Simon Wiesenthal Center: Top 10 Anti-Semites, Israel-Haters for 2012

page: 11
95
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 



You are being offensive and ridiculous now. Finally you mention numbers - but misleadingly, to give the impression to the unseasoned reader that Palestinians have killed millions of people.


It wasn't the Palestinians I was referring to. Holocaust Deniers are fixated on pushing the numbers down, as if only killing half a million Jewish civilians in cold blood makes it less of a crime against humanity. As I said: it is not a question of numbers, it is a question of intent. If an army bombs an enemy munitions plant, it is a valid target. The intent is to destroy the enemy's capacity to produce weapons that can be used in battle. If civilians living nearby are injured and killed, it is extremely sad, even tragic, but since it was not the intent of the raid, it was due to the hazards of war, not the intent of those who planned the bombing. That is why it is not a "war crime." Can you understand the difference between numbers and intent?




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
 

It wasn't the Palestinians I was referring to. Holocaust Deniers are fixated on pushing the numbers down, as if only killing half a million Jewish civilians in cold blood makes it less of a crime against humanity. As I said: it is not a question of numbers, it is a question of intent. If an army bombs an enemy munitions plant, it is a valid target. The intent is to destroy the enemy's capacity to produce weapons that can be used in battle. If civilians living nearby are injured and killed, it is extremely sad, even tragic, but since it was not the intent of the raid, it was due to the hazards of war, not the intent of those who planned the bombing. That is why it is not a "war crime." Can you understand the difference between numbers and intent?


Now you are really going off the deep end. NOBODY was talking about the Holocaust. Holocaust "Deniers" is what you are "fixated" about.

Change the topic when you lose the argument!

Change the numbers when they don't work in your favor!


killing half a million Jewish civilians in cold blood.

Where does this come from? You are making No Sense! You are just spewing hate. Nothing more. And you are not good at it.


Can you understand the difference between numbers and intent?

With you talking, Zionism will be dead even sooner than I thought. Rather than "collateral" or "civilians", Zionism is what deserves to be killed.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Why dont you be honest and tell the truth

The jews and others that were killed or targeted were zionists and communists trying to covertly take over the nation

The average jewish family such as ours was held for deportation as the japanese were held in camps in america because it was the japanese that were the subversives collecting info to attack because america illegally cut off their mo ey and oil


Im so tired if the lies to justify the barbarity of israel

Tell the damned truth



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by arthurfonzarelli
reply to post by DJW001
 


Why dont you be honest and tell the truth

The jews and others that were killed or targeted were zionists and communists trying to covertly take over the nation

The average jewish family such as ours was held for deportation as the japanese were held in camps in america because it was the japanese that were the subversives collecting info to attack because america illegally cut off their mo ey and oil


Im so tired if the lies to justify the barbarity of israel

Tell the damned truth


Can you please explain this, because it makes no sense whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Sorry

No I will not

I dont want to derail opies thread and besides, it will just turn into an argument because I will end up being provoked into it

Im tired of having to defend facts against lies and brainwashing



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by arthurfonzarelli
 


Which nation was who trying to take over? Eh? Whut?



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


Exactly



Now


Onto the topic of weaselthal and his lies please



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by arthurfonzarelli
 


This still makes no sense at all, but what the heck if you don't want to explain your own post that's your call.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by arthurfonzarelli
 



Onto the topic of weaselthal and his lies please


Thank you for proving my point.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 



Now you are really going off the deep end. NOBODY was talking about the Holocaust. Holocaust "Deniers" is what you are "fixated" about.

Change the topic when you lose the argument!

Change the numbers when they don't work in your favor!


What were you talking about? You posed a question implying that war crimes were a matter of numbers, rather than intent. Why do you refuse to address the issue? If you cannot see that crime is not a matter of numbers, but of intent, you will fall prey to the hate mongers who exploit those with a confused moral compass. (And we all know who I am talking about.)

Again: if a bus driver loses control of his vehicle and accidentally kills twelve people, does that make him a worse criminal than a man who deliberately tortures one person to death? After all, the bus driver killed twelve people, and the torturer only killed one. Should the torturer receive a lesser punishment? Is it all a question of numbers?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
 



Now you are really going off the deep end. NOBODY was talking about the Holocaust. Holocaust "Deniers" is what you are "fixated" about.

Change the topic when you lose the argument!

Change the numbers when they don't work in your favor!

Again: if a bus driver loses control of his vehicle and accidentally kills twelve people, does that make him a worse criminal than a man who deliberately tortures one person to death?

"Again"? How many times were we talking about "bus drivers?
Who was EVER talking about torture?

Please stop this nonsense. If you do not want to have a reasonable dialog I will have your posts removed.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 



"Again"? How many times were we talking about "bus drivers?
Who was EVER talking about torture?


I'm trying to get your attention. You have been evading giving me a simple answer, so I am making the hypothetical cases more dramatic. Remember this?



Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime.


You side-stepped my question one more time, it was about numbers.


Why can you not see that war crimes, indeed, all crimes against humanity, are not a question of number, but intent? If the Pol Pot regime had murdered a few dozen less of its citizens, would it have ceased to be criminal?

This point is extremely important. You seem to be sincere in trying to develop your moral compass, but you lack the skills necessary to tell the well intentioned from the ill intentioned. One thing that malevolent people do is set up false equivalences. Killing civilians by accident is not at all the same thing as killing civilians intentionally. Failure to kill as many civilians as one wants is not moral superiority. Do not believe anyone who asserts otherwise.


Please stop this nonsense. If you do not want to have a reasonable dialog I will have your posts removed.


Now who is advocating censorship?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
 


"Again"? How many times were we talking about "bus drivers?
Who was EVER talking about torture?


You have been evading giving me a simple answer, so I am making the hypothetical cases more dramatic.
Are you reading my posts? People here are smarter than you imply by always pretending that your question has not been answered (just as you did with CorruptionExposed) until one is sick of repeating it, only so that you can say 'see I was right' ?

Your hypothetical is unrelated to the issue that we are discussing. You are proving that you have lost any sense of reality.

Why can you not see that war crimes, indeed, all crimes against humanity, are not a question of number, but intent? If the Pol Pot regime had murdered a few dozen less of its citizens, would it have ceased to be criminal?
I don't know what the "Pol Pot regime" is, so why don't you go and make a thread about that?
"intent"? - of course you keep appointing yourself as the judge and the Israeli military as the executioner.

You seem to be sincere in trying to develop your moral compass, but you lack the skills necessary to tell the well intentioned from the ill intentioned. One thing that malevolent people do is set up false equivalences. Killing civilians by accident is not at all the same thing as killing civilians intentionally.
"moral compass"? As if you ever had one. When you talk about killing civilians is okay because it was, OVER and OVER again, not "intentional"? "intentional" by YOUR definition and, well, bad luck for the collateral.

I got news for you: if the military shoots into an area that it should reasonably suspect to include civilians, and past experience has shown repeatedly that it does include civilians, and the military shoots anyway, THAT IS "intentional", the rocket did NOT go off by "accident".

Failure to kill as many civilians as one wants is not moral superiority.
Another "hypothetical? Or another proof you have lost sense of reality. Or just spewing hate, you don't even seem to try to have any meaning in your words.

Now who is advocating censorship?
What you are doing is akin to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, except in your case it is "Anti-Semitism! They want to deport you to Florida! Kill them first!"

You mentioned Iran as a prime example of Anti-Semitism earlier. This YouTube shows a different reality, (non-Jewish) lobbyist Patrick Clawson at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an Israeli "think tank", OPENLY advocating a false flag attack in order to start a war, possibly a World War. But that is okay because "nobody would know", and if it did become known it would be not "intentional". That is Zionism.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 



Are you reading my posts? People here are smarter than you imply by always pretending that your question has not been answered (just as you did with CorruptionExposed) until one is sick of repeating it, only so that you can say 'see I was right' ?


Please provide a link to the post where you prove that criminality is a question of number, rather than intent. Maybe I just missed it. CorruptionExposed never did.


Your hypothetical is unrelated to the issue that we are discussing. You are proving that you have lost any sense of reality.


What is it then that makes Israel so exceptional, that numbers are more important than intent when declaring something a war crime?
.

"moral compass"? As if you ever had one. When you talk about killing civilians is okay because it was, OVER and OVER again, not "intentional"? "intentional" by YOUR definition and, well, bad luck for the collateral.


Why are you questioning my moral compass? Where did I ever say that killing civilians was okay? In fact, I said that the accidental deaths of civilians was sad and tragic. All I have done is point out that killing civilians while taking out a legitimate military target is not a war crime. It cannot be tried as such. Once again, I must point out that Hamas knows that the IDF will return their fire, where-ever they choose to fire from. Their targets are non-military, which would make it a war crime if there were a formal state of war. Despite the fact that they know the Israeli response runs the risk of killing innocent Palestinians, Hamas continues to use the same illegal strategy OVER and OVER, as you would say. Can you at least admit that Hamas should find a strategy that will be less dangerous to non-combatant Palestinians?


I got news for you: if the military shoots into an area that it should reasonably suspect to include civilians, and past experience has shown repeatedly that it does include civilians, and the military shoots anyway, THAT IS "intentional", the rocket did NOT go off by "accident".


And if Hamas fires an RPG at an Israeli school bus from a Palestinian tenement, killing Israeli children and knowingly provoking a response that kills innocent Palestinians, is that not also intentional?



Failure to kill as many civilians as one wants is not moral superiority.


Another "hypothetical? Or another proof you have lost sense of reality. Or just spewing hate, you don't even seem to try to have any meaning in your words.


So you're saying that failure to kill as many people as you want is a sign of moral achievement? And how is it spewing hate to denounce the deliberate killing of innocent civilians?



Now who is advocating censorship?


What you are doing is akin to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, except in your case it is "Anti-Semitism! They want to deport you to Florida! Kill them first!"


On the contrary, I am the one saying: Relax everybody. It's a false alarm. The OP is the one who started out by posting a meaningless bit of jingoism, implying that anyone who disagreed with him was a Zionist who would falsely accuse him of Anti-Semitism. Since he has yet to explain what, exactly, he means by "Zionism," I have refrained from jumping to that conclusion. It is clear, however, that there are at least four people reading this thread that thought that a mindless bit of Holocaust denial was worth a star. What does that suggest to you?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
 

All I have done is point out that killing civilians while taking out a legitimate military target is not a war crime...
Why are you questioning my moral compass? Where did I ever say that killing civilians was okay?
If it is not a war crime, then it is not a crime, then it is okay. Your choice of words like "Collateral damage", by refusing to acknowledge that THOUSANDS of innocent civilian Palestinians have been killed, by denying it is a war crime to fire into populated areas, by excusing it by claiming it was a "ligitimate target", by accusing Palestinians of using "human shields". Infact, how can you know that the"collateral damage" is not a convenient, desirable by-product of eliminating the target? You have expressed so much hate here that killing of Palestinians must be a positive rather than a negative. If Israeli military does it many times over they are either stupid or the outcome is desired.

I said that the accidental deaths of civilians was sad and tragic.
And Mr. Clawson said "I am not advocating this" but it is crystal clear what he is advocating.

That is like Mr. Clawson or you saying "The world would be a better, more peaceful place if DJW001 was dead. He could be killed when destroying a legitimate military target. Or he could just drop dead one day, who would know why? I am not advocating killing him but I am just suggesting that this is not an either or proposition."

I applied your own words and those from the video to demonstrate how irrational and offensive they are. And he was not talking about one person but potentially more than 6 MILLION. To make it clear, I am opposed to killing anybody, as I would like the world to be a more peaceful place. But you are saying that "collateral damage" is okay, regardless of what the numbers show how many Palestinians are killed. Moral compass?

edit on 23-1-2013 by ThinkingHuman because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2013 by ThinkingHuman because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2013 by ThinkingHuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 



"The world would be a better, more peaceful place if DJW001 was dead.


Now who is being hateful? Since you refuse to condemn the intentional killing of Israeli civilians by Hamas, it is clear where you get your opinions.
edit on 23-1-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
 


Now who is being hateful? Since you refuse to condemn the intentional killing of Israeli civilians by Hamas, it is clear where you get your opinions.
edit on 23-1-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)


You are taking my quote out of context. I was quoting YOU and Mr. Clawson to demonstrate how hateful both of you are.

Conclusion: Our dialog has brought me to the awareness that Zionism is a conspiracy by the people President Woodrow Wilson is describing as "organized, subtle and pervasive" and that Zionism is serving the same purpose as the Bolshevik Revolution. Thank you for helping me come to this realization and for remaining civil in our discussion.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
To get back to the topic, the difference between Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism: Zionism CAUSES Anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism really hopes to protect Jews from Semitism.

It should be rather obvious but most of us have been exposed to special interest sponsored propaganda since childhood. So let me point out that, even from a Zionist perspective, taking over somebody else's country, just like war and killing in general, will, must cause hate. This is undeniable. Since Zionism causes Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism must be a desirable result (or, at least, not an undesirable result) for those who created Zionism. Otherwise the creators would have to be short-sighted which is impossible if they are executing God's will.

Question: Why would the creators of Zionism want to provide fuel to foster the hate? God chose the Jewish people to be leaders, to accomplish great works of science art and culture, and to suffer. That is why the Jews had to suffer from Anti-Semitism for thousands of years. However, the conditions today have changed. We have higher awareness, more integration and diversity, better rule of law, and we have the means to keep people informed through media. In this "new" world, you may expect that expulsions and other forms of mistreatment by government officials based on religions would become impossible to support. In other words, Anti-Semitism would die out - if the fire was not fueled sufficiently to continue. That is the purpose of Zionism.

Next Question: What is the purpose for the creators of Zionism to perpetuate Anti-Semitism? The fight against (or shall we call it "war on") Anti-Semitism is like the "war against terror". It can be used world-wide, and indefinitely, as a tool to control people.

God also made a covenant with the LAND of Israel. This is where the chosen people must live. From a Zionist perspective, the military of the chosen people CAN force other people to move out of the chosen land to make it available. But God must rule over the whole earth. This can be accomplished by controlling who will be allowed, or prevented, to get positions of power in ALL governments of the world.

Notice that, according to judeo-christian beliefs, sins will be forgiven. The only criteria to be accepted by God is "faith". How does one know somebody else's faith? Religions do it by requiring performance of daily or weekly ceremonies, as well as on special occasions. How do governments do it? Pledge of Allegiance, National Hymns, controlling the access to information about the government, seemingly democratic elections. And how can the "faith" in a Zionist-led world government be controlled? By ensuring that the candidates for positions of power agree with the "war on Anti-Semitism".

Last Question: How does it benefit Zionists? The benefit for Zionists is that they can do anything with impunity. Criticizing a Jewish person for his political opinions is, like criticizing Israel's foreign policy, bordering on Anti-Semitism, according to Zionist standards. And while it is not quite illegal in most places, it is made clear to politicians, who want to continue their career, that they better not speak out against Zionism "above their breath", as President Wilson put it. From the Zionist perspective, those who support Zionism support the works of God. The "tool" to distinguish and enforce the difference between those who do and those who don't is through persecution of those whose criticize Zionism for being an Anti-Semite.

To sum it up, the difference is that Anti-Semitism is a tool used and fostered by Zionists to perpetuate their control over governments, whereas Anti-Zionism is reasoned argument that opposes Zionism, thereby defending the interests of impartial Jewish people.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 



You are taking my quote out of context. I was quoting YOU and Mr. Clawson to demonstrate how hateful both of you are.


The problem is you weren't quoting me at all. You twisted my words and used them to create a specious argument. Collateral damage is not "okay." I have stated that explicitly. It is lamentable but inevitable. You, on the other hand, have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that deliberately targeting innocent civilians is illegal. You also refuse to acknowledge that targeting innocent civilians is immoral. Is it because, in your opinion, Israelis are never innocent? Why is it okay to murder Israelis?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


Who are these omnipotent, invisible Zionist of whom you speak? What are their distinguishing characteristics? How have you discerned their methods and agenda? What are the sources of your knowledge? And why has your literary style changed so dramatically all of a sudden?





top topics
 
95
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join