Mirjam - how are you?

We have nothing against Jews as such. We just hate Zionism and
Zionists. We think Israel does not have a right to exist. But that
does not mean we have anything against Jews as such. Heavens to
Mergatroyd. Marx Forbid. We are humanists. Progressives. Peace lovers.

Anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews. Anti-Zionism is opposition to
Zionism and Israeli policies. The two have nothing to do with one
another. Venus and Mars. Night and day.

Trust us.

Sure, we think the only country on the earth that must be annihilated
is Israel. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as
such.

Sure, we think that the only children on earth whose being blown up is
okay if it serves a good cause are Jewish children. But that does not
mean we have anything against Jews as such.

Sure, we think that if Palestinians have legitimate grievances this
entitles them to mass murder Jews. But that does not mean we have
anything against Jews as such.

Naturally, we think that the only people on earth who should never be
allowed to exercise the right of self-defense are the Jews. Jews
should only resolve the aggression against them through capitulation,
never through self-defense. But that does not mean we have anything
against Jews as such.

We only denounce racist apartheid in the one country in the Middle
East that is not a racist apartheid country. But that does not mean we
have anything against Jews as such.

We refuse to acknowledge the Jews as a people, and think they are only
a religion. We do not have an answer as to how people who do not
practice the Jewish religion can still be regarded as Jews. But that
does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think that all peoples have the right to self-determination, except
Jews, and including even the make-pretend Palestinian "people". But
that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We hate it when people blame the victim, except of course when people
blame the Jews for the jihads and terrorist campaigns against them.
But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think the only country in the Middle East that is a fascist anti-
democratic one is the one that has free elections. But that does not
mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We demand that the only country in the Middle East with free speech,
free press, or free courts be destroyed in the name of democracy. But
that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We oppose military aggression, except when it is directed against
Israel. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We really understand suicide bombers who murder bus loads of Jewish
children and we insist that their demands be met in full. But that
does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think the only conflict on earth that must be solved through
dismembering one of the parties to that conflict is the one involving
Israel. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We do not think that Jews have any human rights that need to be
respected, and especially not the right to ride a bus or sit in a caf.
without being murdered. But that does not mean we have anything
against Jews as such.

There exist Jewish, leftist anti-Zionists and we consider this proof
that anti-Zionists could not possibly be anti-Semitic; not even the
ones who cheer when Jews are mass murdered. These leftist anti-
Zionists and the Neturei Karta are the only Jews we think need be
acknowledged or respected. But that does not mean we have anything
against Jews as such.

We do not think murder proves how righteous and just the cause of the
murderer is, except when it comes to murderers of Jews. But that does
not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We do not think the Jews are entitled to their own state and must
submit to being a minority in a Rwanda-style "bi-national state,"
although no other state on earth, including the 22 Arab countries,
should be similarly expected to be deprived of sovereignty. But that
does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think that Israel's having a Jewish majority and a six-point star
on its flag makes it a racist apartheid state. We do not think any
other country having an ethnic-religious majority or having crosses or
crescents or "Allah Akbar" on its flag is racist or needs
dismemberment. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as
such.

We only condemn the "mistreatment" of women in the country of the
Middle East in which they are not mistreated. But that does not mean
we have anything against Jews as such.

We only condemn the "mistreatment" of minorities in the country in the
Middle East in which minorities are not brutally suppressed and mass
murdered. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as
such.

We demand equal citizen rights, which is why the only country in the
Middle East in need of extermination is the only one in which such
rights exist. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as
such.

We have no trouble with the fact that there is no freedom of religion
in any Arab countries. But we are mad as hell at Israel for violating
religious freedom, and never mind that we are never quite sure where
or when it does so. But that does not mean we have anything against
Jews as such.

So how can you possibly say we are anti-Semites? We are simply anti-
Zionists. We seek peace and justice, that's all. And surely that does
not mean we have anything against Jews as such.http://
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...C078B-97FB-40F...

On Jan 6, 12:12*pm, Olwyn Mary wrote:
wrote:
Right, but when did the three religions actually start arguing about
it? *I'm not arguing that the evidence isn't there to support various
claims, I'm saying that the claims themselves were not all asserted
until modern times.

Elizabeth

Do you consider the Crusades to be "modern times"?

Olwyn Mary in New Orleans

No, do you?

Elizabeth

lucretia borgia wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:09:56 +0200, "Joyce"
opined:

Please tell me, how is the name "Japs" more insulting than "Brits"? I don't
mind being called a Brit, and I wouldn't have thought a Japanese person
would object to being called a Jap.

Joyce in RSA.

And do you call Chinese C^^^^s, or Indians W***s ? They definitely
are insulting.

The term Brits - as I have heard it used in NA - is said with
affectionate tolerance whereas I can picture exactly how Jim meant
Japs.


And a Yank is always a Yank, which has a weird sort of affection of it's
own. I remember when we saw a US serviceman on the street we kids would
always say "Hello Yank", and the guys didn't mind at all and enjoyed to
talking to the children. Rather like my Dad would always address anyone
we met on country walks as "George".

I guess back 60 years ago PC just meant Police Constable. LOL
Gillian

wrote:

Do you consider the Crusades to be "modern times"?

Olwyn Mary in New Orleans


No, do you?

Elizabeth

No, but I know you are an academic, although I do not know what is your
field. However, having lived in a college town for 12 years, I do know
that academics often work on a different time line, depending on their
field of study and/or expertise. I was simply asking for information,
that's all.

Olwyn Mary in New Orleans.

Gillian Murray wrote:
And a Yank is always a Yank, which has a weird sort of affection of it's
own. I remember when we saw a US serviceman on the street we kids would
always say "Hello Yank", and the guys didn't mind at all and enjoyed to
talking to the children. Rather like my Dad would always address anyone
we met on country walks as "George".

I guess back 60 years ago PC just meant Police Constable. LOL
Gillian

When I was a youngster we were instructed to address anyone older than
us as "sir"; didn't matter what job they had.
--
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney UK
http://claremont.island-blogging.co.uk

Bruce Fletcher (remove dentures to reply) wrote:
Gillian Murray wrote:
And a Yank is always a Yank, which has a weird sort of affection of
it's own. I remember when we saw a US serviceman on the street we kids
would always say "Hello Yank", and the guys didn't mind at all and
enjoyed to talking to the children. Rather like my Dad would always
address anyone we met on country walks as "George".

I guess back 60 years ago PC just meant Police Constable. LOL
Gillian

When I was a youngster we were instructed to address anyone older than
us as "sir"; didn't matter what job they had.


Maybe it is an age thing, I don't know. I DO remember when I went to
secondary school at age 11, in 1947, all the male teachers were sir, and
all the females were madam!

My dad was the Borough Engineer, but had been born and raised in the
country, and was a countryman through and through. My Mum had a bit of
Hyacinth about her, being the wife of the BE. Times change....and I have
found out a lot about my family with genealogy.

Gillian

On Jan 6, 5:21*pm, Olwyn Mary wrote:
wrote:
Do you consider the Crusades to be "modern times"?

Olwyn Mary in New Orleans

No, do you?

Elizabeth

No, but I know you are an academic, although I do not know what is your
field. *However, having lived in a college town for 12 years, I do know
that academics often work on a different time line, depending on their
field of study and/or expertise. *I was simply asking for information,
that's all.

Olwyn Mary in New Orleans.

Ah, sorry for the hackles then.

Elizabeth

"Dawne Peterson" wrote in message
el...

"Joyce" wrote
Please tell me, how is the name "Japs" more insulting than "Brits"? I
don't mind being called a Brit, and I wouldn't have thought a Japanese
person would object to being called a Jap.

Joyce in RSA.

Japanese people in this country do object most strongly to being called
Japs. It has always been used in a derogatory sense. I assumed that Jim,
identifying with the British (in his earlier post about WWII, he talked
about "we"), can decide whether Brit is derogatory, although it is not a
term I would use.

Dawne

No reason why you shouldn`t, Dawne - we quite often use it ourselves - it`s
certainly not derogatory. I imagine the Japs` oversensitivity to it harks
back to the war when "Japs (or "Nips") were bracketed with the "Huns"!
There`s nothing quite as oversensitive as a loser!

And most of us who were actually IN the war? Our reaction is "Tough!"

"F.James Cripwell" wrote in message
...
"Dawne Peterson" ) writes:
"F.James Cripwell" wrote

I am not sure the human race has moved on. Take the example of the UK
in
WWII. Dresden. In Burma, Gen. Slim chose the most malaria infected
parts
of the jungle to fight in, as the Brits has excellent anti-malaria
medicine, and the Japs didn't. (snip)J

I hope there was a spelling mistake in this message. The people of
Japan
are called, in English, Japanese.

Dawne

No spelling mistake. In WWII, the Germans were the Bosch, the Italians
were the Eyeties, and the Japanese were the Japs. Jim.

Hoorah for Jim! The trouble is there aren`t many of us left. Don`t forget
the Jocks, Micks and Taffies - and they were on OUR side (mostly). LOL!

Pat

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:21:55 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Right, but when did the three religions actually start arguing about
it? I'm not arguing that the evidence isn't there to support various
claims, I'm saying that the claims themselves were not all asserted
until modern times.

Elizabeth

The whole thing is such a damn shame because the richness of ethnicity
and culture we are being shaded away from as a result of this unrest
is such a waste. I am fascinated by the way many of the indigenous
people still, after thousands of years wear almost the same cultural
garb and hold the same traditions.

I am not talking now about fundamentalists, but people of the middle
way, the truly loving Muslims and Jews, peoples who love God, or Ala,
and who represent what their faith and cultures are truly about, love
and kindness. This all gets lost in the fundamentalists wrath.

There is also a lot of money involved which is corruption at its core.
My heart goes out to all Muslims and Jews who do not murder one
another for any reason.

So it goes...
Victoria

http://gotbodhicitta-wangmo.blogspot.com/
Updated daily when able.

As I and many other have often said - more blood is shed in the name of ANY
God than in any other cause.. If they actually existed, God and the Devil
would be one and the same entity.

Pat