Are you paying attention at all?

I’ve read tons of history on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, included materials supplied by the Israeli Embassy and the Palestinian Mission. Even the Palestian mission is not trying to sell the bilge peddled by those “Jewish” (and I use the term loosely) sellouts.

You can bold type up the ying – yang, and that won’t change the FACT that anti – semitism means, in the minds of those that possess more than a half dozen working brain cells, anti – jewish.
It’s a common definition, used by thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people around the world, and you’re going to pull some pseudo – anthro – ethno – linguistic – genetic – mumbo jumbo out of your tuchus, and expect me to buy it?

Ha ha ha chuckle snicker snicker

And by the way, Alex — what is “willful ignorance”? That makes about as much sense as the crap you constantly try to peddle, i.e., none.

That’s all for me, except to laugh at that great punchline:

Anti-Semitism is increasingly used by people who apply the word in reference to any Semitic people, especially as a reference to anti-Arabism.

That should have come with a friggin’ beverage alert!
Or at least, Caution: Doublespeak ahead… War is Peace! Hate is Love!

Semitic is an adjective which in common parlance mistakenly refers specifically to Jewish things, while the term actually refers to things originating among speakers of Semitic languages or people descended from them, and in a linguistic context to the northeastern subfamily of Afro-Asiatic.

Anti-Semitism is a term whose most common usage typically is to describe anti-Jewish statements or beliefs. However, it is increasingly used by people who apply the word in reference to any Semitic people, especially as a reference to anti-Arabism.

And since Frank is loves history lessons, maybe he should read this perspective on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

can we acknowledge for once that most Palestinians are Semites, while most Israelis are of European descent? Wouldn t that make the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Arabs  anti-Semitism ?

Alex Corrigan has decided that “anti – semitism” doesn’t mean what it actually means:
an·ti-Sem·i·tism (nt-sm-tzm, nt-)n.
1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
2. Discrimination against Jews.

anti-semitism
n : the intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people [syn: anti-Semitism]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

No, indeed, it means what he says it means.

Well, I think “liberal” means “snotty fireman wannabe, who is actually an EMT, who thinks that because he’s smarter than a handful of guys in the Fire House, when they argue about Current Events over homemade beef stew, that he’s a foreign relations pundit.”

Ahmedinejad might talk a mean eliminationist game, but he knows as well as anyone that Iran isn’t about to wipe anyone off the map, especially Israel. He’s just playing to the cheap seats in an effort to solidify power; you know, much like the Rethugs do with the Talibangelists here.

On the other hand, the state of Israel is carrying out an eliminationist game, continuing its decades-long campaign of starving out and driving out the Palestinian Arab people from their ancestral lands. When the Israelis bulldoze longstanding Palestinian family homes (or makeshift replacements for already bulldozed family homes) so that some assholes from Ohio or Manhattan can exercise their ‘God-given’ right to live in a ‘greater Israel,’ I call it injustice. When the Israelis back that injustice with a policy of U.S.-subsidized military oppression, I call it ethnic cleansing. Sure, the Palestinian response can rightly be labelled ‘terrorism,’ but what would you do in their shoes? Gladly roll over?

But I guess it must be easier for a nation founded by (Indian-killin’, negro-enslavin’) white supremacists to identify with the colonial Israelis than it is to sympathize with the Palestinian Arabs. It’s the colonial/settler mentality, I know. Anyway, considering what this racist nation has done to their neighbors in Iraq (in the name of ‘freeing’ them), I can see why Iran wants nukes.

Time-New Roman, and you know fonts just don’t come anymore honest than that.

BTW, Alex, if your political acumen were as good as analysis of history, you’d almost be smart enough to be an uneducated Democrat…

Please tell me more about Israel’s “ethnic cleansing” I can’t wait.

There are currently seven nations who have declared and confirmed the possession of nuclear weapons: the U.S., Russia, France, U.K., China, India, and Pakistan.

There is one nation that professes to have nukes, but has given no proof: North Korea.

One state is known to have produced its own nukes, then dismantled them voluntarily: South Africa.

One state is believed to possess an illegal nuclear arsenal, but has faced no sanctions or threats of any kind, and has not been forced to face inspections: Israel.

(Israel and South Africa are interesting, in that they are believed to have conducted a joint nuclear test in 1979. It suppose it makes perfect sense that a nation led by an openly racist minority government would find a willing WMD-production partner in a nation busily conducting a long-term ethnic cleansing program of its own. Anyway, it speaks volumes that South Africa abandoned the Nuclear Club as a prelude to dismantling apartheid, and it is even more telling that Israel still goes to great lengths to conceal official confirmation of its alleged nukes. Just sayin’…)

Now, for the most important point. One nation, in the history of mankind, has ever used nuclear weapons against human beings: the U.S.

In light of all the above facts– keeping in mind the disastrous consequences of the Bushies’ Iraq nuclear fantasy– just who ought to be telling whom what they can or can’t do with the atom?

BTW, nicely done, your glossing over the U.N.’s attempts to address the food and medicine problem with that very oil-for-food program, that is. Of course, the U.N. would need to be cautious to avoid as much as possible such problems with Iran, but if they could get China and Russia to support action, I doubt Iran wouldn’t be more amenable to cooperation. That also assumes the U.S. is on board, naturally, and we know how that is going.

Congradulations Frank, you finally made me laugh.

Excuse me.

“Dangerous Dictator” X, just like Dangerous Dictator Y before him, and Dangerous Dictator Z to follow him, was freely elected by his own people; just like our own elected morons, he is saying exactly what his people want to hear in order to stay in power. Did you get that part? This guy is threatening Israel because that is what his own voters want to hear. Your problem is not with him. It is with your own foriegn policy– or lack thereof– but you don’t seem to have realised that yet.

If you really want to nuke people just for saying they want the state of Israel to disappear and power to revert to the Palestinians, I’m sorry, but you’ll have to nuke pretty much the entire Middle East. Zionism is highly unpopular in Muslim countries. Israel has no friends there. This is a serious, difficult problem, but nuking the region is not the solution.

Is that what you want? Is that what you are advocating?

Pretty soon, some grownups will have to take charge who understand that this whole revenge-and-escalation-of-rhetoric pattern is stupid. If you insist on living inside a cowboy-movie fantasy of good-guys-versus-evil-ones, you’ll have to take your Clint Eastwoos shit and go back to Hollywood. This is not a game. This is not a movie. Nobody is purely good or purely evil: we are all flawed and selfish and we cannot escape each other; we must negotiate and find a way to live together and do business together. Especially when dangerous weapons are involved. And, in this case, it requires taking the keys away from you. You can no longer be trusted to drive; you’ve already had too much (blood?) to drink.

Factcheck, if you admit that there are reasons why the State Department and the CIA don’t like Bush, aren’t you acknowledging that they don’t like Bush? Even if you think it’s Bush’s fault (a. What a surprise!, and b. I’m sure they think the same thing), they still don’t like him, do they?
Did I, uh, ever say they didn’t like him for no reason?
I just don’t care what the “reasons” are.

Rounds, I know there is no nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran [ I also know that this situation bears absolutely no resemblance to Iraq]. The difference between you and me, apparently, is that I would like to keep it that way.

Do I “Want to rush into another war”? No.

Now, do you have a question to ask or a statement to make? I don’t care which, just keep your words out of my mouth.

Also, I was specifically referring to the ludicrous (and I really have other adjectives in mind — I’m being extremely diplomatic) charge that keeping the military option open in the l’affaire Iran was a sign of cowardice.

Frank, where you serious when you typed “We should try sanctions, instead (remember how well that worked with Iraq?)”? Uh, sanctions and inspections, along with the first Gulf War, crippled Saddam’s military and wiped out his WMD programs, as we now know. Assuming we could pull off the same thing without starving hundreds of thousands of civilians this time around, how would that be a failure? And please supply a better reason for doubting someone’s analysis than they were part of a group “which have never been thrilled with GW Bush.” Try asking why those groups don’t like Bush (maybe it’s his habit of putting politics over policy, or of installing fawning sycophants in top level positions and driving out critics).

pedro, PLEASE stop wasting space by repeatedly bringing up the same tired, and already explained multiple times, point about Iran not negotiating with the U.N. They are concerned with the U.S. and its exceptionalist foreign policies and open contempt for the U.N. What good would a deal brokered through the U.N. do if the U.S. will only dismiss it and invade anyway? Compliance didn’t save Iraq.

‘Now I m so afraid of a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran, that I m what? Willing to negotiate? No  that s what you want to do.”

Iran doesn’t have a nuclear bomb in its hands, you know, just like Saddam didn’t have WMD. Want to rush into another war declared by the same men who brought us that lovely disaster otherwise known as Iraq? Oh, no, that’s what YOU want to do!