Islamist Pays The Tundra Tabloids a Visit…….

loool wen i read ur blog a had the biggest laugh in ma life…..r u dum u jews wish u rule the world!!!! and ever jew knows that the day well come wen u hide behind the tree and the tree well tell the us a jew is behind me come and kill him loool…u prophet killers

This particular anti-Semite was commenting on an earlier post of mine, and doesn’t hold back on his understanding of his holy books, most likely quoting a verse from a Muslim Hadith . This Islamist emphatically believes that Jews want to rule world.

Ironically, I have recently been exchanging comments with the owner of another blog spot,who insists on mitigating the role anti-Semitism plays in the characterization of the all powerful “Jewish lobby” in the US, as well as Jews having “dual loyalties”. Perhaps Toby will someday realize that the phenomenon of anti-Semitism is not ruse to squash debate, but a vehicle used by racists to squash Jews. *L* KGS

7 Responses

  1. Kenneth, I have never ever said that anti-semitism isn’t real, doesn’t have very real consequences and like other forms racism, shouldn’t be confronted. To suggest that I have ever claimed that it is simply a “ruse” to cover anything else is completely unfair and intellectually dishonest.

    If anti-Semitism wasn’t so real or so serious, making the claim that someone else’s argument was anti-Jewish would be neither here nor there. I’m upset that you would misrepresent our discussion this much to make a cheap point.

  2. Read my post again Toby, I NEVER EVER said that you didn’t think ant-Semitism was real, nor that it doesn’t have consequences, nor that it shouldn’t be confronted, your comment is a “knee jerk reaction” that doesn’t represent anything that I wrote. Which was : “he insists on mitigating the role anti-Semitism plays in the characterization of the all powerful “Jewish lobby” in the US, as well as Jews having “dual loyalties”

    You keep insisting that claims made by others concerning Jewish “dual loyalties” might have some basis, and therefore ‘nothing to worry about’, since many groups deal with the same phenomenon. I however disagree, and have taken a dissenting viewpoint and have tried to explain that the racist charges goes much deeper towards Jews than towards other national groups, as history has plainly shown.

    I referred to the debate we were having on the JEWISH LOBBY and the anti-Semitical canard of Jewish DUAL LOYALTY, not everyday anti-Semitism, which is obvious from reading the post. (TOBY: I don’t see why saying some people have dual loyalties could in anyway be considered as being anti-Semitic. It seems to be a statement of the bloomin’ obvious in the modern world, particularly for countries made up of immigrants. Did you read the piece in The New Republic on it?”)

    It’s not that you have dismissed the notion of anti-Semitism, but that you’ve consistently DOWNPLAYED ITS ROLE in the current debate raging in the US, (about the Jewish Lobby) which has ancient racist roots, which incidentally, is not exclusively a US phenomenon, but a WORLD WIDE ONE. We are not talking about just SOME Jews, but a whole apparatus, from civil organizations to those in power in the US gov’t. You have also alluded that Jews use the trump card of anti-Semitism in order to manage debate, ( “It relies [the Yglesias article] on the premise that the debate is being limited by people using anti-anti-Semitism as a way of avoiding debate”) when the opposite is true, I advise that you read the Stephens article once more.

    You have also managed to lump Cuban, Congolese and Mexican Americans’ sympathies towards their home states, to be on par with the vitriol and vectum on display towards Jews (throughout history), and present day Jewish sentiment towards Israel. These are the issues that I take up with you, not the one you served up. I am not intellectually dishonest, and I have taken the time to categorically answer each and every one of your responses. I have not misrepresented one single thing, as the record shows. That you have possibly misunderstood even your own statements is not my fault, but yours.

  3. You wrote: “Perhaps Toby will someday realize that the phenomenon of anti-Semitism is not ruse to squash debate, but a vehicle used by racists to squash Jews”. I already know this and have never suggested any differently, yet you are suggesting otherwise. That is what I take exception to because it is simply wrong. You can reprint the entire 19 comments, or whatever it was, here if you wish, but it doesn’t make that statement any more correct.

  4. I said: “His whole point (in the Yglesias’ article)of Jewish money buying US politicians’ votes for a future war with Iran, hangs on the premise that a military option against Iran is never going to be an option.”

    Toby: “No it doesn’t. It relies on the premise that the debate is being limited by people using anti-semitism as a way of avoiding debate.”

    This is your take on Yglesias’ statement, of which you make no dissenting viewpoint. Also coupled with another statement of your:

    “You make it difficult to discuss any of these matters without sooner or later saying that people who disagree with you are anti-semitic. It makes it very difficult to have a discussion as sooner or later you expect to get
    accused of being racist.”

    Here you are caught saying essentially the same thing, because I dare mention the ancient anti-Semtitic myths/canards being disseminated about Jews/Jewish groups entertaining dual loyalties.

    In conjunction with previous statements of yours, I am correct in my original assesment.

  5. I wasn’t “caught” saying anything. I stated it clearly, and can do so again: some people charge others with antisemitism as an ad-hominem rhetorical tool so they can avoid actually answering the original question. This clearly does not mean that I think the idea of antisemitism is just a “ruse” (in fact it logically excludes it). But that is what you, in the sentence I objected to, wrongly suggested I do think.

    If you want to get Clintonian and attempt to redefine what “is not” means, then please, be my guest.

  6. That is pure “word weaseling” on your part,…talk about being “Clintonian”.

    You were leveling the very same charge at me (playing the anti-Semitism card to silence debate) because I dared to bring up anti-Semitism in connection with the “Jewish Lobby” being unfairly singled out for opprobrium, as well as the insinuation of Jews having “dual loyalties”.

    Even the anonymous guy was of your same opinion, “oh here we go …with the “Israel can do no wrong” crowd is there any way to criticize Israel without being anti-Semetic?”

    Seeing that you did not correct him either, one can only assume that your were of the same opinion.

    Your recent explanation does not wash with the facts.

  7. Kenneth:

    Need I remind you? In a world void of anti-Semitism, the War Against Israel could not possibly exist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.