It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The 9\11 Conspiracy Shop in Canada called "Conspiracy Culture"

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Well, there goes the neighborhood. Anti-Semitism again rears its ugly head.


Wait a minute.

Are you saying that anyone pointing out a person who happens to be in control of much of the literature available for purchase in the major bookstores of the entire western hemisphere being involved in the diverse sub-groups of the Zionist Movement is somehow anti-semitic?

I would suppose that means Zionism is above any scrutiny whatsoever by that reasoning.

However, any and all other movements and their influence in our culture and society are fair game... right?


edit on 18/11/11 by masqua because: sp




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 



Are you saying that anyone pointing out a person who happens to be in control of much of the literature available for purchase in the major bookstores of the entire western hemisphere being involved in the diverse sub-groups of the Zionist Movement is somehow anti-semitic?

Yes, and also when the poster pointed out that the person is a Director of the Mt. Sinai hospital.

I would suppose that means Zionism is above any scrutiny whatsoever by that reasoning.

Where's the reasoning?

However, any and all other movements and their influence in our culture and society are fair game... right

Only if the game is fair. That's the problem - when it comes to issues regarding Israel and Jews it is rarely fair.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Where's the reasoning?


A member of the Zionist movement, which, imo, is no big deal, is shown to also be the owner of a chain of book stores, which is also no big whoop.

But, if it were true that certain books were not sold in those stores (ie: Chapters) because they do not fit the well-known Zionist agenda of a homeland for Jewish peoples, then that is a good topic for discussion and certainly not an anti-semitic debate.

I think you'd find that many of the Jewish faith are also split on Zionism as a whole and understandably disagree with some of the more militant aspects of splinter groups within the movement. Zionism is a very old movement and, interestingly, the initial place under consideration for the longed-for homeland was far, far away from the Middle East and Jerusalem.

This is about one individual, though... not the movement itself and there are good and bad aspects to Zionism. Lots of room for debate.
edit on 18/11/11 by masqua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


Sorry, but whenever I here "Zionism" a big red flag goes up. Jews are not split on this issue. Whenever they hear "Zionism" they know what is about to be undertaken is not a fair and reasonable discussion of foreign policy but a gateway to Anti-Semitism.

Also, as a private store owner she is entitled to sell or not to sell any book she sees fit. If she refused to carry "Turner Diaries" would it be a reflection of her "zionism"?



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, but whenever I here "Zionism" a big red flag goes up.


Not for me. I prefer to reserve my judgement on the intent behind whatever is said in relation to Zionism. As I said before, there is nothing wrong with the idea of a homeland for anyone. We know that the original locations for that homeland included places such as Uganda, Cyprus, Palestine and North America, among others.


Jews are not split on this issue.


Is

that

right?



Whenever they hear "Zionism" they know what is about to be undertaken is not a fair and reasonable discussion of foreign policy but a gateway to Anti-Semitism.


So, by that I take it to mean that Zionism is a topic you'd rather not allow to be discussed, if that censorship were in your power to enact. The movement does have some interesting historical twists to it, though, you'd have to admit.



Also, as a private store owner she is entitled to sell or not to sell any book she sees fit. If she refused to carry "Turner Diaries" would it be a reflection of her "zionism"?


Absolutely her right. No quarrel there. However, if anyone disagrees with her refusal to carry the 'Turner Diaries', then they have the right to draw attention to that exclusion as well. Rights are a wonderful thing in that they are inclusive to all, don't you agree?

Let's be clear on this... I am not generally anti-Zionist, but do have concerns about some troubling aspects (like the settlement expansions in Israel).

On the other hand, this side issue discussion we're having is fairly 'topic specific' and not really related to the opening post. Perhaps you should start a thread about how the topic of Zionism should be censored. Perhaps you might get some detailed debate on the subject.

edit on 18/11/11 by masqua because: bbcode



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Well, there goes the neighborhood. Anti-Semitism again rears its ugly head.


Zionism is not Judaism, and so cannot be antisemitism.


The truth is that the Jewish faith and Zionism are two very different philosophies. They are as opposite as day and night.


www.nkusa.org...




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 



On the other hand, this side issue discussion we're having is fairly 'topic specific' and not really related to the opening post. Perhaps you should start a thread about how the topic of Zionism should be censored. Perhaps you might get some detailed debate on the subject.

Actually, I would argue that the poster breached the subject and therefore it may be reasonable discussion matter. My problem with the use of the term of Zionism is simply that it is used as a thinly veiled assualt on anyone that can be identified as Jewish. For the purposes of this discussion we can assume that not all Jews are Zionist, however, all Zionist are Jews. So any criticism of Zionism without specific qualifiers is a criticism of all Jews. This isn't the first time I've seen this tactic. Its the old, "no, no, I don't have a problem with Jews, just with Zionist".

As to the issue of censorship - this is private board and of course as a moderator you are more than welcome to censor any subject matter you see fit. If a "discussion" of Zionism degraded into Holocaust denial and then into an all out call for violence against Jews, would you censor the material?



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Just like criticizing religion is not anti-god. Zionism is not Judaism, its a political movement, and if it cannot be criticized it's nothing more than a dictatorship, and that is bad whoever runs it.

Maybe it's you who wants to project it that way, for some personal reason or agenda?



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Just like criticizing religion is not anti-god.

Not its not like that at all. "Religion" is not a specific identifier to any group of people. If I said "religion" to you no specific group of persons would probably come to mind. However if I say "Zionist" what is the first ethnic and religious group you think of? German Lutherans? Alabama Baptist? Irish Catholics? Nope, its Jews.

Zionism is not Judaism, its a political movement, and if it cannot be criticized it's nothing more than a dictatorship, and that is bad whoever runs it.

I'm just saying that no one is fooled when the talk turns to "Zionism". Open Anti-Semitism just isn't as popular as it used to be so it just put on some new clothes and now walks around dressed up as a critique of "Zionism". Why not just say that you disagree with the foreign and/or domestic policies of Israel?

Maybe it's you who wants to project it that way, for some personal reason or agenda?

Just telling it the way it is.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Actually, I would argue that the poster breached the subject and therefore it may be reasonable discussion matter.


Fine with me... we'll continue this discussion then and see where it leads.


My problem with the use of the term of Zionism is simply that it is used as a thinly veiled assualt on anyone that can be identified as Jewish.


This may be your problem, but it is indeed not factually correct. You are marrying the Jewish people to Zionism and we are both now aware that not all Jews are Zionists. Secondly, you are accusing anyone who has the temerity to criticize Zionism (in its many forms) of anti-Semitism. I don't believe that to be a healthy position in a free society.


For the purposes of this discussion we can assume that not all Jews are Zionist, however, all Zionist are Jews.


Interesting turn of phrase.
Non-Jewish Zionists do exist, however, even if they are small in number.



So any criticism of Zionism without specific qualifiers is a criticism of all Jews.


That I agree with. If you don't have the beef, you can't make a burger.


This isn't the first time I've seen this tactic.
Its the old, "no, no, I don't have a problem with Jews, just with Zionist".


Well, that makes me a particularly large target then, because I have a small problem with all those religions which have made a business, or even a theocracy, out of spiritual issues. But that's an entirely other topic.


As to the issue of censorship - this is private board and of course as a moderator you are more than welcome to censor any subject matter you see fit. If a "discussion" of Zionism degraded into Holocaust denial and then into an all out call for violence against Jews, would you censor the material?


As a moderator here, it is not my personal opinion of a topic which [makes] the decision to censor or not, but actually the rules the administration stated in the Terms and Conditions. Those are my 'Rules of Engagement'. But me being a moderator has zero to do with anything in this discussion, right?

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Do I need to go this route?

I can if you want me to...


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


And, secondly, yes, I would, with full knowledge of all staff, edit and remove posts, close or even trash a thread which degrades into a call for violence against Jews. It's against the T&C's and I would hope that if you happen to see it, you would alert staff to that thread and allow them to decide on how to handle it.

Finally, the Holocaust Denial issue is a constant in certain websites, but not so much here. Any discussion of the sort which I've seen come up usually doesn't last long before it devolves into some sort of snarky hate-fest and gets closed or removed for a lack of civility.

That deflection onto the fact of me being a moderator really rather disturbs me. I feel slighted.


edit on 18/11/11 by masqua because: grammar



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 



This may be your problem, but it is indeed not factually correct. You are marrying the Jewish people to Zionism and we are both now aware that not all Jews are Zionists. Secondly, you are accusing anyone who has the temerity to criticize Zionism (in its many forms) of anti-Semitism. I don't believe that to be a healthy position in a free society.

I didn't do the marrying. Zionism is directly identified with Judaism. In popular culture and popular politics they are cojoined. So again, if you criticize Zionism without qualifiers than you are by default criticizing anyone who is Jewish.

Interesting turn of phrase. Non-Jewish Zionists do exist, however, even if they are small in number.

So in a public forum anyone reading this would not consider that there may be non-Jewish Zionist.

Well, that makes me a particularly large target then, because I have a small problem with all those religions which have made a business, or even a theocracy, out of spiritual issues. But that's an entirely other topic.

Yes it is, however, not necessarily unrelated.

As a moderator here, it is not my personal opinion of a topic which [makes] the decision to censor or not, but actually the rules the administration stated in the Terms and Conditions. Those are my 'Rules of Engagement'. But me being a moderator has zero to do with anything in this discussion, right

You brought up the issue of censorship.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 



And, secondly, yes, I would, with full knowledge of all staff, edit and remove posts, close or even trash a thread which degrades into a call for violence against Jews. It's against the T&C's and I would hope that if you happen to see it, you would alert staff to that thread and allow them to decide on how to handle it.

There is a poster here who gets real close. After a point I just refuse to participate.

Finally, the Holocaust Denial issue is a constant in certain websites, but not so much here. Any discussion of the sort which I've seen come up usually doesn't last long before it devolves into some sort of snarky hate-fest and gets closed or removed for a lack of civility.

For good reason and I'm not suprised.

That deflection onto the fact of me being a moderator really rather disturbs me. I feel slighted

I will then no longer deflect in that direction.

Here's the bottom line to me. It would be one thing if there was a long ongoing discussion of foreign policy and the middle east and as a side issue someone would mention the concept of Zionism. However, most of these discussions start right at "Zionism" and then head directly to "Jews did 9/11". I think there is actually a post with that title. I know the response would be that "OS'ers" claim that Muslims did 9/11 however, at least we are able to name names and point to specific persons. When you point at "Zionism" without distinction you are pointing at all Jews. That is the basically the definition of Anti-Semitism.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper When you point at "Zionism" without distinction you are pointing at all Jews. That is the basically the definition of Anti-Semitism.

When you point at "Colonialism" without distinction, would that be
considered "hate provocation" too ? ?
I think not.
The problem is, brainwashing propaganda can be contagious with
censorship control at it's core.

___________________________



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Just telling it the way it is.


I disagree. I think it's you who jumps to the conclusion that talk of Zionism is veiled antisemitism.

In fact by saying this you are setting up an atmosphere whereby any talk of Zionism is tainted with antisemitism.
You paint with a rather large brush my friend. You seem to always take the actions of the few and claim we all think that way. Typical media tactic, take the most extreme looney claim, and paint everyone with that same brush.
Either that, or too lazy to see the details. It's easier to just generalize everything, but you end up missing the trees for the forest.

I dated a Jewish girl for a few years. We met in the Navy. We are still friends, she now lives in Israel. I have no hate for anyone other than those who perpetuate mass murder in order to advance their agendas, whatever religion they follow. Being Jewish should not shield anyone from criticism. Criticism is not hate. You're just trying to play on the sensitivity of people, much like when the old, 'how can you disrespect the victims', that comes up once in awhile.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



I disagree. I think it's you who jumps to the conclusion that talk of Zionism is veiled antisemitism.

This is a result of my experience. I have not yet seen where talk of "Zionism" does not degenrate into Anti-Semitism.

In fact by saying this you are setting up an atmosphere whereby any talk of Zionism is tainted with antisemitism.

That's correct.

You paint with a rather large brush my friend. You seem to always take the actions of the few and claim we all think that way. Typical media tactic, take the most extreme looney claim, and paint everyone with that same brush.

I paint that way because I've seen the picture many times before.

Either that, or too lazy to see the details. It's easier to just generalize everything, but you end up missing the trees for the forest.

Sometimes the truth is just simple.

dated a Jewish girl for a few years. We met in the Navy. We are still friends, she now lives in Israel. I have no hate for anyone other than those who perpetuate mass murder in order to advance their agendas, whatever religion they follow.

Again, when you point the finger for those crimes at "Zionist" without distinctions then you are saying "Jews" which is a very large brush.

Being Jewish should not shield anyone from criticism. Criticism is not hate. You're just trying to play on the sensitivity of people, much like when the old, 'how can you disrespect the victims', that comes up once in awhile.

Criticism? Sorry, this is not "criticism". This is accusing an entire nation and peoples of mass murder, that goes way beyond "criticism" that is grounds for incitement to violence.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ToneDeaf
 



When you point at "Colonialism" without distinction, would that be
considered "hate provocation" too ?


Oh, absolutely. When you say "colonialist" what ethnic groups come to mind? Malayasians? Koreans? Sri Lankans? No, what comes to mind are white, European Christians. If you are a white male standing in the town square in Uganda and the crowd starts to chant "kill the colonialist" would you be comfortable thinking "well I'm from Toronto so they can't mean me".

Any term that can be directly associated with a specific ethnic group or sub group can be construed as "hate provocation".



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper When you say "colonialist" what ethnic groups come to mind?


Oh lord; Do we need to change history books again,
because someone might be offended by the word
colonialism ? ? ?

Here we are, in a global war,
desensitized in killing 'other' civilians in mass etc., yet . . .
when it come to the word "colonialism" or "zionism" low and behold,
lets not tread there
, all of a sudden it's a taboo sensitive matter ? ? ? ,
according to who ? ? ?
Lets say it as it really is.
It is all a matter of censorship, in the name of
propaganda, stop kidding yourselves and WAKE-UP.
Are we not now, to discuss imperialism and NWO too ?


_________________________



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ToneDeaf
 



Oh lord; Do we need to change history books again, because someone might be offended by the word
colonialism ? ? ?

No we don't need to change the history books again. The issue is language and its uses. Would you rather pretend that racism, bigotry, and Anti-Semitism doesn't exist?

Here we are, in a global war, desensitized in killing 'other' civilians in mass etc., yet . . .when it come to the word "colonialism" or "zionism" low and behold, lets not tread there , all of a sudden it's a taboo sensitive matter ? ? ? ,

Who's desensitize? Speak for yourself. You may use any words you wish just be advised that language is important. Just as you may reserve the right to use any words you wish I reserve the right to understand those words and place them in the context that I see fit. Language and communication is a two-way street.

according to who ? ? ?

Me.

Lets say it as it really is.

That is exactly what I have been attempting to do. People want to throw around the word "Zionism" and pretend that the word and its use are neutral. Its not.

It is all a matter of censorship, in the name of propaganda, stop kidding yourselves and WAKE-UP.
Are we not now, to discuss imperialism and NWO too ?

You can discuss anything you want, but you should also do a little waking up. Not everyone is going to hear what you say and think the same thing.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
People want to throw around the word "Zionism" and pretend that the word and its use are neutral. Its not.


Doing a search on Zionism brings up approximately 8 million hits.

People DO talk about it and, if one is to attempt to stop that flood of information because of their personal disgust for such discussions, then I believe they have a gargantuan task ahead of them.

Speaking as a member, I also believe everyone on this website has a right to discuss any topic. The only restrictions are the T&C's.

On topic: yay for the Conspiracy Culture shop in Toronto and the fact that one of the owners is a long-standing member of ATS. The Flying Spaghetti Monster loves you for it.




posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
It may well be possible to criticise Zionism specifically and not be antisemitic. It's just that that isn't how it usually pans out. Many people are, as Hooper rightly identifies, in the business of using a "critique" of Zionism as a veiled method of launching attacks at jews.

I'm not sure that this is the case here. Although it always seems odd to me that people's attitude to Israel is brought into discussions when it seems at most a tangential issue.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join