jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (48 posts)

The subject of my forum post is hypocrisy and Jews.

  1. moneymindit profile image73
    moneyminditposted 2 years ago

    Why is it so bad to talk about Jews?  Mel Gibson did it, and his career went down the drain.  Gary Oldman defended Mel Gibson, and now we will likely see his career fade into oblivion as well.  Israel is illegally occupying a Palestinian territory.  That is a fact.  Why can't people state their opinion about this fact without being labeled as antisemitists?

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Well, because what Mel did was hate speech. Talking about what a country is doing is not the same as spreading hate speech that may cause harm to innocent people. It's much like spreading hate speech against Christian because you don't like what Nicaragua is up to.

      1. cjhunsinger profile image66
        cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        --Who defines what hate speech is or is not? Freedom of speech is not predicated on the words, "will be modified according to what government likes or dislikes or what some may lake or dislike." Who defines causes harm? What is harm? Freedom of speech so defined is no longer freedom of speech, but controlled speech for the purpose of those who define.
        I believe that most of the garbage that is now on television, radio and in the music of today is insulting, hurtful, demeaning and degrading to an intelligent being, but it is protected under 'free speech'.
        Mel Gibsons opinion is Mel Gibsons opinion and that any attention is given to it says less about those who protest it than it does about Gidson.
        It is all reminiscent of Orwell's 1994 and the concept of government controlled thought and speech, "Newspeak"

        1. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The PC police are the ones who determine if something sounds hateful or demeaning. It is then picked up by those who think it is mean to say something while taking it completely out of context. Said often enough and whatever is being expressed is lost in the translation and becomes the gospel on the topic. This PC talk has become a part of the vernacular and when challenged the challenger is judged as being someone awful and not to be trusted.

          Having opened a conversation about the hypocrisy of Jews you have challenged the authority by which the rest of the world reacts to their treatment during the holocaust. It is the sacred cow and the Israelis cash in on this value at every turn of controversy. You see it is the way we talk to each other in our polarized society now. You are either "All" for something or you are "All" for something the opposite way. There is no room for compromise because that dirty little word "compromise" is now translated as wrong. And if you are wrong you are the loser no matter the point or logic you are trying to expose or display. You will never get anywhere with the PC crowd because of this accusation. But on the other hand even if you tactfully carry the topic in a less accusatory tone the PC crowd will sniff it out anyway. This is the result of a less educated and dummied down society ruled by a media that is manipulative and un-informing as it possibly could be.

          1. cjhunsinger profile image66
            cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            ---Some of what you say, I am in agreement with, but, for clarification sake, who are the PC Police and where do they receive their authority?
            I have no particular love for the Jew or for that matter anyone who sets them self apart from the rest of humanity with unfounded assertions of a racial or religious 'specialness'. I do have a great respect for the people of Israel who stand on a principle of national sovereignty however. I do not see this, as a contradiction, as the State was earned, but their claim of a special people is absurd, as too, their continuing victimhood status.

          2. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not so sure it's only PC to defend the Jewish people. Wouldn't most find it just as offensive if he had said that the Catholics or the Muslims have started every war. It's simple an indication of hate, is it not.

            1. rhamson profile image75
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I don't think so because a clear statement of hate would be too say the Jews are an inferior race or an evil aberration. That would classify it most clearly as a hate statement. Tying the Jews to World War II is not as near a stretch as you might think. From the outset at the ending of World War I there was a distinct rise in Anti-Semitism that Hitler played on to stir up the fervor for the final solution. This was precipitated by the Zionist movement to establish an Israeli Nation in Palestine and the perception that Jews had not participated in the German World War I Army. In reality over 100,000 Jews fought in the war but the returning German veterans saw some of their Jewish townspeople had flourished and were surviving the Austerity measures quite well that were meted out by the rest of the world as punishment. Hitler played on this and found a sick rallying cry to come into power along with the military re-armament of Germany. Were the Jews guilty of abandoning their countries military during WWI? Not factually but they were tainted with anti-German sentiment from the situation. Is it hateful to base a theory on perceptions? In afterthought it is easy to say yes but at the time the Nazi Reich was successful in using it to their advantage and stirred up feelings of Anti-Semitic rhetoric that even exists today.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Clearly you can't blame the all Jewish people for Nazi propaganda, can you? It's like blaming a rape victim for wearing  a skirt.

                Telling a police officer that all wars were started by the Jews and then asking the officer if he was Jewish seems to indicate a hatred towards Jews to me.

                1. rhamson profile image75
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't blame anybody but Hitler for exploiting a perception and killing hundreds of thousands of people for a political grab of power. He worked them up into a lathered frenzy and those he didn't he put the fear of hell into who did not go along with the whole scam. The Jews were the patsies in this scenario with hatred brewed up by a perceived distortion.

                  .....Telling a police officer that all wars were started by the Jews and then asking the officer if he was Jewish seems to indicate a hatred towards Jews to me.

                  Or a way to know if he just created an enemy by shooting off his mouth. lol

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image79
                    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Everything happening with the US, the British and the Zionists' consent. If we have to refer to history let's not hide its relevant details.

                2. moneymindit profile image73
                  moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  When I watch the news and see people being blown to bits, it is frustrating.  The media paints the Palestinians as the bad guys.  Yet it is the Palestinians who are being occupied by the Jews.  This is an entirely differently subject - do the Jews control the media?  We can discuss that subject in another forum.  So, getting back to the subject of frustration.  Why don't the Jews just get out of the West Bank?  The Jews claim to be defending themselves from the Palestinians.  Is this not a fallacy?  What if your home was invaded, and you were being accused of being the bad person for attacking the home invaders?  Would it not be absurd for the home invaders to claim that they are merely defending themselves from you?  How is the Jewish situation any different than what I just described? 

                  I see the news, and I get frustrated.  I have a feeling that Mel Gibson feels the same frustration.  The difference between and me is that I am not famous.

              2. psycheskinner profile image82
                psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                If you were crossing the road and I deliberately hit you with my car, I guess that would be your fault.

            2. moneymindit profile image73
              moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              The questions would be, "which wars have the Catholics started?" and "which wars have the muslims started?"  I cannot recall a current war that the Catholics have started.  I can recall turmoil that is currently being caused by Muslims/Islam.  Does ISIS ring a bell?

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          This is one of those times our countries differs slightly I think. While our constitution clearly grants to everyone, among other things, freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media and granted freedoms by making them subject "only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

          The Criminal Code also forbid hate propaganda. "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence.

          So people can think anything they want, but just shouldn't run around trying to convince others of it, while I don't think Mel's speech would have landed him in prison, our sensibilities has changed the course of his career.

      2. nadia asencio profile image89
        nadia asencioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Nicaragua is not a "Christian State," nor was it created to give Christians a place to call "their own"; I don't understand the logic behind your comment.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Your right but it consult with bishops on matters of the state, but we can pick another Christian state if you like. How about Vatican City or Argentina? Do we lash out against peaceful Muslims because of ISIS?

          1. nadia asencio profile image89
            nadia asencioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That comment is duplicitous; neither Nicaragua nor Argentina is ruled by Vatican City or any religious establishment. Furthermore, the question isn't whether or not "lashing out" is justified, but whether or not any ethnic group has a "right" to land solely based on their desire for it. Criticizing a state for its practices cannot be considered "hate speech," that's ludicrous.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Well Vatican city and Argentina and a host of other nations are Christian states. Iran, Turkey and host of other nations are Islamic states. But criticizing a country is not hate speech, but what Mell did was. However there is a fine line between hate speech and criticizing a religion. It becomes hate speech when one attempts to purposely cause hate rather than dialogue.

              1. nadia asencio profile image89
                nadia asencioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Either you don't understand, or you are pretending that you don't understand. Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al are run by clerics. Argentina is not. Neither is any other Latin American country. There is a difference between a nation being run by religious clerics for hundreds of years, and a nation that was controlled by the Church decades ago, but which is no longer under the control of any religion.

    2. calculus-geometry profile image85
      calculus-geometryposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Think Gary Oldman's career was already on the decline.  Perhaps by choice.  At some point you have to drop out and start enjoying your moolah, assuming most of it didn't already go up your nostril.  What's this thread about?

    3. Nadia Ribadu profile image61
      Nadia Ribaduposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Gibson was uttering, RANTING, rather, utter nonsense, and it was uninformed.  What's wrong with this kind of talk is because of the sufferings of the Jewish people throughout history, the pogroms and persecutions from which they fled, and the ongoing anti-Jewish rhetoric we hear ALL time, from individuals and groups who should know better.  They deserve to have at least one state, in the midst of a virtually entire Middle East of hostile neighbors.

      1. nadia asencio profile image89
        nadia asencioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Are we going to start handing out land on the basis of whether or not an ethnic group "deserves" it? I don't know about that...seems like a really short list.

  2. moneymindit profile image73
    moneyminditposted 2 years ago

    As far as I know, Mel Gibson said that "the Jews are responsible for starting all the wars".  What is hateful about that?  The Jews are currently illegally occupying a sovereign land.  The media reports that Israel is simply defending itself from Palestinian attacks.  However, the word "defending" is confusing.  If somebody invades your home, and you attack the invader, should you be labeled an evil person because the invader is "defending" himself against your attack?

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      What's hateful about stating that the jewish people are responsible for all the wars in the world?

      If anyone listens and believes him he has spread hate. A negative impression of a people of a particular religion.

      BTW, do you think all the Jewish people are responsible for the actions of the Israeli government? Are the Jewish people not living in Israel somehow responsible for the undertaking of the Israeli government while the non-jewish israeli solders are off the hook?

    2. psycheskinner profile image82
      psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps you forgot that little war started by the Nazi? That means they didn't start "all the wars".  That makes it a statement that is best moronic, and more likely bigoted.

      1. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!

      2. Nadia Ribadu profile image61
        Nadia Ribaduposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Indeed!

      3. nadia asencio profile image89
        nadia asencioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, the Nazi wars were funded by Jewish bankers; wars need funding just like everything else, and Hitler had to get his funding from the banks just like every other state leader. Look up the BIS and its role in funding Nazi predation. Also, the UBC, Union Banking Company, which was headed by George W. Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush, funded the Nazis. Eventually, by August 1933, Samuel Untermeyer, the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation, declared 'war' on Germany; this was another issue. If you want to know who starts what when it comes to war, just follow the money. There's more to war than meets the eye.

  3. God shet profile image61
    God shetposted 2 years ago

    Remember the Germans?

    1. bethperry profile image88
      bethperryposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I don't recall the Jews attacking Pearl Harbor either.

      1. moneymindit profile image73
        moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I have a feeling that Mel Gibson was referring to the ongoing war in the Middle East.  There have been many, and they have been going on for eons.  Since Israel is occupying Palestinian land, then it can be said that the Jews have started all of the wars in that territory.

        1. Nadia Ribadu profile image61
          Nadia Ribaduposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Huh?

  4. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago

    It is true that each time you refer to any punishable actions committed by a Zionist (since being jew relates to their religious belief and not to a race) you are seen as an anti-Semite. It is true that anyone that will open their mouth to denounce any of their crimes will be banned ad vitam eternam. There's an OMERTA hovering over any independent being thinking that she-he can express herself/himself. AIPAC will make sure that everything runs smoothly.
    As for me, I am openly antizionist.

  5. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    Most of the time 'anti-zionist' is code for 'anti-jew'.  If you are against an action, why not state the action? It's clearer.  Like: against Israel existing as a state, or oppose considering Israel the Jewish homeland.

    Because even mentioning anti-zionism in this thread conflates it with the bigotry being discussed here.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You are trying to stretch the two things together. One being the rights of the Jews to a Jewish state and the other of the rights of Jews to a homeland. The two are separate and your distortion to combine the two is misleading. This is why the subject is too controversial for some. You must be able to allow distinction between the two to discuss the topic objectively.

  6. S Leretseh profile image70
    S Leretsehposted 2 years ago

    Why should Jews have a God given right to a "Jewish" state? White Christian don't have that right, anywhere, at least not that I'm aware of. A great deal of Jewish money poured into the NAACP after 1945. This money was meant to be spent on the creation of FORCED integration;  and ultimately multiculturalism. Israel doesn't even have a civil rights law to ensure equality & equal access for the blacks (mainly Ethiopians) and Arabs living in Israel

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      White Christians? Oh my. Do you differentiate white Christians from black or asian Christians?
      Have you ever read any history? Have your read about the middle ages? White Christians? Oh my.

      1. S Leretseh profile image70
        S Leretsehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I can assure you sir I am most likely more informed on human history than you are - by along shot. The reason I interjected race into the discussion is because Israel does NOT seek just to be a "Jewish" state but a racially homogeneous state as well. Blacks are in Israel, however, they  - the Ethiopians - are isolated for "white" Jews and mainly second class citizens.  And what the heck do the Middle Ages have to do with this discussion?

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Ah, because during the middle ages Europe was one big Christian state.

          Blaming the Jewish people for what the Israeli government does is like blaming Christians for what the US does.

          Are you saying these Ethiopians are of Jewish faith and yet are treated differently? Like apartheid? Do I think that people of the Jewish faith should have been given land that displaced others. No, but lets not put all peoples of Jewish faith in line with Israel. Let's not put all people of Islam in line with ISIS.

          I still don't get the white thing.

        2. maxoxam41 profile image79
          maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Zionists sterilized Ethiopian jew families. They are harvesting Palestinian children's organs to commercialize worldwide. What did they learn from history?

        3. Nadia Ribadu profile image61
          Nadia Ribaduposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The Middle Ages was mentioned because the Crusades happened then.  Islam had overridden Jerusalem, occupying Palestine.  There were people there before Islam came rampaging in.  Point:  Hundreds of years before the current "Palestinians" were PREVIOUS Palestinians, and they weren't Muslim.  "What's past is prologue."

          1. maxoxam41 profile image79
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Since you are referring to history, and especially the Crusades, you'll agree with me when I state that Christians and Muslims were fighting for the land. In that context, where were the Jews?
            If we had to trace your bloodline, your belonging to a land, for instance Palestine, it is clear that the result of your DNA will locate you "roughly" in Kurdistan or Turkey. I said roughly because the data wasn't an assertion. Judging Schlomo Sand's opinion the Jewish race doesn't even exist. To be jew has always been a religion.
            And I love the fact that the Jews say that you become Jew through your mother whereas every scientist knows that the mother carries the racial genes. Not the Jew mother but all mothers.

    2. maxoxam41 profile image79
      maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      A dictatorship. It's time for us to open our mouth and voice up our angers and act upon.

    3. Nadia Ribadu profile image61
      Nadia Ribaduposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      As a black person who knows my history and something about the Jewish plight, I reject everything you've written, which is patently false and ill-informed.

      1. Nadia Ribadu profile image61
        Nadia Ribaduposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        And don't start that "Jewish money" crap.  It's old.  If we all had it, no one would be complaining.  Quit being jealous of an industrious people.  They've been able to prosper, for the most part, despite the HELL they've been through.  Their faith has seen them through.  Long live Israel!!!!!

 
working