Rakhel
Well-Known Member
I cannot believe I am saying this, but that is just U.S. influence. What about the U.N? How powerful are they when to international influence?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is an anti-semite?
- Thread starter Vendetta
- Start date
The US has veto power in the UN.
That's a whole lotta mojo!
disciple123
Member
You are right judging individuals is better.
I must admit my comments could be seen as inflammatory but that is how I see it.
The US could veto any plans the UN has to erect metaphorical gallows for Jews who attack mosques.
(Don't blame me for the weird hypothetical!)
Not too inflammatory.
We have real experts on that here, & you don't measure up....which is a good thing.
disciple123
Member
Very kind of you to say so.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
Why? How about the countries sort this out? Why should this be the responsibility of the UN?
Although anti-semitism exists, and is very far from being a myth, I would suggest the charge that someone is being anti-semitic has largely lost any significance or importance in America political discourse, where even the merest whiff of a criticism of Israel is almost routinely met with charges of "anti-semitism". See, for instance, the irrational charges of anti-semitism that are reflexively levied against Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com whenever he makes highly substantiated criticisms of Israeli Government policies, etc. It is a pity the word has been so devalued by mindless usage.
As for the notion that Jews are too powerful to be victims: There are middle schoolers who can see through that one. Perhaps Chisti should practice his intellectual skills by asserting that apples do not often fall from trees, or that honeybees do not sometimes sting people. Either contention would be more plausible than the notion someone -- or some group -- cannot be victimized in this tragic world. Moreover, the notion that someone or some group is too powerful to be victimized appears on the surface to have the ugly intention of setting that person or group up for victimization.
If it has the effect of exercising power, then it is.
But that is a side issue.
Jews just don't seem to be victimized any more than other religious groups, nor to the extent they have been throughout history.
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
This is not unique to the Jewish people, though. Yet, networks such as MSNBC decry racism at people who do not support Barack Obama.
:clap
Bismillah
Submit
Call me crazy but when people insist on the birth certificate for a President or portray him as a chimpanzee there is some obvious racism going on. What IS unique is Israel and its lobby's appropriation of the word anti-semitism as a be all end all word to denounce any activity that goes against its goals.
It has become, at times, a misnomer and a political tool similar to the word "terrorism".
Yeah, just like your word for an Israeli Jew: Colonist.
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
Was it racism to portray George Bush as a Chimpanzee? For the record, I am a registered Democrat and a staunch leftist.
The State of Israel and AIPAC uses the word anti-Semitic to further its agenda. Jesse Jackson uses the words "racist" and "prejudice" every time a black person is shot by a cop. Does that mean that the words "racist" and "prejudice" should no longer be used?
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
Bismillah
Submit
There is an entire thread devoted to it, but the cases are different you would be pretty disingenuous not to acknowledge it.
Africans have been portrayed in a certain manner in history, like it or not that IS the connotation that is associated with those pictures. You can argue about intention or meaning, but we don't live in some type of isolated bubble and things such as this
It means that instances where they are evoked should be scrutinized to differ between issues of racism and a smear tactic used against critical opponents.
Last edited:
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
There is an entire thread devoted to it, but the cases are different you would be pretty disingenuous not to acknowledge it.
Africans have been portrayed in a certain manner in history, like it or not that IS the connotation that is associated with those pictures. You can argue about intention or meaning, but we don't live in some type of isolated bubble and things such as this
Are obvious throwbacks to racism.
I cannot see the picture, but not all instances of coincidence are necessarily racist. For instance, there is a stereotype about white people that we are racists. Does that mean pictures of Bush as Hitler are racist and offensive towards white people?
I assent.