Jews antisemitism and sciforums

Not open for further replies.
I'm still waiting on your feedback of my sig, which in case I change it is "WMDs against almost caning" :)
Aye. You'll be waiting a long time, I'm afraid. I have to be in a certain kind of mood.

Its interesting what people reveal about the way they think from the direction they do take.
*chuckles* yes, it is, but it's rather amusing of you to say such a thing as if you could actually figure them out.

Sorry girl. You aren't in that league.
lets recap....
Well, at the very least you'll give it your best shot.

there might have been an explanation here...
No, not really. Watching you rying to understand something is like watching a chicken scratching in the dirt for worms and coming up with dry roots.

obviously asking that her cause be taken up
No. Pointing out that you, the supposedly compassionate type, brushed it off as nothing.
I did not ask for any cause to be taken up. Causes are your bailiwick.

I outline how i look at the larger issue
Which I already had done...

....the freak insists his way is best... championing a never ending stream of victims. the tard does not realize he is merely exploiting their situation. kinda like that media whore, rev al sharpton
Gustav, here's a little clue for you. If I stand against a thing, that does not mean I champion the opposite.
Nor would you and yours ever be worthy of "my best".

as for the "decrying".... another delusion of his
Well, you struck home here.
You don't decry anything, you just watch everyone else do it, and then yap away from behind their ankles.

I sincerely apologise.

the guy is actually proud of trolling this thread with his puffed up peacockery
Of course. If one does it, it's peacockery. If another, it's laudable.
The Blackadder quote, Gustav. Do try to grasp the situation. There's a good little chihuahua.
So what is my agenda, precisely?

I don't know Sam. Only you know the real answer to that at this moment in time. But to me, it feels like there is something underlying your true motive.

I guess one could say that my agenda senses are tingling.:)

Gustav said:
this alleged nitpicking started when fedr made a statement and sam responded. i posted the instance here
why do you ignore the context? is it not a logical response?
I am not ignoring the context. It is the nitpicking part that I find a tad disconcerting in this instance. It seems to me that it has been blown out of proportion and from where I am sitting, it has been mentioned too many times to count. References back to the "nitpicking".. just to make sure it remains alive. Threads asking what we've learned about Jews.. again, the sly pointing fingers back to that original "nitpicking" incident.

What have we learned about Jews? That they are human as everyone else and open to fault like everyone else. No one is perfect. That was repeated several times in that particular thread.

This thread is nothing more than a 'if others can say this or that about one religious group, then I should be allowed to dredge up stuff and generalise about this other group'. And then protests come up when people rebel against such a line of reasoning. Yes, the accounts of some Jews and their actions against other Jews is abhorrent. We all accept that. Move on. The behaviour of those few is not an indication of the morality of the whole. But it seems that the subject just won't drop. So we get threads asking us what we learned about Jews and then this thread asking why discussions about Jews in general aren't tolerated on this forum.

As I pointed out earlier, threads about Jews are not disallowed. When they are started in protest, then one tends to think that there is an ulterior motive at play and protests about why one cannot be allowed to be anti-semitic would be amusing if it just weren't so blatantly obvious.

I had assumed my earlier points were blatantly obvious. It would seem I was mistaken.
This thread is nothing more than a 'if others can say this or that about one religious group, then I should be allowed to dredge up stuff and generalise about this other group'

Or vice versa

But apparently, it can only be looked at in one direction.

Which is the point.

I guess one could say that my agenda senses are tingling

I guess we could just about do anything but address the issue raised.
If I'd used your New Englanders, the point would probably have been even more lost than it already was. Yes?

Actually, no. That is, considering that popular perception does indeed have it's uses on occasion. New Englanders, irrespective of education or lack, are popularly perceived as being a "tolerant" (ahem) lot.
Stryder are you not a communist as well ?? But wait, don't you also abuse your mod powers in a dictator-like fashion???

Funnily enough, Joey's wrong in both cases. Dictator-like fashion would be one forced rule applied to all. The simplest method of being a dictatorate here at sciforums would be just to write specific rules that scripts handle. This would mean you wouldn't be able to swear at one another, in fact to attempt to would probably generate a counter which when it reached a certain point would auto-ban you.

You can't argue with autonomy, you can't negotiate with it, you can call it names and it won't respond. What sort of fun would you have then Joey? No responses, no human interaction... a quite fizzle as your input and existance on this site is slowly erased.

As for Communism, No. That requires a dictator, if I was to apply my own "Utopian" outlook, everyone would have the right to vote on "policies" and make decisions about how their governments work. It's as true a democracy view point can go, it's not communism because it's not forced on anyone, in fact it would work well with small state or county systems because if the majority of people in that area want to roll with something differently to the rest of the country, so be it.

I'd want the abolishment of "heads of state", they always seem to cause problems with each other and get an entire country in trouble just because the premiere of this or that country looked at them boss-eyed. Making all countries run "headless"... which most would refer to as "Anarchy" (Don't [Meh!... I guess thats a dictation] picture cartoon headless chickens running back and forth bumping into each other, to understand why people call it anarchy.)

To be honest I'd also push towards Transhumanism, since it opens whole new avenues by potential increasing our lives by moving towards housing ourselves in machines. A robot could then be remotely controlled from our housed brains to function as our avatar amongst the "living", which could be upgraded over time and even extended to be used further a field, like for instance missions to deep space. (No need to worry about oxygen, water or food, just energy and the capability of being able to repair the systems should they be damaged, but since anyone could potential take over such and Avatar, it would make it possible to get an engineer or someone trained in the area thats required to take over.)

These are the main reasons I find Religion and Racism as absurdly stupid, since the potential future would prove them to be just that.

(Incidentally if anyone see's any worth in this post, please either PM me or suggest a new thread)
...Threads asking what we've learned about Jews.. again, ......So we get threads asking us what we learned about Jews......

i see a single thread asking in the tt...."What have people learned from my threads on Jews and Israel?". it now behooves me to ask the obvious question.... why do you exaggerate? what agenda do you have?

the sly pointing fingers back to that original "nitpicking" incident.....

what would you have sam do when you and i directly pose questions to sam regarding that matter? why would you characterize a response to our questions as sly? i mean, look and follow the pattern of the thread...

that jewish parents sent their kids to the gas chamber
could you link that factoid?

next parent

All the ones he quotes, you can read the book [minus the apologetic review]

I find it interesting that you are taking this tack Sam.

But tell me, what do you consider apologetic in this review?

Was this apologetic to you?

Tell me, what would you have done in his situation? Can you say for certain that your actions would have been different if you were in his shoes at that time? What will you say if in 50 years time, we get to read the memoirs of a Muslim man in Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, who tells his story of letting his wife and children go to the market, knowing that the market would be bombed.. not doing anything to save them or stop the bombing? Or one who cries in public about his family being killed in a suicide bombing and secretly being glad the bomb exploded? You don't think such stories will emerge at the end of this war?

You seem to be taking this higher than thou route with this. It also seems to be everywhere at the moment.

Should we base our opinion of Jews on this story alone? How about the Jews who even he talks about in his book? The brave ones who chose to die with their families?

But how about you answer your own question, Sam? What have you learned about Jews and Israel? Are you basing your opinion on one man placed in a horrid situation and position who took the route that most would consider a bad choice without once considering things from his point of view?

Stop dancing around the issue so maliciously and snidely. Step up and be honest.


I consider it apologetic that becoming a collaborator for an occupation is somehow seen as "forced" when the actual accounts of survivors from the Holocaust show that they were not. Or that it is even considered as somehow a validation that they were under occupation which makes it justifiable. Remember I come from a country with a history of colonialism so collaboration with the enemy is not something that is alien to our society. No one has written any tomes apologising for people essentially getting into the power cabal of the elite in order to give themselves a pass on the oppression. For all his protestations that he did it for his family, the author was able to send them on to be exterminated and walk away.

Rightly, the elimination of such collaborators was considered necessary for any resistance to be successful, which is also what the Jews experienced in the Warsaw Intifada. Remember, the guy who wrote that book not only sent his wife and child to their death, but countless others. The fact that he could not live with his choices is after the fact, it was the choice he made at the time that affected many others.


I think I've learned that Jews falsely believe that they are better off only with other Jews, when the evidence indicates that they would be better off getting rid of their ethnocentric leanings.

it is pretty clear to me sam again simply responds to questions posed
she did not bring up this matter on her own initiative

it is also interesting to contrast our rhetoric (keywords i note are "exceptional times" "nobody is perfect" etc) towards these collaborators with that of those actually present at that time. those who, in real time, had to deal with the consequences of the collaborators actions.

lets look at an account given by a Prof. Israel Shahak

I disagree with the opinion of Haim Baram that the Israeli education system has managed to instill a 'Holocaust awareness' in its pupils (Kol Ha'Ir 12.5.89). It's not an awareness of the Holocaust but rather the myth of the Holocaust or even a falsification of the Holocaust (in the sense that 'a half-truth is worse than a lie') which has been instilled here.

As one who himself lived through the Holocaust, first in Warsaw then in Bergen-Belsen, I will give an immediate example of the total ignorance of daily life during the Holocaust. In the Warsaw ghetto, even during the period of the first massive extermination (June to October 1943), one saw almost no German soldiers. Nearly all the work of administration, and later the work of transporting hundreds of thousands of Jews to their deaths, was carried out by Jewish collaborators. Before the outbreak of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (the planning of which only started after the extermination of the majority of Jews in Warsaw), the Jewish underground killed, with perfect justification, every Jewish collaborator they could find. If they had not done so the Uprising could never have started. The majority of the population of the Ghetto hated the collaborators far more than the German Nazis. Every Jewish child was taught, and this saved the lives of some them "if you enter a square from which there are three exits, one guarded by a German SS man, one by an Ukrainian and one by a Jewish policeman, then you should first try to pass the German, and then maybe the Ukrainian, but never the Jew".

One of my own strongest memories is that, when the Jewish underground killed a despicable collaborator close to my home at the end of February 1943, I danced and sang around the still bleeding corpse together with the other children. I still do not regret this, quite the contrary.

It is clear that such events were not exclusive to the Jews, the entire Nazi success in easy and continued rule over millions of people stemmed from the subtle and diabolical use of collaborators, who did most of the dirty work for them. But does anybody now know about this? This, and not what is 'instilled' was the reality. Of the Yad Vashem (official state Holocaust museum in Jerusalem - Ed.) theatre, I do not wish to speak at all. It, and its vile exploiting, such as honouring South Africa collaborators with the Nazis are truly beneath contempt.

Therefore, if we knew a little of the truth about the Holocaust, we would at least understand (with or without agreeing) why the Palestinians are now eliminating their collaborators. That is the only means they have if they wish to continue to struggle against our limb-breaking regime. (link)​

we are defending murderers no matter what the circumstance while at least one survivor is not so forgiving. rather ironic and one hell of a contrast

i would like all the armchair apologetics for the collaborator cause to make their case to actual holocaust survivors. that outta be good for a laugh
Last edited:
I don't know Sam. Only you know the real answer to that at this moment in time. But to me, it feels like there is something underlying your true motive.

I guess one could say that my agenda senses are tingling.:)

lets all take a deep breath, a step back and then start from scratch
a clean slate

leave aside the pathetic psychoanalysis and consider posts on conceptual, logical and empirical grounds only. its own merits.
are the premises viable? are they factually referenced? any logical inconsistencies in reasoning? any whatnot?

your good/bad faith criteria is a slippery slope and i predict you guys will end up looking like a bunch of inept backroom shrinks

neither of the two threads in question should have been locked

with all due respect to my big sister.....

..... to further one's own agenda, ........Your current obsession ........ revenge threads ........ you're pissed off at the current obsession of some members about Muslims............You have become what you have hated on this forum. ....... pissing contest ........ insult the other religion the best. ............who obsess as equally about Muslims.

less of that please
Gustav, if this
SAM said:
Its more than that. The time frame is important. The beer caning reports are ALL from within the last week. Try copy pasting a random sentence from one of the news reports into a search engine. Many of them are all the same report.

The time frame for the other news is months [the girl was relocated to Bagram in May and has had 15 surgeries since]. You'd be hard pressed to find a single duplicate report

Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky : a real education on media.
were more completely representative of the 61k, the discussion here would be different.

I'd be able to pick a side, anyway, and agree with this:
neither of the two threads in question should have been locked
without equivocation.
the content of any given thread is not judged on its own merits but rather thru its priors
quite refreshingly unscientific i must say
Gustav, if this were more completely representative of the 61k, the discussion here would be different.

I'd be able to pick a side, anyway, and agree with this: without equivocation.

If there was not a tendency to lock down threads on Jews and Israel on any pretext whatsoever, we wouldn't need to "pick a side". Ideally there shouldn't have to be "side" to pick.


Or do you disagree that the standards are different? That some threads are held to higher "standards" than others?

Consider this:

This thread has drifted off topic. Closed.

This thread is generating lots of claims of trolling. I guess it is time to close it.

It looks like this thread is way off-topic. It is also generating far too many complaints of trolling from both "sides".

How many other threads have been closed in world events and politics for these reasons? There are three moderators in the forum and yet they seem to have no opinions on the issues at all
Not open for further replies.