
school. He holds that the Old Testament was in fact a political
programme, drafted to meet the conditions of a time, and frequently
revised to meet changing conditions.

Seven nations greater and mightier than thou" are to be delivered into
the Judahites' hands, and: "Thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt
make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them. . . ye shall
destroy their alters . . . for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God;
the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself,
above all people that are on the face of the earth . . . Thou shalt be
blessed above all people . . . And thou shalt consume all the people which
the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon
them. . . the Lord thy God will send the hornet among them, until they
that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed. . . And the Lord
thy God will put out these nations before thee by little and little. . . But
the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them
with a mighty destruction until they be destroyed. And he shall deliver
their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under
heaven; there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have
destroyed them. . ."Deuteronomy, 7

 

[Niall]

With you on that Joda. Joshua, it's clear to me this attack dog has NO intention whatsoever of entering a discussion of any kind. He's certainly done a heck of a lot projecting tho. Now run along Smoking Dog, good boy =)

Freemason, pfff. HAHAHAHAHAHA. No kudos here my friend. Zilch. Nada.

 

[Joshua]

Now, now, Joshua, hold your horses. ChienFume exercises here some pretty manipulative ranting,

How so? I'm not saying he isn't. He's being critical. What's interesting is that the moment one is critical of the POV of this forum the group mind jumps all over the criticiser, not unlike right wingers V. liberals instead of trying to understand where someone, obviously biased is coming from. It's so easy to be 'right', for either side of this thread's discussion.

I actually disagree with what Chien is saying, but am not talking abourt what he's saying. I'm talking about the response I'm reading to what he's saying.

therefore he gets what he deserves.,

With all due respect jOda this is exactly what I'm talking about. What does he deserve? Because he's being unintelligent, then WE must be the same?, by attatcking. Nothing ever gets accomplished in the context of understanding and communicating with this attitude. Now, that's just my opinion.

I do not see much of emotionally charged attacks against him - could you please indicate which particular comments you have in mind in this regard?

With all do respect, please see your own quote right above.

As far as ChienFume goes, he didn't bring any data to the table, so there is not much to discuss.

I disagree, all Zionism arguments aside he critiques the editorial emphasis of Joe Quinn. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with him, just that no one responded to the orignal point the individual was making.

 

[Joshua]

I'm Jewish and a stauch Anti-Zionist. The bottom line is that both sides of this issue-Palastinian and Israeli/Zionist are going to have to give, and give in a big way.

The time is past for debating who is right and wrong and who did what when, this is has been the MO for 50 years and it's only made the situation worse for all conerned save for the political leaders on both sides.

Both sides have to give up their polemics. This is so obvious to me yet it is not discussed and most likely will never happen. I use the above thread as an example.

I hear you jOda, the guys a propagandist. The point is-he doesn't think he is. That is the foundation we must approach him from. It's a larger POV than engaging in low level ideological back and forth, which is obviously not getting anyone anywhere.

Again, it's easy to be right. It's a more difficult task to engage the opponent in an intelligent way, regardless of how un-intelligent he/she might be behaving.

One of the most successful political/social changes ever made was with Ghandi's tactics in India. I only site Ghandi as he played the game differently. I'm not saying his tactics exactly would work in this Is/Pal. situation. Only that some different thinking and tactics are required.

Anyone have any ideas??????

 

[Tigersoap]

I'm Jewish and a stauch Anti-Zionist. The bottom line is that both sides of this issue-Palastinian and Israeli/Zionist are going to have to give, and give in a big way.

The time is past for debating who is right and wrong and who did what when, this is has been the MO for 50 years and it's only made the situation worse for all conerned save for the political leaders on both sides.

Both sides have to give up their polemics. This is so obvious to me yet it is not discussed and most likely will never happen. I use the above thread as an example.

I hear you jOda, the guys a propagandist. The point is-he doesn't think he is. That is the foundation we must approach him from. It's a largert POV than engaging in low lever ideological back and forth.

With all due respect I don't think that Chienfume (dog smoking/smoked dog ? o_O) is here to share and exchange point of views.
If you spend your time registering and start another flame war in this forum I don't think you will try to listen to what people have to say.

I may be misjudging your comments but it seems as you're trying to be as neutral as possible but in some instances you have to step up and stop these kind of activities because they won't lead anywhere osit.

 

[Joshua]

Some other thoughts, while we're at it. <grin>

We can analyze for ever, though I'm not advocating to NOT understand history. From my POV all the energy that goes into analyzing, criticizing and being right will not change anything.

It will give the student a sense of understanding and perhaps moral superiority. That energy at some point has to go into building bridges.

This is what I don't see anywhere, the building of bridges. That's not meant to criticize the efforts of all who publish and participate here. This is the most intelligent forum I've found on the net, and hence I expect more here than elsewhere. That is my problem.

Again, I don't see any solution based energy. What are my ideas? I have none other than the broad Macro strokes I'm brushing here.

To sum I guess what I am saying is that with all the intelligence I perceive here, it's the same old polemics day in day out.

 

[Joshua]

If you spend your time registering and start another flame war in this forum I don't think you will try to listen to what people have to say.

I may be misjudging your comments but it seems as you're trying to be as neutral as possible but in some instances you have to step up and stop these kind of activities because they won't lead anywhere osit.

To be clear, are you saying I'm starting a flame war, or that Chien is?

I'm curious what "activities" you suggest I stop? I think this thread is a great discussion and that I've generated some interesting dialogue.

Would you disagree?

 

[Joshua]

To those of you who still have a slight connection to your 3,400+ year-old heritage:
Shabbat Shalom and Chag Sameach!

what if this person's posts were aimed at Jewish members of this forum, in order to make them react through appeal to their "jewishness" and rally them against the other forum members by creating this kind of polemics ? it'd be clever tactic indeed...

That's a good point. I can only comment for myself. In my case I don't indentify with being Jewish, I mention it only as context to being staunchly Anti-Zionist.

No disrespect to anyone's beliefs, but ANY religion isn't of much value or intelligence for me personally.

 

[Cyre2067]

ChienFume seems to be distorting the discussion. In my opinion the original intent of his first post was based on an incorrect basis:

Quinn's comments turn on a solipistic fallacy commonly used by those whose aim is to distort the truth.

Joe's regurgitation of anti-Zionist pablum is no doubt eagerly absorbed by many who have a pavlovian reaction to anything Zionist.

First, his commentry is designed to elucidate how those who are of the ADL cloth use the Borat sketch in question to demonstrate "anti-semitism is on the rise". However, as you have not properly understood the editorial I'll reinforce his position.

Quinn points out how the sketch is designed to show the absurdity of the song. It's obvious to normal human beings that the song is anti-jewish in nature, however the HUMOR of the sketch arrives from the reaction of the audience to join in and sing with him. The fact that they are southerners make its all the more amusing, reinforcing typical southern stereotypes.

He then argues that Feverant Zionists like yourself, use this type of humor to reinforce their argument "Anti-semitism is on the rise, Jew's flee to the safety of israel!". Which is exactly what he proves by supplying the quote from the ADL press release.

So please, before you post here, do your homework. I'm assuming you didn't even read the whole editorial, as you seem to have no logical grasp of its contents. Further, you cannot "judge a book by it's cover" it terms of Controversy of Zion. The intro the the book explains why, and i doubt you bothered to read that.

So please, supply facts, quotes, and explanations before you trash a book or article. It demonstates your ignorance, and is not welcome here.

 

[Tigersoap]

If you spend your time registering and start another flame war in this forum I don't think you will try to listen to what people have to say.

I may be misjudging your comments but it seems as you're trying to be as neutral as possible but in some instances you have to step up and stop these kind of activities because they won't lead anywhere osit.

To be clear, are you saying I'm starting a flame war, or that Chien is?

I'm curious what "activities" you suggest I stop? I think this thread is a great discussion and that I've generated some interesting dialogue.

Would you disagree?

haha no you're not. I think Chienfume wants to provoke but that's my perception of it.
Although your avatar is probably fitting :).

By activities, I mean, people who comes in here with the goal of disrupting, provoke and just make some noise.
Sometimes it takes a while before their true colours (don't Cindy Lauper me) are showing though.

 

[Niall]

all Zionism arguments aside he critiques the editorial emphasis of Joe Quinn. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with him, just that no one responded to the original point the individual was making.

Please Joshua, enlighten me; what exactly was the original point Smoking Dog was making?

From where I'm standing, he was expressing opinion, and not presenting anything to back it up.

He starts off well:

An editorial is distinguished from an opinion piece in that the editorial expresses views held by the publisher or publishers of the information source.

Quinn's comments turn on a solipistic fallacy commonly used by those whose aim is to distort the truth.

...Oooh, I'm looking forward to hearing this!

Joe's regurgitation of anti-Zionist pablum is no doubt eagerly absorbed by many who have a pavlovian reaction to anything Zionist.

Okay. This is basically another way of writing the previous sentence. But I'm curious; what happened to this "solipistic fallacy" our enlightened friend was gonna treat us to?!

Never mind that these comments are fallacious, they are in defiance of the clearly stated Forum rules against defamation of others.

Whoa, wait up. What comments? I mean, which ones in particular is he referring to?! See what he's done? He's swishing with a great big paintbrush... 'cause he knows there's not one single point he can present as evidence that Joe's guilty of the charge he makes; namely, with employing a "solipistic fallacy commonly used by those whose aim is to distort the truth."

Smoking Dog actually gave himself away with that last sentence. The D-word, hehe. "You can't defame me, I'm the victim!" Why does that alphabet-agency, the ADL, ring in my ears?! The rest of his posts' 'argument' basically amounts to 'Joe is anti-Semitic. And because he's an Editor at this place, so are all of you!'

Yeh. Right. In fact, what Smoking Dog has done can be found in his own words. They're highlighted above.

 

[Laura]

I was directed to this forum while doing research. This research had brought me to the editorial posted here:
http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20061003_ManufacturingAntiSemitism27sNoJoke.php

Comedian Cohen's "Throw the Jew Down the Well" bit, pitched to an unsuspecting durnken audience of bottom-feeding Americans elicited comments from Joe Quinn that are styled as EDITORIAL.

An editorial is distinguished from an opinion piece in that the editorial expresses views held by the publisher or publishers of the information source.

That would be a correct assessment.

Quinn's comments turn on a solipistic fallacy commonly used by those whose aim is to distort the truth.

That's your opinion. You are entitled to it as we are entitled to ours.

Joe's regurgitation of anti-Zionist pablum is no doubt eagerly absorbed by many who have a pavlovian reaction to anything Zionist.

It's not hard to be anti-Zionist these days, but that doesn't mean anti-Semitic. In fact, we are very pro-Semitic, Semitic Jews and Arabs, that is.

Never mind that these comments are fallacious, they are in defiance of the clearly stated Forum rules against defamation of others.

Sorry, but Zionism is an ideology, not a people. Fascism was an ideology too. Not much difference between them either, IMO.

How is it that distorted misrepresentations of the facts by Joe Quinn should be given with the authority of the publishers of Signs of the Times?

It is your opinion that the facts are distorted. Our opinion is that Zionism distort more facts than any other ideology on the planet. And this is OUR forum, as well.

Would the publishers allow me to write such an editorial denouncing the imperalistic Islamic movement? Would they allow me to publish a video that was intended to be satirical of Islam?

It's done all the time on Zionist websites and Zionist controlled Neocon and Christian Zionist websites. In fact, there is a preponderance of same due to Zionist controlled media in the U.S. and elsewhere. So, no, not on this website. And the buck stops with me.

Somewhere along the way those of you who subscribe to anti-Zionist ideologies have lost your bearings. You're not dealing with facts, but with ideas that exist in the realm of Laputa.

That's your opinion. Ours is quite the opposite. Ours is based on facts, by the way.

Unlike the Islamic nuts whom most of you defend, Zionists are not likely to kill you because you make fun of us or because you criticize us. This is one of the many big differences between Zionist ideas and those of Islam, Christianity, or Socialism-variants (the real Imperialistic "religions").

Now that is about the most ignorant thing I've heard all day... heck, the most ignorant thing I've heard in a month or so. And believe me, I hear some ignorant things reading international news all day long every day. You should try it some time, might broaden your mind.

If you choose to aid Islam, then so be it. May they erect a mosque near you swiftly and soon. May you be honored by having their narrow view of the world forced upon you.

Actually, there is a mosque near us and there are many Muslims in the neighborhood and all of them are fine people. My lunch yesterday was prepared by one of them with loving hands. Your remarks about Islam and Muslims are so ignorant they take my breath away!

This narrow view is coming soon to a neighborhood near you, so get ready. By the time you realize that the water's a'boilin' you won't have the strength to jump out.

Hate to tell you this but the narrow view has been enforced on Western Civilization for a long time now, starting, oh, about the 10th century... when some Spanish Rabbis traveled to Khazaria...

 

[Joshua]

all Zionism arguments aside he critiques the editorial emphasis of Joe Quinn. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with him, just that no one responded to the original point the individual was making.

Please Joshua, enlighten me; what exactly was the original point Smoking Dog was making?

From where I'm standing, he was expressing opinion, and not presenting anything to back it up.

He starts off well:

An editorial is distinguished from an opinion piece in that the editorial expresses views held by the publisher or publishers of the information source.

Quinn's comments turn on a solipistic fallacy commonly used by those whose aim is to distort the truth.

...Oooh, I'm looking forward to hearing this!

Joe's regurgitation of anti-Zionist pablum is no doubt eagerly absorbed by many who have a pavlovian reaction to anything Zionist.

Okay. This is basically another way of writing the previous sentence. But I'm curious; what happened to this "solipistic fallacy" our enlightened friend was gonna treat us to?!

Never mind that these comments are fallacious, they are in defiance of the clearly stated Forum rules against defamation of others.

Whoa, wait up. What comments? I mean, which ones in particular is he referring to?! See what he's done? He's swishing with a great big paintbrush... 'cause he knows there's not one single point he can present as evidence that Joe's guilty of the charge he makes; namely, with employing a "solipistic fallacy commonly used by those whose aim is to distort the truth."

Smoking Dog actually gave himself away with that last sentence. The D-word, hehe. "You can't defame me, I'm the victim!" Why does that alphabet-agency, the ADL, ring in my ears?! The rest of his posts' 'argument' basically amounts to 'Joe is anti-Semitic. And because he's an Editor at this place, so are all of you!'

Yeh. Right. In fact, what Smoking Dog has done can be found in his own words. They're highlighted above.

You've done a much better job at highlighting Chien's logical holes in the context of rhetorical argument than I could. Well done. I find this to be intelligent.

Getting off of Chien in particular. The broader points I've made, while possibly hijacking the thread, are still what interests me most.

 

[Niall]

Dammit Cyre, thats the second time today you've beaten me to the same point! (previously on Shoutwire wrt H.See's article)

This is FUN =)