-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Iraqi Journalist Throws Shoes At Bush..Misses
- Thread starter Cicero
- Start date
Actually you have twice mentioned Jews in addition to Israelis.
If you are ignorant about the difference between Jews and Israelis then you really should research it because at the moment, your posts are making you sound as if you could be someone who dislikes Jews.
I don´t, it would be foolish stereotyping. (racist, religionist?, or both)
As for the bolded part, it seems to me that there are several different versions of the correct terminology. If I don´t fit yours or seem inconsistant feel free to point it out, or write it off to mistake and concentrate on the rest of my post.
Last edited:
I accept that. However, the way you worded your posts was making it sound like you might think otherwise.
Israel is a country so Israeli means somebody with a strong connection to Israel, it usually means a citizen of Israel. Jewish can refer to an ethnicity, a culture, a religion or a race but it doesn't say anything about their country.
A Jewish person may never have been to Israel and an Israeli person may not be Jewish.
Is this anything like the propaganda of those who attempt to camouflage their prejudices by de-linking Anti-Zionism from their Anti-Semitic beliefs?
I fail to see how that relates to me.
What i do see, is that you find it far easier to use "anti-semite" or irwing awards, than to consider if there is any truth to criticism of israel.
How do you think that reflects on you and others ability to take you serius*?
You don´t have to answer me, just think about it.
*As in truther yelling goverment shrill, instead of responding with a coherent argument.
It´s a bit of a shame really, you do have acces to coherent arguments.
I have heard of this irwing.
He has the profesional intregety and credibility of a flood geologist.
It can´t be that hard for you to debunk.
Hope you both realise that both exist and trive.
It tend to poison any reasonable debate, as seen here and almost everywhere else.
Try read up on israeli liberals, guess they get to criticise goverment policy without getting irwing awards.
Last edited:
Tin Foil Timothy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,089
And where these people? You can of course accuse anyone who criticize Zionism/Israel behavior of being a closet Anti-Semite can't you. It's incredibly easy and cheap to do so.
You could of accuse anybody who criticizes any political group of hiding racial prejudices about the people who belong to that group.
It's a weak argument with no logical weight or basis. You have to provide evidence that someone is racist. You can't go around accusing everyone who eats Bratwurst of being like Hitler because Hitler ate bratwurst.
The following logic broken ...
A says X and Y
B says X and Z
Therefore A = B
Tin Foil Timothy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,089
Skeptic and his band ADL Police Cadets have now descended way below the threshold of being taken seriously.
Skeptic says:
Actually more accurate is that Skeptic and his minions jump on the case of anyone who criticizes Israel. Showing an obvious hatred for people being Jewish is certainly not required to be the target of their Anti-Semitic Toy Water Pistol.
All that's required is a heavy criticism of the Zionist Movement and the behavior of Israel.
Last edited:
Hitler was a vegetarian. A fact that has upset the moonbat fringe to the point where vegan Rynn Berry wrote a revisionist account of Hitler that desperately tries to deny this.
Your own words betray your true opinions on Jews. You extol the virtues of Arabs and Arab countries (no doubt Iran as well) while indicting Zionists and Israel for existing.
Tin Foil Timothy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,089
It wasn't supposed to be taken literally, it was an analogy. Replace 'Bratwurst' with 'Carrot' if it makes you feel any better.
The above accusation is total lies of course, and is an offensive strawman. Shall I ask you to provide a source for those accusations? It's pointless as you'll only duck and dive and divert and derail as usual. Like all the others who turn any criticism of Israel and the Zionist Movement into a Jewish problem you so can shout anti-semitism, your credibility on this forum is shot.
"I extol the virtues of Arabs and Arab countries" - hahaha that's a good one. I wonder how long it took to author that literary magnificence
funny how he hasn't jumped on me...and I call the West Bank an Apartheid regime.
please explain.
if the REAL criteria for calling someone an "anti-Semite", was simply being critical of Israel, I would no doubt be the major target.
there must be something else happening here.
Last edited:
By some accounts, he was badly beaten up after he was arrested, leaving him with broken bones, so not that great.
Hate to spoil your attempt to bestow martyrdom on the Stride Rite Strunze, but brother Maitham al-Zaidi said he had spoken with his brother on the phone and was told: "Thank God I am in good health.".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...y-1192844.html
Previus posting history is a factor.
Defending iran´s holocaust denial gives a bad impression.
I have mentioned israeli liberals, I don´t think they are called anti-semites.
It could be that you are a jew and TFT are not.
As the article you linked to makes clear, and as I acknowledged in my post, there are conflicting reports about Muntazer al-Zaidi's injuries:
“A brother of Muntazer al-Zaidi said the reporter had been taken to the Ibn-Sina military hospital after being hit on the head with a rifle butt. Iraqi security men had also broken his arm. Dargham al-Zaidi said his brother had suffered broken ribs and internal bleeding.
But another brother, Maitham al-Zaidi, later said he had spoken with the shoe thrower on the phone and he had said: 'Thank God I am in good health.'
The guards of the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki were seen beating Mr Zaidi just after the incident and he was seen screaming in pain, but the extent of his injuries were not clear. ”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...i-shoe-thrower-beaten-in-custody-1192844.html
There are various possible explanations for Muntazer al-Zaidi’s presumably monitored phone statement from captivity. It may also simply be an example of the famous Iraqi gallows sense of humour. In the new, “liberated” Iraq, not being a headless torso in a ditch after arrest could be interpreted as being “in good health”!
Your irrelevant introduction of the martyrdom concept suggests that you have become enslaved by unfortunate racist stereotypes.
Last edited:
So the only credible account, the one you beleive, is one that describes Munt with broken bones? Munt doesn't seem to be the whimsical type, so pretending he was being sarcastic is rather bizarre.
Good to see that you acknowledge the lack of lethal treatment of prisoners in a post Saddam Iraq.
Last edited:
Tin Foil Timothy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,089
Oh no!! He said the word 'Jews'
SHOCK!! HORROR!!! AGHAST!!! If mentioning the word 'Jew' or 'Jews' was a measure of how much someone dislikes Jews then Skeptic would be the worlds biggest Anti-Semite.
This forum sometimes reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where the guy gets stoned for saying "Jehova"
Well, Parky, for starters:
1). You don't think Israel has no right to exist or to defend itself, even if we may disagree on some, or even many, of Israel's policies.
2). Nor are you a lying hypocrite who claims to care about human rights... but in reality cares about human rights only when you can blame Israel for violating them.
3). Nor do you think everything Israel does is automatically wrong, or that everything the Palestinians or the Arabs or Muslims in general do is a "reaction to the occupation", and whose "root cause" is the existence of Israel.
A few minor differences, here, between you and certain other posters who criticize Israel. For those posters, their real beef with Israel, despite their unconvincing protestations to the contrary, is its very existence as a Jewish state. You, whatever our disagreements about specific Israeli policies, do not think that.
I like the way, incidentally, that these folks think that wanting the Jewish state dismantled, and that the Jewish state--alone of all the nations in the world, of course--is illegitimate and has no right to exist, is NOT antisemitism, but "only anti-Zionism". That's about as logical as saying, "I don't hate all Black people, only those who don't know their place should be lynched."
1). You don't think Israel has no right to exist or to defend itself, even if we may disagree on some, or even many, of Israel's policies.
2). Nor are you a lying hypocrite who claims to care about human rights... but in reality cares about human rights only when you can blame Israel for violating them.
3). Nor do you think everything Israel does is automatically wrong, or that everything the Palestinians or the Arabs or Muslims in general do is a "reaction to the occupation", and whose "root cause" is the existence of Israel.
A few minor differences, here, between you and certain other posters who criticize Israel. For those posters, their real beef with Israel, despite their unconvincing protestations to the contrary, is its very existence as a Jewish state. You, whatever our disagreements about specific Israeli policies, do not think that.
I like the way, incidentally, that these folks think that wanting the Jewish state dismantled, and that the Jewish state--alone of all the nations in the world, of course--is illegitimate and has no right to exist, is NOT antisemitism, but "only anti-Zionism". That's about as logical as saying, "I don't hate all Black people, only those who don't know their place should be lynched."
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Bush's last press conference :
QUESTION: And I'm not trying to play "gotcha," but I wonder, when you look back over the long arc of your presidency, do you think in retrospect that you have made any mistakes? And, if so, why is the single biggest mistake that you may have made?
BUSH: Gotcha.
(LAUGHTER)
Look, I have often said that history will look back and determine that which could have been done better or, you know, mistakes I made.
Clearly, putting a "mission accomplished" on a (sic) aircraft carrier was a mistake. It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but, nevertheless, it conveyed a different message.
Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake.
BUSH: Gotcha.
(LAUGHTER)
Look, I have often said that history will look back and determine that which could have been done better or, you know, mistakes I made.
Clearly, putting a "mission accomplished" on a (sic) aircraft carrier was a mistake. It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but, nevertheless, it conveyed a different message.
Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake.
Last edited: