Disseminating "Jews control America" ...

[Scuba Pete]

Scuba Pete, i don't think you got me.

I did. I got you just fine. I have distinct views about the origins of these views about the Jews controlling America and her businesses. It smacks of another era:

The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation. (Mein Kampf)

You can see within his rantings not HATE, but merely the SEEDS of HATE. Contempt? Surely... but the HATE is not far behind.

 

[Alceste]

Perhaps I missed something....
But it seems to me that the OP is about the promotion of unverified and/or flat out false quotes.

... such as just about everything you will see on CAMERA's website. Man. Guys, really. Are you totally unable to recognize propaganda when you see it? That website is one of the the worst I've ever seen.

Last month's issue of Harpers printed a lengthy email exchange between members of CAMERA regarding how to best disguise their motives and fraudulently infiltrate Wikipedia as editors and content writers, in the effort to make sure articles about the Middle East were uniformly pro-Israeli. Here's a nugget:

I have been working in Wikipedia for nearly three years, and I've learned a lot in the process. All of you will be more successful if you appear to be as neutral as possible. Nothing will harm you more than if your edits identify you as being tied to a specific organization. If you let them know your views, it will prevent you from making friends in Wikipedia - friends we all need in the long run so that one (or more) of us will become administrators. An administrator can set significant limits on other editors... Those of you who want to take this route should stay away from any Israel-related articles until interacting in a positive way with one hundred Wikipedia editors, who will be used later to vote for you as an administrator.

So what is this, a case of the pot and the kettle debating who is the blackest?

If you're going to be a sloppy thinker and a total propaganda dupe, best not to start threads criticizing others for the same.

Take heart .lava - if you have gotten a quote from a dubious source, you're obviously not alone. At least you have the decency to apologize for any offense taken and accept the statement might never have been made.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm truly sorry that you wish to turn this into a fight ...

you did not answer but those questions remain.

As I mentioned in the OP:

It is a common antisemitic claim resurrected in innumerable ways. Now we find the following signature adorning the posts of one of our members ...

In my opinion, the referenced signature was propagating a "quote"

• for which I could find no credible verification,
• which was openly disputed by one source, and
• which was being transmitted on a seemingly endless list of hate sites.

I took exception to it. You apparently feel that it is fine to use unless and until it can be proven false. We clearly have a difference of opinion.

Parenthetically, the site that challenged the authenticity of the quote is clearly pro-Zionist. Precisely because of that fact it's credibility will be constantly under a microscope. To the best of my knowledge, it has stood up well to such scrutiny.

Shalom.

 

[Sahar]

Then the honest course of action would be to stop propagating them as truth. Yes?

And to stop making OPs like the one of this thread, right? The honest course of action, you know....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And to stop making OPs like the one of this thread, right? The honest course of action, you know....:

In my opinion, that is not at all the honest course of action. On the contrary, the honest course of action is to speak out against the propagation of unsupported and antisemitic drivel, much as the honest course of action is to speak out against unsupported and Islamophobic drivel. I have tried to do both. No doubt I could do better.

Shalom.

 

[Scuba Pete]

And to stop making OPs like the one of this thread, right? The honest course of action, you know....

I don't quite see how exposing fraud is dishonest. This type of squalid invention of false quotes should be constantly exposed.

 

[Alceste]

I'm truly sorry that you wish to turn this into a fight ...

As I mentioned in the OP:In my opinion, the referenced signature was propagating a "quote"

• for which I could find no credible verification,
• which was openly disputed by one source, and
• which was being transmitted on a seemingly endless list of hate sites.

I took exception to it. You apparently feel that it is fine to use unless and until it can be proven false. We clearly have a difference of opinion.

Parenthetically, the site that challenged the authenticity of the quote is clearly pro-Zionist. Precisely because of that fact it's credibility will be constantly under a microscope. To the best of my knowledge, it has stood up well to such scrutiny.

Shalom.

Did you miss my post? Or what? CAMERA has its very own entry on PR Watch, and another on wikipedia detailing its efforts to undermine the standards of the community. They've all been blocked or banned! From Wikipedia!!! Wikipedia!!! You can even read about it in the Boston Globe

Stood up well to scrutiny? More like totally destroyed their own credibility in a widely reported farce.

Jayhawker, you can't use discredited sources to back up your case in berating somebody for using unproven sources. Have some standards, for goodness sake.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Did you miss my post?

I saw your post. I simply didn't respect it.

 

[Alceste]

I saw your post. I simply didn't respect it.

Ah. Well then, as you were. Keep on educating us on how important it is to check your sources carefully in order to avoid unintentionally spreading partisan propaganda, oh wise one. :sarcastic

 

[Alceste]

I don't quite see how exposing fraud is dishonest. This type of squalid invention of false quotes should be constantly exposed.

All unthinking repetition of meritless propaganda should be constantly exposed.

And you can't "expose" a squalid invention using an article from a dishonest PR website.

I'm all for exposing the "fraudulence" of .lava's quote, but let's see a credible source and not just succumb to anti-Islamic hysteria at the first sign of controversy.

 

[McBell]

... such as just about everything you will see on CAMERA's website. Man. Guys, really. Are you totally unable to recognize propaganda when you see it? That website is one of the the worst I've ever seen.

And?
I check all "facts" with as many sources as I can find.

Interesting the belief that any source with an agenda has to be 100% lies.

Last month's issue of Harpers printed a lengthy email exchange between members of CAMERA regarding how to best disguise their motives and fraudulently infiltrate Wikipedia as editors and content writers, in the effort to make sure articles about the Middle East were uniformly pro-Israeli.

So they have an agenda.
That only means that one has to be even more diligent in verifying any "facts" they present.

So what is this, a case of the pot and the kettle debating who is the blackest?

Seems to me that it is merely discussing the best way to capitalize on peoples tendency to ratify.

If you're going to be a sloppy thinker and a total propaganda dupe, best not to start threads criticizing others for the same.

I am a sloppy thinker?
All I did was suggest that the OP was about exposing the truth behind alleged "facts".

How exactly does that make me a "sloppy thinker"?

 

[Mister_T]

***MOD POST***

Guys, let's try and keep it civil.

Thanks.​

 

[Alceste]

And?
I check all "facts" with as many sources as I can find.

Interesting the belief that any source with an agenda has to be 100% lies.

I'm only saying it's possible to minimize the risk by checking first to see whether the source you are quoting has any credibility at all, and seek more credible sources if you discover one that has widely reported serious credibility issues.

I am a sloppy thinker?
All I did was suggest that the OP was about exposing the truth behind alleged "facts".

How exactly does that make me a "sloppy thinker"?

Not you, Mestemia. The issue I have is with the OP, the source used to back the OP, the shameless hypocrisy of using one group's propaganda to dispute or disprove the propaganda of another group, and the automatic tendency for Westerners to condemn any criticism of Israel without verifying the issue even exists, or is worth getting upset over. (Also a product of propaganda).

I used your post to kick me off, but I wasn't responding specifically to you. Your posts on this thread have been reasonable so far.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Alceste,

I suggest that rather than playing into their hands, you should read this: Swans Commentary: "The Politics Of Anti-Semitism" Part II: Stereotypes And Other Canards, by Gilles d'Aymery - ga177

 

[McBell]

Seems to me, and Jay can correct me if I am wrong, that Jay was unable to find any reputable source, for or against, the quote in question and because of this, he takes exception to the fact that it is being paraded around as a fact.

 

[Sahar]

In my opinion, that is not at all the honest course of action. On the contrary, the honest course of action is to speak out against the propagation of unsupported and antisemitic drivel, much as the honest course of action is to speak out against unsupported and Islamophobic drivel. I have tried to do both. No doubt I could do better.

Shalom.

Stuffing terms like anti-semitic in your talk maybe in an attempt to make your position appear stronger whereas you know and I know it's all about Zionism, has nothing to do with "the honest course of action". Equating anti-zionism with anti-semitism has nothing to do with "the honest course of action".
Your position is unsupported to them too and as their position is unsupported to you and as you see you have the right to "speak out" they also have the right to be firm in their position.
But if you're going to demand others:

to stop propagating them as truth. Yes?

The honest course of action would require to stop starting threads like this and stop making very old and very cheap shots by using terms like "anti-semitic". Otherwise speak out as mush as you want but don't demand others to stop anything.

 

[Magic Man]

I saw your post. I simply didn't respect it.

I have to wonder why you expect anyone to respect yours when you make uncalled-for comments like this.

 

[Scuba Pete]

he takes exception to the fact that it is being paraded around as a fact.

Exactly... just because you CLAIM that Iraq has WMDs and you are willing to go to war over this does not mean you have any credible SOURCE for your beliefs.

There comes a time, when you simply have to admit that you have swallowed a lie, and that is what has happened here. The quote is FALSE, a FORGERY and a LIE.

 

[Alceste]

Exactly... just because you CLAIM that Iraq has WMDs and you are willing to go to war over this does not mean you have any credible SOURCE for your beliefs.

There comes a time, when you simply have to admit that you have swallowed a lie, and that is what has happened here. The quote is FALSE, a FORGERY and a LIE.

Can you clarify whether you are talking about the alleged Ariel Sharon quote or CAMERA's article claiming it is false?

Because as far as I can see, one is no better supported by credible sources than the other.

 

[Alceste]

Seems to me, and Jay can correct me if I am wrong, that Jay was unable to find any reputable source, for or against, the quote in question and because of this, he takes exception to the fact that it is being paraded around as a fact.

Understandable, and I only wish he had stopped there, rather than resorting to quoting a pro-Israeli propaganda website to support his opinion.

I can't find a reputable source either, and I looked, but that isn't the point I was trying to make. It's the use of propaganda to dispute propaganda object to. What's wrong with just saying "Well I can't find a source for this quote"? Or, "Well, the only article I found that claims to have discovered the source of this quote happens to be on a Zionist propaganda website, so you'll have to take it with a grain of salt"?

You have to admit, the tone of the OP and the title of this thread suggests that Jay thinks his source is reputable, while .lava's source is not, when the two are clearly the same.