Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

State Dept.'s Anti-semitism Report


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#21 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2005 - 03:39 PM

http://www.jewishwor...gorin073103.asp

Would such article be ever accepted in a Western newspaper, without having to face the critics of the population, because what is in takes racist proportions. And check the hypocrasy. mad.gif

#22 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2005 - 03:41 PM

QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 15 2005, 04:39 PM)
http://www.jewishwor...gorin073103.asp

Would such article be ever accepted in a Western newspaper, without having to face the critics of the population, because what is in takes racist proportions. And check the hypocrasy.  mad.gif


BTW, pay attention how many time on purpouses, France is not in capital F, while other countries are, and how "F"rench is not as well.

#23 Arpa

Arpa

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Culture

Posted 15 January 2005 - 03:49 PM

I had meant to start a whole new thread about this but this thread seems to fit .
Plus, I don't want ro create yet another thread that will supersede and eclipse our own Armenian affairs.
From all indications it seems like the "Armageddon" has been put on hold.
Rveleations, chapter 16, verse 16.
http://www.hti.umich...V2&byte=5423522
Now that the Palestinians have elected a "new and improved" president who does not vow to drown the state of Israel into the sea, and tries to extend a hand of friendship and cooperation, the only idiots, the likes of Pat Robertson just like the one in the above site seem to be out of business.
One of many sites; Note theat the ariter seems to be Jewish.
http://www.buildinge...armageddon.html
To be perfectly honest, the Jews seldom refer to "Armageddon" in the context of the "final war", the destruction of the globe, and the "Second Coming" as those fundamentalist idiots do. Why would they? After all does not it meant an end to the world, an end, among others to the State of Israel that they have shed so much blood to preserve?
The Jews don't wish for the Armageddon. To them it has lost its original meaning and mission. They don't read that so called Christian text where that idiotic Book of Revelation is.
It is those idiotic "missionaries" who wish and pray for it.
Do we want an Armageddon?
Why would we?
It took us over a thousand years to have our own land. Would we want it to dissolve away in a universal conflagration?

#24 vava

vava

    :yawn:

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 15 January 2005 - 03:57 PM

I think it's imprecise at BEST to be judging an entire based on the comments of a few marginal groups on the web. How porrly would we Armenians be judged if one was to fall upon some purportedly 'pro-Armenian' sites - we'd all be considered no better than racist hooligans. So let's not jump to conclusions.

QUOTE (Domino)
Why can't we talk about things that concern Jews without going out of control, this includes "poor poor Jews" and "bad bad Jews." I'm tired of both extrems.


This I entriely agree with...

#25 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2005 - 04:10 PM

QUOTE (vava @ Jan 15 2005, 04:57 PM)
I think it's imprecise at BEST to be judging an entire based on the comments of a few marginal groups on the web. How porrly would we Armenians be judged if one was to fall upon some purportedly 'pro-Armenian' sites - we'd all be considered no better than racist hooligans. So let's not jump to conclusions.

QUOTE (Domino)
Why can't we talk about things that concern Jews without going out of control, this includes "poor poor Jews" and "bad bad Jews." I'm tired of both extrems.


This I entriely agree with...



Vava, if I would want to judge a group, i will not visit marginal sites. HyeForum is an example, one would judge based on the moderators and their professionalism, and is not a marginal site.

The Israeli site I am talking about, has it's own "newspaper," it is not only some marginal place. They even have a system for registration and approval, to be sure that anti-Jews don't end up there, after a week, I still can't post there, because I havn't been approved. (do you see the hypocrasy there, while they display a pathologic xenophobia in their forum, they try to minimise the access to their forum to prevent anti-semits to have access to it)

And this is not only forums, but as well the Israeli journalism, reminds me the Turkish daily news... and this article about the French is even not from an Israeli, would the Canadian society ever accept such crap if it was about a group of people? The newspaper editor published it, without even seing anything wrong in it, they havn't even bothere replacing the non-capital "f"s.

#26 gamavor

gamavor

    -= Nobility =-

  • Nobility
  • 4,889 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 15 January 2005 - 10:52 PM

QUOTE
To be perfectly honest, the Jews seldom refer to "Armageddon" in the context of the "final war", the destruction of the globe, and the "Second Coming" as those fundamentalist idiots do. Why would they?


Quite understandable! smile.gif No one is crazy enough to propagate Armageddon, especially if your father is a banker! smile.gif

#27 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 16 January 2005 - 11:41 PM

QUOTE (THOTH @ Jan 15 2005, 02:36 PM)
Exactly vava. And I have no interest in getting into this discusion further with anyone here who just doesn't get it. IMO those who are so focused on putting down the Jews at every oppurtunity are shameful Armenians and shameful people. Certainly Jewish groups and Israel often act in ways that deserve condemnation - etc - and I have no problem doing so (funny but I've been called anti-Semetic and have been shunned by a Jewish in-law of mine for positions I have taken regarding Israel & Palestinians etc - we didn't talk for almost 2 years and I refused to apologize for my comments - creating a big family rift - and what a joke to call me anti-semetic - lol) - but this isn't the point - the issue is people having what is for the most part an irrational hatred of Jews - and this exists and has existed in western society for milenia - its a real phenomona - and it goes beyond the various ethnic hatreds that exist all over). For the most part they are just people like eveyone else - and in fact share much in terms of culture/attitudes and various with Armenians - so think about that a bit when you imediatly jump on the anti-Jew bandwagon. Get over it already. Try to be just a bit enlightened for once in yoru life. (and I have absolutly no interest in hearing ant-Jewish diatribes - what a waste of time & energy - OK - "they" killed Christ - etc - get over it already - oh and those Jews aren't the same as these Jews - etc etc - but you can conviently lump them all together when it comes time to spew racism and hate...


Yes, for once you have made sense. Jews are not Hebrews and anyone who confuses them as such is ignorant of history as well as theology because Jews are not Hebrews. They are not the Pharisees. They are not the Israelites. They are Jews, the followers of a religion, Judaism, which did not exist back then. Many Jews in fact are descended from Europe, specifically Asiatic-Caucasian stock, Khazars ( Ashkenazim ) and if we are to believe Alfred M. Lilienthal, Arthur Koestler, and Benjamin Freedman, they have no connection whatsover to the historical people who were the Hebrews known as the Pharisees following what Freedman referred to as "Talmudism".

For the most part the global anti-Semitism report is rubbish and is nothing more than efforts of a few Zionists who have hijacked the American government and use it for their purposes ( such as the case for the Iraq war www.nowarforisrael.com ). Aside from that the issue of anti-Semitism is simply beat into us constantly year round, I am tired of hearing about that and the Holocaust. Enough about Jews as eternal victims and lets see how anti-Semitic Jews are regarding other Semites because yes, Arabs are Semites and both are descendents of Shem, and speak a Semetic language according to the Bible. Such is not 'hatred' contrary to what you mistakenly believe. Such is what we call observation of facts. You do not have to like it.

Edited by Anonymouse, 16 January 2005 - 11:43 PM.


#28 Stormig

Stormig

    Still water runs deep...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts
  • Location:Je sais pas

Posted 17 January 2005 - 12:40 AM

What poppy-cock.

#29 Nakharar

Nakharar

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts

Posted 17 January 2005 - 09:43 AM

QUOTE (Anonymouse @ Jan 17 2005, 06:41 AM)
Yes, for once you have made sense. Jews are not Hebrews and anyone who confuses them as such is ignorant of history as well as theology because Jews are not Hebrews. They are not the Pharisees. They are not the Israelites. They are Jews, the followers of a religion, Judaism, which did not exist back then. Many Jews in fact are descended from Europe, specifically Asiatic-Caucasian stock, Khazars ( Ashkenazim ) and if we are to believe Alfred M. Lilienthal, Arthur Koestler, and Benjamin Freedman, they have no connection whatsover to the historical people who were the Hebrews known as the Pharisees following what Freedman referred to as "Talmudism".

For the most part the global anti-Semitism report is rubbish and is nothing more than efforts of a few Zionists who have hijacked the American government and use it for their purposes ( such as the case for the Iraq war www.nowarforisrael.com ). Aside from that the issue of anti-Semitism is simply beat into us constantly year round, I am tired of hearing about that and the Holocaust. Enough about Jews as eternal victims and lets see how anti-Semitic Jews are regarding other Semites because yes, Arabs are Semites and both are descendents of Shem, and speak a Semetic language according to the Bible. Such is not 'hatred' contrary to what you mistakenly believe. Such is what we call observation of facts. You do not have to like it.


Excellent post. And right to the point. Especially considering that the Israeli government is pointing fingers at everybody which it deems a threat. What better way is there than to engage in a proxy war through the Americans without shedding one drop of blood. With the added bonus of getting rid of their enemies real or imagined. The Israeli Foreign minister is one such instigator (and happens to be an Iraqi Kurd) who constantly raises the Iranian and Syrian "threat" to regional security. The hypocrisy makes me sick, but then such is the world we are living in.

#30 Nakharar

Nakharar

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts

Posted 17 January 2005 - 09:44 AM

QUOTE (Stormig @ Jan 17 2005, 07:40 AM)
What poppy-cock.


The truth stinks.

#31 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 17 January 2005 - 01:09 PM

QUOTE (THOTH @ Jan 14 2005, 10:25 AM)
I find it funny that the people who most brush off the idea that there is anti-semitsim are the ones who are always the most obviously anti-semetic. (and this arabs are semites thing is pitiful - so what if they are - its clear that the issue is hatred of Jews - and it exists - and its pretty sad/sick - IMO (regardless) - and particualry comming from Armenians who have had similar done to them.....most sad....


Thoth, don't you think Jews have to hang their head in shame and say sorry to Armenians after what happened in Jerusalem? And yet they make references to the State departments report and say that they're surprised! Give me a break...

#32 gamavor

gamavor

    -= Nobility =-

  • Nobility
  • 4,889 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 17 January 2005 - 01:23 PM

The Anti-Semitic Reports issued yearly by the State Department are outright racist!

I never heard of any Anti-Balkan, Anti-Tutsi, Anti-Russian or Anti-Asian reports issued by this very Department.

I just wonder if Hitler had succseeded in exterminating the Jews what Anti-? reports should have the State Department issue?

#33 Arpa

Arpa

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Culture

Posted 17 January 2005 - 01:38 PM

QUOTE (gamavor @ Jan 17 2005, 07:23 PM)
The Anti-Semitic Reports issued yearly by the State Department are outright racist!

I never heard of any Anti-Balkan, Anti-Tutsi, Anti-Russian or Anti-Asian reports issued by this very Department.

I just wonder if Hitler had succseeded in exterminating the Jews what Anti-? reports should have the State Department issue?

Anti-Semitic?
My big fat Armenian VORIK!! Why are there not terms to describe anti-Armenian, anti-Arab, anti-Christian feelings, or anti (A to Z), anti-American and anti-Zulu? Or are those faex populi the only (f***** chosen) people?

Edited by Arpa, 17 January 2005 - 01:50 PM.


#34 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 17 January 2005 - 05:03 PM

QUOTE (gamavor @ Jan 17 2005, 01:23 PM)
The Anti-Semitic Reports issued yearly by the State Department are outright racist!

I never heard of any Anti-Balkan, Anti-Tutsi, Anti-Russian or Anti-Asian reports issued by this very Department.

I just wonder if Hitler had succseeded in exterminating the Jews what Anti-? reports should have the State Department issue?


Yes, indeed why doesn't the State Department engage in more anti-[insert other ethnic identity group name] reports? In fact, why are Jews the "chosen people"? Says who?

#35 skhara

skhara

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 750 posts

Posted 17 January 2005 - 06:29 PM

The above commentaries are very encouraging. It gives me hope for the future. smile.gif

#36 Nakharar

Nakharar

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts

Posted 18 January 2005 - 12:41 PM

This is even more encouraging. Here is an article by Immanuel Wallerstein who is a Professor for International Law at Yale University.




Commentary No. 148, November 1, 2004

"The Middle East Cauldron - The Next Five Years"




Whoever is President of the United States, the basic political dilemmas of the Middle East will be the same in the coming five years. There are three loci of crucial happenings and probable major shifts in the coming period: Iraq, Iran, and Israel/Palestine.

The issue in Iraq that will have most impact on the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and the world is when and under what circumstances U.S. military forces will quit the country. At this point, the U.S. military presence has come to be a surgical graft that the Iraqi body is rejecting, and rejecting definitively. Sooner or later, U.S. forces will have to leave entirely, including from the prospective permanent bases. There are only three manners in which U.S. withdrawal can take place: as an early autonomous decision of the U.S. government; at the later request of the Iraqi authorities; or ultimately chased by Iraqi insurgents.

The first alternative is undoubtedly the one which would serve U.S., Iraqi, and world interests best. It is also the least likely to occur. The U.S. president will find this impossible politically to do in 2005 or 2006 because it would be interpreted, first of all at home in the United States, as a major political defeat for the United States. And it would be. Antiwar sentiment in the United States is growing, but it is not yet at the point where members of Congress would willingly endorse such a move. Even those in the military who think the entire Iraqi invasion was a grave error would regard withdrawal now as a slap in the face of the U.S. military. And those leaders in other countries who have backed the U.S. fully - Blair, Berlusconi, Howard - would equally be dismayed, because it would have very negative political consequences for them in their countries.

The second alternative - being asked to withdraw by the Iraqi government - is more plausible. Of course, it depends to some extent on political developments within Iraq. The elections of January may well take place, even if participation in many areas will be fitful or even virtually nonexistent. The elections are likely to take place because a number of important actors are at the moment committed to them: the U.S. government; the interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi; the Kurdish leaders; and Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, who sees the opportunity for a legislature dominated by religious Shia.

But this does not ensure a legitimate regime after January. For one thing, if the U.S. forces go into Fallujah, as they seem to intend to do, not only will this guarantee Sunni non-participation in the elections but it threatens to ignite new eruptions in Shia areas, now that Moqtada al-Sadr has committed himself to full support of Fallujah resistance. And if, despite such eruptions, the elections take place, it is by no means clear whether Allawi would be able to consolidate his control of the central government or would be displaced by a figure closer to al-Sistani and less dependent on the United States.

But whatever the makeup of the Iraqi government in 2005, its prime and most immediate concern will be to secure popular support and legitimation. What can such a government offer a population that is unhappy with American military presence, massively insecure because of the insurgency and the U.S. response, and in great economic difficulty? Such a government will have only two choices: moving much closer to the U.S. proconsul and his military forces, or distancing itself considerably from them.

Closeness has not paid off thus far, either in deepening legitimacy or in getting significant material support from the U.S. It follows that, at some point, the likelihood is that the Iraqi government will turn against the U.S. They will certainly be encouraged to do so, for different reasons, by all their neighbors - Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iran. Even if they have deep reservations about each of these neighbors and their governments, the pressures coming from them plus the pressures coming from their populations plus the undoubtedly erratic behavior of the United States will probably be enough for the Iraqi government to shift its basic position vis-a-vis the United States.

But if they don't, because they fear an inability to survive without U.S. military support, then it will be the insurgency that will grow stronger and stronger, and become the de facto government of the country. When that happens, Iraq is headed towards a Tet offensive scenario. And the U.S. may have to evacuate its personnel from the Green Zone in helicopters. This will be a far greater defeat than autonomous withdrawal in 2005.

Meanwhile, in Iran, the government will join the nuclear club in this same period. Iran is a major power in the region, heir to a very ancient civilization, a Shia state beside a largely Sunni Arab world, a country surrounded by nuclear powers. It needs nuclear weapons to realize its full weight as a regional power, and it will do what it takes to get them. It has three obstacles in its path. The most public is the opposition of the U.S. and the European Union to this breakdown in observance of the non-proliferation treaty. This is the most public and the least important obstacle, since in fact neither the U.S. nor the EU can do very much to stop Iran.

There are two more serious obstacles. The first derives from Iran's internal politics. The government in power has been losing popular support and legitimacy for more than a decade because of its repressive and fundamentalist politics. It is not that the opposition forces would really be against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons but rather that, should they be able to create turmoil, the government might not have the energy to move forward on the nuclear front. However, at this point, the opposition seems too weak politically to disrupt, and the government's strong stand on nuclear weapons would probably be a popular move at home.

The third and most serious obstacle is the Israeli threat to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. There is little doubt that the Israeli government would like to do that. There are however three questions about an Israeli attack. Can Israel do it in such a way that the attack would really cripple Iranian capacity? Can the Iranians retaliate in such a way that Israel would really be hurt? And would world (including U.S.) opinion swallow such an attack as they did the Israeli bombing of Iraq in 1981, or would they react by turning Israel into a total pariah state?

I doubt Israel can cripple Iran because I believe that Iran has scattered its facilities already enough to prevent this. I also doubt that the Iranians could retaliate with sufficient strength to hurt Israel seriously. But the weak point for Israel is world opinion. Israel has already lost a lot of legitimacy in the last four years, and this could be the last straw. The world's geopolitics are quite different today than in 1981. The lesson of South Africa is that it is politically extremely difficult to survive as a pariah state.

Finally, there is Israel/Palestine. Israel has tied its fate to that of the United States in the Middle East. A defeat for the United States is a defeat for Israel. At the moment, Sharon is trying the ploy of a unilateral Gaza withdrawal which would enable him effectively to foreclose a meaningful Palestinian state on the West Bank. But it doesn't seem to be working. Hamas is unalterably hostile and unappeased. And the Palestine Authority, which might have been willing to negotiate such an arrangement, has been excluded from its implementation, and therefore has to be ultra-reserved as well. In any case, Arafat may well die soon, and once that happens, the PLO may splinter into many parts, to the probable benefit of Hamas.

Meanwhile, among the Israelis, the refusal of the right-wing settlers to envisage even this tiny concession has led to a virtual split in the Likud party, and an implicit threat of total implosion of the Jewish state. Gaza withdrawal will never really come about. But in the process of trying to do it, Sharon might reunite the Palestinians and fatefully divide the Israeli body politic in ways that have never occurred up to now. And this division among the Israelis themselves might be the final blow to their political strength within the United States. Israel/Palestine might finally lose its status as an untouchable U.S. political issue and become a matter of public debate within the United States. This would bode ill for Israel's survival.

by Immanuel Wallerstein

#37 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 19 January 2005 - 12:52 PM

In either case this century is going to make or break empires and change the world in ways none of us can imagine.

#38 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 19 January 2005 - 03:23 PM

QUOTE (Anonymouse @ Jan 19 2005, 12:52 PM)
In either case this century is going to make or break empires and change the world in ways none of us can imagine.


I agree. Everyone should start learning Chinese. They're the next...

#39 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 19 January 2005 - 03:39 PM

QUOTE (Armen @ Jan 19 2005, 03:23 PM)
I agree. Everyone should start learning Chinese. They're the next...


Precisely, better at least learn the script if not the language.

#40 skhara

skhara

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 750 posts

Posted 30 January 2005 - 05:29 PM

Cheney Criticized for Attire at Auschwitz Ceremony



He looks like such a dumbass. biggrin.gif

Edited by skhara, 30 January 2005 - 05:30 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users