A U.N. resolution seeks to criminalize opinions that differ with the Islamic faith.

Can't you be a Semite who's an Anti-Semite?

Well, I have no idea how "calling a Semite an Anti-Semite" denies his ethnical/racial background.
 
Lol. Kind of. Racism within your own race does exist. Discrimination within your own ethnicity does exist...actually scratch this one...until today I still have no idea how to use the word "ethnicity". >.>
 
I suppose so. Didn't Sarah Palin say that there are Americans and then there are Democrats?

Note that the appellation only makes sense to the one side.
 
Palin is a case for itself. Maybe if she'd sniff some brain-powder some of her braincells might come back to life..oh wait, does she even have any? :0
 
Last edited:
SAM said:
Redefine? An Arab is a semite. To call an Arab an antisemite is to deny him his semitism.
No. It is to say the Arab is bigoted against Jews. The Jews could be Russian whites or Ethiopian blacks, and the Arab an actual Semite, it doesn't matter.
arsalan said:
Yep, which means that we dont stand for that kind of crap from someone like him.
Who's "we"?
 
No. It is to say the Arab is bigoted against Jews. The Jews could be Russian whites or Ethiopian blacks, and the Arab an actual Semite, it doesn't matter.
?

Does that include self hating Jews as well?
 
Look, you people.

Fraggle is right.
A word means what it does until it comes to mean something else.
I've seen hundreds of instances where people say "should of" instead of "should have".
Language changes as the perception of the meaning of a word changes.
There isn't a person here who could hold a conversation in real time with Shakespeare.

You've now wasted a page and a half because S.A.M., rather than addressing what is asked of her, seeks instead to redirect into a sphere she feels more comfortable with.
You've seen it forty bloody million times before (or perhaps, at this point in time as far as S.A.M is concerned, 54,471 times).

What is it going to take?
A forty pound hammer?
 
Funny how people see this resolution to just apply to Islam. It is intended for all faiths. And, as for that semite business:

(People like Michael Goldfarb define antisemitism as disagreeing with the Zionist Far Right.)

Incidentally, Joe Klein's defense of Khalidi started a controversy over whether the term 'antisemite' also refers to Arabs. The glib answer that the term was invented in the 19th century specifically for Jews ignores the history of writing about 'Aryans' and 'Semites,' in which many European thinkers did in fact group 'Semites' (i.e. speakers of Semitic languages such as Arabic and Hebrew, though the Europeans racialized them) together. French commentators on Algeria in the 1860s spoke of the lethargy and fanaticism of Semites in general versus the dynamic Aryans. They intended both North African Arabs and North African Jews. Ernest Renan was one such thinker, and he certainly saw both Jews and Arabs as inferior Semites together. Faced with the problem that early Arab-Islamic civilization made great advances in science, Renan castigated Semitic Arabs as unoriginal and argued that early Islamic science actually was developed by the Aryan Iranians (Iranians speak an Indo-European language for the most part, and so were coded by Renan and his contemporaries as a kind of Aryan). Arthur Comte de Gobineau, a major theorist of Semitic and Aryan race, also saw the Iranians as the good Muslims because they were Aryans (he was French ambassador in Tehran for a while).

It would be nice if these debates on Israel and antisemitism attended to the history of European racial thought toward the Arabs that were colonized, a major arena for the development of the Aryan/Semitic dichotomy that rightwing Zionists want us to ignore.

Source

Fact of the matter is that the definition of semite has been changed over the years to just apply to 1 religion despite the early associations with the word but that doesn't take away from the fact that Arabs are still part of the Semitic race and or heritage.
 
Yeah, but Muslims are the only ones who kill and behead people over a few words or a cartoon that they don't like!

Baron Max

Totally irrelevant to my post but I'll bite. Take a look at the reports coming out of Christian Mexico, Brazil, Chile, African nations then come back and say that.
 
Totally irrelevant to my post but I'll bite. Take a look at the reports coming out of Christian Mexico, Brazil, Chile, African nations then come back and say that.

Ahh, but none of them claim that they're doing it in the name of Allah!!!

Don't you see the difference??

Baron Max
 
No, they aren't. There are radical people all over the world. But how many of them do those horrendous killings, then post on websites that they did it in the name of their religion?

Baron Max

What websites?
 
Ahh, but none of them claim that they're doing it in the name of Allah!!!

Don't you see the difference??

Baron Max

Neitehr are Muslims. When Muslims say Bismillah, which is something they say all the time, its the same as Christians wearing a cross, or kissing it or saying a small prayer to Jesus or just small prayer.
 
No, they aren't. There are radical people all over the world. But how many of them do those horrendous killings, then post on websites that they did it in the name of their religion?

Baron Max

Theres various videos and pics online of US troops killing other people.
 
http://www.slate.com/id/2212662

The name S.A.M and her denialist attitude jumped into my mind when I read this so I thought I had to share.
What about 'we the people' who deny that it is OUR fault the crissis in the middle east even exists?

This is a perfect example of what could happen if the secular amongst us allow the madness of religious people to effect our laws. At all costs we need to stop these kind of evils.

As there is a law across european countries that to deny the holocaust is illegal.

And as many here on this side of the lake believe that the newly created state within Palestine is supposed to be a democratic society how come no one is stepping up when we read the current election was based on a loyalty oath

Loyalty Oath
Lieberman’s campaign slogan – “Without loyalty, no citizenship” – was probably the most conspicuous element of the recent election campaign. The centerpiece of his party’s platform was a loyalty oath that would require all Israelis to swear loyalty to the Jewish state and do some form of national if not military service, or risk having their citizenship rescinded.

The target of the oath is Arab Israelis, against whom Lieberman has launched quite ugly attacks. He has suggested on a number of occasions that Arab Israeli members of Knesset and other Arab Israeli citizens should be hung for treason, that they are collaborators, etc
.....

Brit Tzedek's founding principles fully endorse the democratic, Jewish nature of the State of Israel. We believe that the imposition of a loyalty oath misconstrues the essential nature of the relationship between a state and its citizens. Israel’s own Declaration of Independence states that Israel should “ensure complete equality … to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.”



So 'we the people' created a state that was for equality, yet the law is being rewritten for the purpose of a religious state.



i want our money back
 
and if people really want the story.

in the mid 30's when dolfy began the quest of rearming germany which broke the versailies treaty, a specific religious sect, which owned a huge portion of the business, banking and production; would not apply. It was the same exact frame that was put on the table; either support the state, or lose your rights.

now people can see what the true historical cause was actually about
 
Back
Top