posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 11:46 AM
reply to post by DJW001
Let's take them one at a time, starting with this one:
You seem to be an advocate of censorship when it comes to certain issues and your agenda has been exposed and documented for future
Please link to a post where I advocate censorship.
First off my exact words were "You seem to be an advocate of censorship" which was not an outright accusation but in reality it was a personal
observation on my behalf. If I would have said "You are an advocate of censorship" then your worries about being accused of advocating censorship
would be valid.
Here is the post that caused me to say this:
Again, the list includes both Anti-Semites and haters of Israel. You might object to them being lumped together, but most Israelis would not. It is
only your own need to justify your "impartiality," ie; hating Israel, hating Zionism and hating Jews are three entirely different and separate
things, that causes you to try to tease out fine distinctions.
Speaking of motivations, why have you chosen to give this list additional publicity by posting it here? What end do you think it will serve?
My interpretation of this post was that it appears that you do not like certain aspects to be discussed if they do not fit within your views of
Anti-Zionism versus Anti-Semitism. I made it quite clear in my OP what my intentions were yet you continued to ask me what were my intentions as if I
should not be discussing this topic in the fashion that I have.
You also incorrectly accused me of "needing to justify my "impartiality on certain issues when this clearly was not the case.
I should add that the tone of your posts previous to the one I have just quoted also seemed to fit within thinly veiled advocation of censorship on
certain topics, and how they should be discussed.
Let me remind you I did use the words "it seems" instead of "you are" which have different meanings.
I can link to many where I condemn censorship. On the other hand, here is your attitude towards censorship:
I believe in free speech but this organization abuses their right to free speech when they use their "influence" to try and suppress the free
speech of other individuals and organizations by incorrectly portraying or purposely mistranslating them.
In other words, you believe in free speech with a "but."
I believe in free speech but there is such a thing as abusing this luxury even though many people's opinion may difffer on this. The Simon Wiesenthal
Center clearly abused their right to free speech by using outright lies and misquotes several times on this list, the Iranian regime being one
I have free speech, but within limits. On ATS for example, if I were to call any one here a racist name, it would be considered beyond the realm of
free speech...does that make sense?
So to say I believe in free speech with a "but" is simply incorrect. Do you not agree that free speech can be abused in various ways? Just because
it can be abused does not mean that it should not exist.
All of this is irrelevant. I would still like you to return to the intent of your OP and discuss the actual topic of this thread, rather than trying
to lead it around in off topic circles. How do you feel about Ultra-Nationalist Ukranian politician Oleg Tiahnybok making the list? If the comments
attributed to him are accurate, he is certainly an Anti-Semite (and Russophobe). Here is a link to the most objective account of him on the web:
I have not had the chance to verify all these claims but if what is claimed is true then yes he deserves to be on the list. The source is a blog which
makes it questionable but I prefer to attack the content versus the source. I will share my thoughts in more detail on this specific listing once I
have had time to properly research it.
Now, once again, where have I lied?