h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Why can't people see the difference between anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist?

we can Della,



"I have had Palestinian friends, one of whom, David Wakim, died recently. A Zionist group got an editorial cartoonist here fired for 'anti-semitism', and the paper, the Herald, is terrified to this day, of saying 'boo' to the Israelis... When the IDF kill a schoolgirl who's committed the crime of walking home from school and wearing a backpack that *might* have (but didn't) contain a bomd, when they kill children sunning themselves on the roof of their house, the Herald won't carry the story for fear of Honest Reporting.com.

Why cant people differentiate innocent school-girls from suicide bombers? Probably much the same reason that you see a Jewish name and go on an anti-zionist rant.



"They make me sick.

I just pity you your lack of intelligence, Id bein a state of constant anger and emotional distress if I let all the stupid angry people get under my skin.

one love

Silly humans (eldest off spring's term) Great question I wish..hope there is an answer to this Question. I supose duck and cover was is more of an answer! but...

This is a wonderfully entertaining wrestling match (don't let the theists dislocate your hip) but I really, really have better ways to waste my time.

enjoy!

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0302/S00005.htm

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/?s=palestinian%20children%20killed%20by%20israeli%20army

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/child_41304.html

http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp

As Jack Shaheen points out, Arabs are semitic, so that Jews having appropriated the term, is just adding insult to injury.

http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2006.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/899414.html
(An Israeli newspaper!)

http://qwstnevrythg.blog-city.com/un_idf_killed_116_children_in_2006.htm

http://www.mediamonitors.net/sarah2.html

http://www.washington-report.org/archives/sept03/0309015.html

Yeah we all know the origin of the term Semite.

That isnt the point in the Westernworld and event the Arab world people now use the word in a different way.

Stop wriggleing, most people you know, most people on this site use anti-Semitic in the modern sense.

Boredom Kills!

Don't bother, Blic- she'll just diffuse everything until there isn't a clear point to address.

Unless ... say Vickster, is my nephew an antisemite?

Meet my friend as well, Arieh McUzziel! Talk politics!

So Vicky shows herself to be an anti-semitic, then, by conflating the suffering of the Palestinians with the ethnicity of three people who are unconnected with it and at least two (and possibly three) of whom are anti-Zionist. The very least one could say is that she was ignorant of their views. But then, I don't think she was entitled to infer anything from their surnames. And, as I said, shame on her for even noticing.

Thanks for the honest admission, Vicky. At least we know where you're coming from now.

Vicky,

>><< I don't personally recall his advocating the banning of religion or oppression of believers, even. >>
>Oh give me a break, you *know* he has!

Ah, this would be in the same way that we 'know' God exists and we 'know' prayer works and we 'know' the universe is designed, right? In other words, it's your personal, unsupported opinion (in this case, held in defiance of all the facts) so therefore we must all agree with you, and if we say we don't then we're all liars?

Are you working out yet why we want to see quotes from Hitchens before we accept your claim of 70+ (or 65) lies in the first 5 chapters?



'my mother used to say that bad language showed a paucity of intelligence, imagination and education'

Had your mother ever read Shakespeare?



'My stupid error lay solely in using the word 'ethnicity''

No, Vicky, your stupid error lay in making assumptions about people based on their race.

'Israel was founded not on religion, but ethnicity.'

Popycock. It was founded on a mixture of both.

'Why do Jews and Buddhists get a pass, from atheist fundamentalists and yet no other religion does?'

They don't; but there are no Jews or Buddhists here making racist remarks.



'the more likely [Jews] are to be strongly religious, the more likely they are to be opposed to Zionism'

What's the weather like on your planet, Vicky?

'Neocons (most but not all of them Jews, and all of them Zionists) inveigled his great vacuousness, Dubya into attacking Iraq on flimsy pretexts.'

In other words, 'the Jews' caused the Iraq war, not poor, innocent Christian Bush or Blair. And you're claiming that this is not anti-Semitic?



Now, how about you try to redeem yourself by quoting some of these lies from Hitchens?

Gif

Or even the mysterious quotes from Dawkins - apparently excised from my copy of TGD but not Vicky's - in which he advocates the suppression of religion?

There are, of course, some ultra-orthodox Jews who oppose Zionism. They don't believe that they should be concerned with worldly governments. None of this is relevant to anti-semitism above. I mention it purely en passant.



I'm always deeply puzzled (and disgusted) by the strange belief that US foreign policy is controlled by 'The Jewish Lobby'. You have to ask yourself who is the paymaster in the relationship between the US and Israel and thus who is dancing to whose tune. I'm even more puzzled that the Israelis aren't more concerned at being a client/puppet state of the US, who often force them into doing things which are not in the interests of their own safety. Such as supporting the abbortive al-Fatah coup that ended up putting Hamas in charge in Gaza. Without the influence of US global politics, Israel would simply have to come to a peaceful relationship with Palestine. Wouldn't it?

We probably need a separate thread to sort out the Middle East, though.

There's no *Jewish Lobby*, it's a US voting block, plain and simple. Seven million voters, mostly urban. Estimates 2006- New York City (1,750,000), Miami (535,000), Los Angeles (490,000), Philadelphia (285,000), Chicago (265,000), San Francisco (210,000), Boston (208,000), and Baltimore-Washington (165,000). With strong ties to business and entertainment in some instances.

But that aside, why would neo-con, strongly held Christian belief Dubya listen to some Zionists about war anyway? Absurd.

Hitchens is what he is, how did any of this enter a discussion about atheism?

Meant to change that but forgot.

Zounds!!

*Most original, prior to being censored, Shakespearean works contain offensive profanity, mostly religious, which is probably one of many reasons that his works were and continue to be so popular. "Shakespeare pushed a lot of buttons in his day- which is one reason he was so phenomenally popular. Despite what they tell you, people like having their buttons pushed" (Macrone 6). His works contained many profane words or phrases and as a result, were censored to protect the innocent minds of the teenagers who are now required to read them, and also because they were blasphemous and offensive. Almost all of the profanity was removed, and that that was not had just reason for being there. Some of the Bard's censored oaths are;
"God's blessing on your beard"
Love's Labors Lost, II.i.203
This was a very rude curse because a man's facial hair was a point of pride for him. And "to play with someone's beard" was to insult him.
"God's body"
1 Henry IV, II.i.26
Swearing by Christ's body (or any part thereof,) was off limits in civil discourse.
"God's Bod(y)kins, man"
Hamlet, II.ii.529
The word bod(y)kin means "little body" or "dear body," but adding the cute little suffix does not make this curse any more acceptable.
"By God's [blest] mother!"
2 Henry VI, II.i;
Swearing by the virgin was almost as rude as swearing by her son, especially when addressing a catholic cathedral as Gloucester did in 2 Henry VI, II.i
Perhaps the two worst of these Shakespearean swears were "'zounds" and "'sblood." "'Zounds" had twenty-three occurrences. Ten of them were in 1 Henry IV. The rest appear in Titus (once), Richard III (four times), Romeo and Juliet (twice), and Othello (six times). Lago and Falstaff were the worst offenders. 'Zounds has evolved into somewhat of a silly and meaningless word, but was originally horribly offensive. This oath, short for "God's wounds," was extremely offensive because references to the wounds or blood of Christ were thought especially outrageous, as they touched directly on the crucifixion. "'Sblood" had twelve occurrences in all. There were eight times in 1 Henry IV (with Falstaff accounting for six), plus once in Henry V, twice in Hamlet, and once in Othello. 'Sblood occurs less than 'zounds, but is equally offensive and means basically the same thing.*


http://www.essaydepot.com/essayme/1159/index.php


*Essay Depot*!!

Tabernouche!

Heh, and there was me thinking it was sexual swearing.

"An old black ram is tupping your white ewes!"



Gif

"ewe", singular.

Gif

You were right first time. Rams aren't known for their monogamy.

<<'my mother used to say that bad language showed a paucity of intelligence, imagination and education'

Had your mother ever read Shakespeare? >>

Is that meant to be funny? Shakespeare doesn't eff and blind, he uses imagination and wit. He's precisely what my mother approved of. On the other hand monotonous use of the name of God as a curse word, and f*** and sh*t and all the rest, can not be compared with Shakespeare!



<>

You may have a point there. As I've said, my assumptions would have had a 90% chance of being correct if they were Americans... and EtB did cite these people as supporting the invasion of Iraq.


<>

Yeah, right.

<>

I am not making racist remarks either. Read the quote from the Buchanan article.



<<'the more likely [Jews] are to be strongly religious, the more likely they are to be opposed to Zionism'

What's the weather like on your planet, Vicky?>>

How utterly stupidly childish you are Gif! I could ask what the weather's like in Noo Yawk or Warshington where you are, with as much justice. What I stated is fact, and if you don't want to believe it (and you evidently don't) tough titty.


<>

Proof if any was needed that you don't bother to read what I write before spewing bile everywhere. I said 'Neocons', most of them Jews, but not all! They're a political movement. Did you ever hear of PNAC? Or is your knowledge confined to shouting spite about religion.



<>

I've no intention of polluting my mind with Hitchens nasty insane ravings again. So, in essence, no. I don't need to be "redeemed"... I've done nothing wrong.

I can't understand why you and EtB think it's s*dding okay for one race to murder the children of another! "But the murder victims are just nasty uneducated little Arab guttersnipes, hey? And shock horror they're Muslim or even worse, Christian!" Is that how you see it?