Has it now become illegal to criticize Israel in anyway in the U.S?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 





I hope this lesson has helped you to understand the intricacies and semantics of Semitics and Anti-Semitics.


For your wise and studious approach to this subject, you receive an "A" and a star.


Professor thanks, that helps a bunch! But darn it all to heck! Those History books I was reading because Bible Study class was all full still have me confused.

The Hebrew and Judean people also known as the Habiru/Hapiri back before people could easily write things on paper that withered away, could be shreded or burned like say with a Bible, but way before the Bible even the Old Testament when things were carved in stone and couldn't wither away or be changed all originally migrated from to the area from places like Turkey and Armenia and weren't Semetic peoples at all! Why in fact for thousands of years right up until the time they first wrote the Old Testament good Habiru/Hapiri/Hebrew/Judean people were expected to migrate back to Armenia and Turkey to look for wives when they were going to start a family so they wouldn't mix their blood lines with the Semetic peoples of the region that the Habiru/Hapiri/Hebrew/Judean people were only there to conduct commerce and trade with.

How did they get to be Semetic then? It's all so confusing Professor, I swear it hurts my brain.

Oh yeah Professor if I may please too, these silly little stone carvings and tablets that just won't erode and fade away because stupid evil devil worshipping, heathen terrorists countries like Egypt, Syria and Iraq have them.(well Iraq had some anyway until recently, I wondered what happened to them or why the Museum in Baghdad was the very first place to be stripped or looted, probably by those terrorists and not our good G-d fearing Christian Troops or some other friendly people like the MOSSAD) say...the say the Habiru/Hapiri had more than one G-d! They say that the Habiru/Hapiri had more than one G-d and refused to name their G-ds but they still had to be respected. Is that true Professor, that they had more than one G-d? Is it true that they wouldn't name them? Oh yeah Professor how come the Jews and Hebrews will only say Our Lord and spell God all funny like, and write it always and forever like G-d what letter is - in the alphabet Professor, oh hey, could a single - be used like a hyphen to pull two ends together but have more than one letter hidden by it?

I hate to ask you all these questions Professors, but I want to be a good friend to the Israelis and they are always so busy helping out our Congress and President with those big decisions the Congress and the President have to make like how much American Tax Payer money to give the Israelis, and how much free American Tax Payer paid for weapons to give to the Israelis, and what would be the latest Secret Technology Technology Weapons we don't want to fall in to anyone else's hands to give the Israeli's cause bad people like the Rosenbergs sometimes do silly bad things like give our secrets away to the Russians, they weren't Israeli though! Thankfully it was just the A-bomb and nothing real bad like the R or X or even Z bomb. That could have put us and friends like the Israelis in serious jeapordy, thankfully the Israelis figured out how to make their own A-bomb right about that time the Rosenbergs stole the recipe of how to make it to one and gave it to those G-dless commies who make everyone eat boiled cabbage and drink vodka 12 times a day and pass all kinds of yucky gas.

I want to learn all these things Professor really I do, cause I want you to be proud of me and our very best, bestest, super best friends the Israeli's.

Please Professor teach me these things!




posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
^^^^^
Classic.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I understand your confusion, and in fact, your confusion is due to the confusion that most of the world suffers, because of the varied meanings attributed to the words Semite, Semitic, and anti-Semitic.

Common wisdom today indicates that the term Semite originated in the 18th century, and actually was used to refer to the LANGUAGES related to Hebrew, and not the people.



Semites

As far back as 1704, the German philosopher and polymath Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz had identified a group of cognate languages which included Hebrew, old Punic, i.e., Carthaginian, Chaldaean, Syriac, and Ethiopic. To this group he gave the name "Arabic," after its most widely used and widely spoken member. To call a group by the name of one of its members could easily give to confusion, and Leibniz's nomenclature was not generally accepted.

It was not until 1781 that this group was given the name which it has retained ever since. In that year, August Ludwig Schlozer contributed an essay on this subject to a comprehensive German work on biblical and Oriental literature. According Schlozer, "from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates and from Mesopotamia down to Arabia, as is known, only one language reigned. The Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews and Arabs were one people. Even the Phoenicians who were Hamites spoke this language, which I might call the Semitic." Schlozer goes on to discuss other languages of the area, and tries to fit them, not very successfully, into the framework provided by Genesis 10.
“Semitic” Languages

The idea that Semitic languages derived from one original language (by German philologists sometimes called Ursemitisch or proto‑Semitic, and that the peoples speaking these languages were descended from one people, exercised considerable influence and caused some confusion.

By 1855, the French scholar Ernest Renan, one of the pioneers of Semitic philology, wrote complaining: "We can now see what an unhappy idea Eichhorn [sic; should be Schlozer apud Eichhorn] had when he gave the name of Semitic to the family of Syro-Arab languages. This name, which usage obliges us to retain, has been and will long remain the cause of a multitude of confusions.

“I repeat again that the name Semite here [Renan is referring to his pioneer study on Semitic philology] has only a purely conventional meaning: it designates the peoples who have spoken Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic or some neighboring dia­lect, and in no sense the people who are listed in the tenth chapter of Genesis as the descendants of Shem, who are, or at least half of them, of Aryan origin."

Renan was of course right in pointing to the dangers of taking "the generations of the sons of Noah" as a basis for philological class­ification. He might have gone further. The descendants of Ham, conventionally the ancestor of the Africans, include, in addition to Egypt and Ethiopia, Canaanites and Phoenicians, who lived in the Syro-Palestinian area and spoke a language very similar to


source:www.myjewishlearning.com...

As you can see, the original meaning had nothing to do with race, religion, or even country. It referred to language.

I think what causes the confusion today is the victimization trend which started in the 20th century, whereby people of various religions, races, and religions were able to convince the MSM that they were VICTIMS of discrimination.
Using the new religion of victimization, Obama can get away with anything, because anyone that dares to challenge anything he does, is automatically bigoted against blacks. Likewise, anyone that dares challenge Israel is bigoted against Jews, and they have convinced the main stream media that the term they should use is Anti-Semitic.
In the great words of the 22nd century Philosophy Mr. Spock:



Wanting is not as good as having. It's illogical but true!
It's illogical but true



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 




Common wisdom today indicates that the term Semite originated in the 18th century, and actually was used to refer to the LANGUAGES related to Hebrew, and not the people.


Thank you Professor! I knew if anyone could find the real answer on this you could. I guess more people should try learning from books instead of the main stream media and the sometimes very incorrect things people say even though they think that they are right when they say them?




I think what causes the confusion today is the victimization trend which started in the 20th century, whereby people of various religions, races, and religions were able to convince the MSM that they were VICTIMS of discrimination.


It’s great that someone is capable of convincing the mainstream media something! Though I must confess my own belief is that it was the mainstream media that convinced them that they were victims. For you see Professor my inalienable rights though regardless of my race, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation or social and economic status keep me from every being a victim! I wonder how these people chose to become victims.

Just like a lot of people are not quite certain what Semitic means or where it originates from, my inalienable rights weren’t granted to me by the United States Constitution. My inalienable rights don’t need permission from anyone to exist because I naturally and inherently have the right to make my own choice and act freely and accept any consequence my freedom of actions might bring. No one can take that away from me and no one can give that to me either not even me. If I chose to submit and be a victim that is my inalienable right to make that choice, if I chose to be dominant and not be a victim that is my inalienable right to make that choice, if I chose to be dominant and even victimize others that is my inalienable right to make that choice, just like they have the inalienable right to submit to me or vie for dominance against me.

I sure would like to know just why it is people choose to exercise their inalienable right to submit to the dominance of others and imagine themselves victims by making that choice of their own freewill and then feel like they deserve some special consideration or prize, and that they should not have to accept the consequences of their own actions.

Why if I did not know better Professor I would say this is a trick to attempt to dominate others through a false submissive posture.

I have an inalienable right to say balderdash and I do!




Using the new religion of victimization, Obama can get away with anything, because anyone that dares to challenge anything he does, is automatically bigoted against blacks. Likewise, anyone that dares challenge Israel is bigoted against Jews, and they have convinced the main stream media that the term they should use is Anti-Semitic.


My mother taught me sticks and stones can break my bones Professor but names can never hurt me. Conversely the more names you can stick on your business card the more impressive it looks!

I have an inalienable right to say what I mean and mean what I say and no matter what consequence might arise from that, no one but me can stop me from exercising that inalienable right.

People do have a right to fear being labeled and live in submission and trepidation of those who are quick to label them with the intent to cause them humiliation and scorn. I have an inalienable right though to admire people who aren’t afraid of such meaningless consequences of speaking the truth to the truth regardless of what other people may think or say about that too.

I have an inalienable right to not like anyone for any reason and no one can take that away from me. They can invent words to try to make me feel bad for being honest and true to myself and my principals, and they can try in other ways to stop me from doing those things too but the only one who can really keep me from doing that is me and that’s my inalienable right to chose to do that too.

I think inalienable is a very misunderstood word too Professor, just like anti-Semitic most people don’t seem to understand it but say it a lot.

Here is another thing I sure would like to say, there are never any accidents in life and just like words like anti-Semitic don’t really mean what they appear to on the surface neither does almost anything else that we see. We should not pretend for a single solitary second that the Powers that Be wish us to submit to these preposterous notions of criticism of action even those carried out by collective groups of shared identity and purpose are wrong and bigoted and therefore should never be said.

We should instead see that they are challenging us to put an end to such things and the ways of such people by speaking honestly to the dishonesty of what they do.

I am sure they would like us to do that but do that unwisely in a way that just eliminates such people and they are prodding us and tricking us in to doing just that. That sure would make such people victims in a sense but they still would be only victims of themselves and the consequences of their actions.

I think we should annoy and perturb both the powers that be and people who want to dominate through a submissive posture claiming to be victims and using emotional manipulation to dominate and get what they want, by simply handling that the way we would with little children who do the same thing, by gently explaining it to them and we know better and will not fall for that game or go along. I don’t think we have anything to fear but fear itself in that wise and sensible approach in exercising our inalienable right to say….”Yeah right”!

Both these groups are without doubt trying to antagonize to rash and ill considered action to cause an event to happen or justification for one. I like to think the rest of us are smarter than that, it’s our inalienable right to be so.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 





For you see Professor my inalienable rights though regardless of my race, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation or social and economic status keep me from every being a victim! I wonder how these people chose to become victims.

You cannot be a victim because you accept responsibilities for your actions. For every action, there is a consequence, and those who perform an action and accept the predicted consequence, cannot be victims. Those, on the other hand, who perform an action, with a known consequence, and then cannot accept that consequence, use victimization to account for the consequence.
A thief who breaks into a store and is apprehended, and says "You got me" is not using victimization, but a thief who is apprehended, and says "You just arrested me because I am _____(fill in the race, ethnicity or creed)" is using victimization as an excuse.

Victimization, by the way, defines the major difference between modern liberalism and conservatism. Here is an except from a great article concerning that issue:
www.issues-views.com...



Preemptive liberalism
An unpopular truth

[Reprinted from Issues & Views October 29, 2001]

After the sixties, when American politics became openly accountable to the legacy of racial victimization, the acceptance or rejection of victimization as a totalism came to imply either a liberal or conservative politics. In response to the sixties American liberalism realigned itself around victimization, not as a fact or as an ongoing problem, but as a totalistic explanation of black difficulty.

Conservatism during this period belatedly admitted to the fact of black victimization but never accepted it as a totalism. To a profound degree this relation to the totalism of victimization came to demarcate social liberalism and conservatism after the sixties. And to this day, the liberal looks at black difficulties--high crime rates, weak academic performance, illegitimacy rates, and so on--and presumes them to be the result of victimizing forces beyond the control of blacks. The conservative does not deny this as a possibility but refuses to presume it. This refusal has become a contemporary mark of social conservatism.

I believe that this acceptance of victimization as a totalism caused the downfall of post-sixties liberalism. This is where liberalism lost its balance and ultimately its integrity. Many observers who lived through the sixties realize that it was the old American problem of race that did liberalism in. To accept victimization not as one of many variables but as a totalism was to see it as structural--so built into the patterns of society that it could be manifested apart from human will.

And if the evil was structural, only structural remedies would work against it. You couldn't fight racial victimization on a case-by-case basis; you had to put into place structures that would prefer the victim in compensation for the victimization we could presume he or she had endured. Thus liberalism became preemptive rather then defensive. It no longer protected individuals and fought for equal opportunity, but it pursued group rights and equal results. It remedied the victimization before it was manifest. This transformation came from the embrace of victimization as a totalistic explanation of black difficulty. But it changed the basic terms of American liberalism from freedom, rights, and responsibilities to planning, engineering, and entitlements.

-- Shelby Steele, excerpt from A Dream Deferred: The Second Betrayal of Black Freedom in America (Harper Collins).

Copyright © 2009 Issues & Views




posted on May, 12 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Another outstanding lesson Professor, you make it fun to go to school. I am learning a lot! Hear that boys and girls it's fun to go to school.

Professor do you think it would be safe to say...that the liberal defined sense of being a victim is in a way those people who choose to take that path as being victimizers of the state itself?

It almost sounds to me that it is those very selfprocliamed victims themselves who are perputrating the most pain and suffering upon them selves and the state?

Could it possibly be wise to allow those with such mentallity if that were the case to determine and dictate the course and ways of the state? Wouldn't that lead to even greater victimization?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 





It's obviously not illegal. And to echo some other posts, if it was, the "man" would be hunting down tons of ATSers 24/7.


No, not the "man", but sayanim and their underworld contacts in the drugs and white woman slave trade gangs will deal with critics of Israel.

If the transgressor is high profile or powerful, then that's where mossad and the media step in.

The JDL, specialise in dealing with activists and journalists with a little leg breaking.


[edit on 043131p://pm3147 by masonwatcher]



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 


Friends do not spy on other. If you havent yet try googling how many israeli spies have been caught in US and due to Israel pressure thru lobbying had to let them go without charge. One of the largest israeli spying ring had been found in US sometime back.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by Futree Vous]





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join