Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!


Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: Expected media response to Paris attacks: Islamophobia Propaganda and Spin
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 87 (view)
Expected media response to Paris attacks: Islamophobia Propaganda and Spin
Posted: 11/18/2015 1:39:46 PM
And there has been a racist attack in the aftermath of the attacks in France... The "usual suspects" on a Jew.

A stabbing attack on a Jewish teacher in Marseille by an ISIS supporting mob.

"A history teacher at Jewish school in Marseille was stabbed by three people shouting anti-Semitic messages on Wednesday evening, the local police chief has said, according to AFP. Reuters said the attackers claimed to be Islamic State supporters. The attack on the teacher took place around 20:00 local time (19:00 GMT), police said. The teacher's life is not in danger and a large number of police are hunting for the attackers, the police chief added, says AFP."
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 64 (view)
Expected media response to Paris attacks: Islamophobia Propaganda and Spin
Posted: 11/17/2015 2:26:35 PM

The myth of Zouheir, a 'hero Muslim security guard' in Paris

A compelling story about a heroic Muslim security guard stopping a suicide bomber from entering the Stade de France on Friday, saving perhaps hundreds of lives, is making the rounds on social media. But it's not true.


Sorry to burst the bubble of some of the users on here.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 16 (view)
Expected media response to Paris attacks: Islamophobia Propaganda and Spin
Posted: 11/15/2015 10:37:51 PM

(By the way, you misspelled "schpil" If you're going to use a word, the least you could do is learn to spell it correctly. Spiel.)

And burn... oh. Except for the little fact that it's not a German word I'm using here.
And shpil is the way it's written. And you actually just misspelled that as well... but who cares?

I love when people come around with the little knowledge they have, all proud of themself, and then come out looking more stupid.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 7 (view)
Expected media response to Paris attacks: Islamophobia Propaganda and Spin
Posted: 11/15/2015 8:21:19 AM
"OP's listed "usual shpil of media bullshit" are, in fact, entirely inaccurate. They are purposeful misreadings and misinterpretations of some things that actually have been said"

Or they could be a very blunt but accurate reading from someone who was living there back in January and saw all of the ensuing local media coverage. Food for thought.

"Coming to any real understanding of why people behave as they do"

I don't particularly want to understand why bloodthirsty obscurantists murder innocent people in the heart of Europe. I want them wiped out.
The media shouldn't relativise the danger and threat but rather might be better off sounding the alarm and letting us know who the enemy is.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 1 (view)
Expected media response to Paris attacks: "Islamophobia" Propaganda and Spin
Posted: 11/14/2015 6:09:32 PM
So after these attacks, let's go through the usual shpil of media bullshit that our minds will be corrupted with to placate the righteous anger of the civilized world.

--"terrorism has no religion" and "no amalgamations » (pas d’amalgames) » Such attacks are equally likely from Buddhist and Hindu terror groups

- "Islamophobia": The real problem and real evil in the world is not Islamist terrorists indisciminately murdering hundreds of people: It's US (Yes, YOU) and the fact that some Muslims in the West feel uncomfortable boarding a bus, whether or not anything real has happened.

-"self-victimization": The evil West brought this on itself through not doing enough to help the Al Nusra Front and ISIS topple the secular Bashar Al Assad government. It's not the fault of the terrorists that they can't keep their hands to themselves, but our stubborn refusal to cave into their demands.

-"It's not us": It's actually noone. Noone supports these terrorists. Essentially martians landed and started massacring innocent people twice in Paris. To show irrefutable evidence of this proposition, we will have random amateur commentators from certain, ostensibly Muslim-looking, backgrounds tell us how horrible it is and how much they condemn it. And by "it" they mean "any crime against humanity" for a cause that they personally do not believe in, generally.

-"Help for refugees": See these attacks? Now you see what they're fleeing from? See, racist Europeans? The solution is to let millions into Europe who will do the exact same thing and have us all share in the equality of equal exposure to violent barbarism.

-"Refugees are not terrorists" (Sequel to "Refugees -Welcome") Never mind that at least 2 of the attackers were among the throngs of illegal migrants and that there may be many more. The other 90% of the illegal invaders that you didn't vote to let into your country and live off the social system that your parents and grandparents worked and died in 2 world wars for, probably are not.... yet.

-"the far right is taking political advantage of the attacks" When someone accurately predicts an outcome (months and years in advance), we would usually have to admit that they are right, right? Wrong, if they are far right. Then they are far wrong. Get it?


Let me know if I've left any out. But this should be about right, based on what occurred in January. And on 911.. and pretty much any and every terrorist attack committed by a particular group of people that one may not name, lest one be labelled.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 34 (view)
profile review
Posted: 11/11/2015 4:18:54 PM
Thank you. I'll take what you've said on board.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 32 (view)
profile review
Posted: 11/10/2015 1:54:51 PM
So any suggestions?
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 29 (view)
profile review
Posted: 11/8/2015 4:13:24 PM
The review page is from over 2 months ago.

It's by all accounts a new profile.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 3 (view)
profile review please
Posted: 11/8/2015 4:11:21 PM
The review is from two months ago.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 1 (view)
profile review please
Posted: 11/8/2015 3:50:56 PM
Hi all,

I was hoping to get a review of my current profile. So far I've noticed some moderate success on it but im looking for some improvements and suggestions. Any kind of photos that might make it better?

Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 26 (view)
profile review
Posted: 9/8/2015 3:26:48 PM
Worked on it tons of times. I'm not sure what else there is... Suggestions?

The photos need improvement, sure
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 24 (view)
profile review
Posted: 9/8/2015 1:32:48 PM
point given. I noticed after the photo was taken.

Either way the profile keeps changing, along with the photos. I just want the change to be well directed.

"The mirror pic with flash can barely see anything. Try a different main pic."

Yeah. Maybe I just want to have one at a better time as I'm losing more weight and gaining more muscle. You're correct.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 21 (view)
profile review
Posted: 9/7/2015 2:46:34 PM
Thanks a lot.

Yeah, the thing with photos is that they make or break the profile. Like the rest of the profile, it's about chemistry. I don't think I'm the best judge of photos. I added a few. I'm not sure what you think of them.
The bottom line is however, I, like my profile, am in the process of self-improvement.

I took your advice about that photo description.

I agree however, I'm in the middle of learning the ropes still with the help of others. Once I have a fairly well working profile, with a few sleepovers under my best, then I might be in any position to give advice to others.

I'm not sure if many female users need advice on here. Usually its just any photos that will already get them tons of messages.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 20 (view)
profile review
Posted: 9/6/2015 4:58:19 PM

..... filling up minimum... done
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 71 (view)
Is there anyone genuine in the UK?
Posted: 8/29/2015 4:51:19 PM
Plenty of normal users on the site.

I actually have to laugh when people like the OP ask such a ridiculous question.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 4 (view)
Best/Worst pick-up lines you've seen or used.
Posted: 8/29/2015 4:50:18 PM
I was hoping the OP might given an example of her own pickup line, rather than make fun of those she's received.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 18 (view)
profile review
Posted: 8/29/2015 4:00:12 PM
George is fine.

Thanks for your reply and continued advice. The bottom line is, I consider a good dating profile as a product of chemistry: good pics and an interesting description. I'm still in the middle of setting it up, going alongside personal improvement.

"Ok, I'm a bit confused by the 3 pics. First one isn't bad...are you a ginger?
Very in right now with Ed and all."

My hair colour is strawberry blonde. It has a mix of both. In the first pic it looks that way, in the other another way. Maybe I should add that to the description? Dunno.

Either way, yeah, the pics need an overhaul. I'm however not sure which to put.

"Since you've been here 5 yrs, you can delete that old news."

They don't know that, and it seems pretty pathetic if they did know.

"What do you mean by being partially from Canada? Do you mean originally?
Play that part up...everybody loves Canadians!"

Phe... not my proudest feature but you're right and I'm keeping it on there.

"Starts out ok but then takes a nosedive into negativity.
Makes you sound defensive, full of baggage, mean, judgemental...
Turn it around by saying you prefer an independent woman who is stable, ambitious, and confident or something like that."

Maybe... The reason is that I got it as advice... I keep changing things. I've rewritten it for now.

"You can only screen for most qualities after meeting anyway, and the ones who fit the description of what you don't want will not think that of themselves. Therefore, the sentence accomplishes nothing (except for possibly turning off the sweet girl you'd really like to meet."

Point granted.
I'm trying for it to be edgy without being too harsh. Perhaps it's too harsh now.. who knows?

Anyway, I've changed it based on some of your suggestions. I'll see if this works better.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 16 (view)
profile review
Posted: 8/27/2015 1:51:16 PM
"The grammar and sentence structure is pretty you're trying hard to appear intellectual but falling short.
I can explain if needed.
The bad boy approach wasn't working, obviously, but your writing is too formal, and reads more like an essay.
Write the way you talk."

Yeah, well I think the current one reflects that a bit better. But overall, yeah, the previous one that you were referring to was too formal.

Again, the reason why there are so many is because experimenting is crucial. The next experiment is with the photos, and getting some new ones.

I wasn't aware there was a limit to one's request for profile feedback.

"I like your profile but I think you do need some more shots just of you, full length and in clearer light."

I agree. Those will be coming. The photos remain 60% of the profile, if not more.
I'm currently working out a lot more (not just for POF, lol) and hope to take some good ones soon.

"You are educated, very nice looking and should do well in real life. Online dating can be brutal for guys especially if they think they will have lots of choices and with hot girls. You need a strong sense of ego for the inevitable rejections and runarounds that you will get from the fakes and flakes. Not to mention a sense of humour!! Have low expectations and use it only as an option to real life meets. Putting no time wasters and other negative statements in a profile is a waste of space."

True (I'm not just referring to the opening compliments), it is brutal.. but honestly it's an option with a large pool of girls.
Indeed, I'm a bit reticent to put negative stuff in the description, but ultimately it is a way of expressing attitude and showing that you have standards.

"If you make contact then ask to meet as soon as and only for a drink. Preferably hear her voice first and Skype if possible. Then you kinda know what to expect. If she hesitates or wont meet within a week or so, move on."

Exactly. I apply that.
Latetia, your post deserves a like, if that were possible.

"Sounds very negative and judgmental."

Probably, yet half the girls on the site write the same shit. Nevertheless that doesn't mean I should, and probably should moderate it a bit, without it turning too soft. For the record, I do actually talk that way in life, but I consider that a point to improve.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 12 (view)
profile review time
Posted: 8/26/2015 2:29:09 PM
and i think this is why new topics are started
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 11 (view)
profile review time
Posted: 8/23/2015 5:44:56 PM
request for some feedback after another overhaul

got rid of photos with girls
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 6 (view)
profile review time
Posted: 8/18/2015 3:34:41 PM
It's called constant improvement.

Also I wasn't sure how much time had to elapse before starting a new topic.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 1 (view)
problem with copy/paste message and cannot send messages
Posted: 8/18/2015 2:36:46 PM

I think for a while I was sending messages that were fairly similar in opening content, and now I have a problem that I can't even send completely novel and customized messages to users.

Can someone explain to me exactly how this filter works? Because it's now stopping most messages, even completely new ones.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 3 (view)
profile review time
Posted: 8/18/2015 2:25:28 PM
Is that such a big issue?

You're not the first person to mention this, but I'm curious.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 1 (view)
profile review time
Posted: 8/18/2015 9:59:47 AM
Hi all,

I'd like to request a profile review.

Which pics on there to keep, which to take down.

Is the description alright?

any other feedback would be helpful

I'm not sure what else to say. What else should my profile include, and what potential obstacles are there on there now to stop getting replied back to.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 10 (view)
profile review
Posted: 8/2/2015 6:37:09 PM
Thanks. I applied what you wrote.

Constructive criticism from other users still welcome.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 8 (view)
profile review
Posted: 8/2/2015 6:19:42 PM
Not so fast.

As per the forum rules, I've now updated the profile (significantly) and rather than start a new one, I should ask for feedback on this.

How are these new photos? And how is the headline and description?

Are the answers to the profile questions acceptable?
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 5 (view)
profile review
Posted: 7/29/2015 8:30:28 AM
Thanks for the answers from everyone.

^^^ Reword this to make it positive. What you want rather than what you do not want.

I see what you're trying to say, but it's there on purpose to give it a bit of the non-boring badboy that I was talking about.

Does it mean you can't give attention or don't want to commit? Ease up on the demands. Be humbler.
That being said, you're very attractive.

Thank you.

However, no it's none of these things. But it's trying to project a bit more hardball than a pushover, overly soft profile that doesn't elicit any interest.

As the saying says, perfection is not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

Therefore I was curious if anyone had any suggestions of what I should put more of on my profile? Other than photos, which I agree with you on.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 1 (view)
profile review
Posted: 7/28/2015 4:29:23 PM
Hey, I'm hope to go some thoughtful feedback for my profile?

I've just moved here to London and I'm trying to optimize it.

Some badboy elements are in there on purpose but I don't want them over the top either.

This is a great site and I'm glad the forum here is still active.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 29 (view)
All I want is good conversation...
Posted: 4/13/2013 4:36:31 PM
Then go and talk to a wall.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 121 (view)
Thatcher is Dead
Posted: 4/13/2013 4:35:11 PM
Well it's funny to come on the site after Thatcher has died, and find the usual stacks of hateful garbage against the dead Prime Minister.

"ding dong the witch is dead" Really classy.
It shows about as much class as intelligence.

Thatcher was probably the best post-war Prime Minister the UK has had and this will probably remain the case.
It's a shame she didn't pass any of her spirit on to the losers governing the country now.

In a way, it's a good thing she was so divisive: It meant she actually stood for something, rather than the cowardly consensus seekers that in the end please noone, and leave the country better off. Britain's pride restored, and the grounds were set for several decades of prosperity.

But what does this matter? As long as the pessimistic, pathetic lowlives can add "ding dong the witch is dead" as an answer, and continue moaning about politicians, as well as about their self-chosen, pathetic lives.

"I am not a consensus politician. I'm a conviction politician." - Thatcher
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 232 (view)
What puts you off messaging someone?
Posted: 12/30/2012 9:42:04 AM

Congratulations on finding love in here , i hope many more of us find it too .:)

I wouldn't mistake some actual truth and amusing comments for love. I understand if you're not able to recognize the difference.
By all means, you (pl.) can keep up the feel-good euphemistic garbage which gets us all nowhere.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 229 (view)
What puts you off messaging someone?
Posted: 12/30/2012 7:42:58 AM

What reason would they give you anyway as it wasnt your thread or post , or was it ?

Perhaps when there is an amusing topic which received quite a response, they should explain to the users why it was inappropriate or risk doing a disservice to the people participating. Also it would let people know exactly where the limits are, rather than leave things, as they seem now, up to the unilateral whims of the moderator and subject to interpretation.

Lastly, unlike anything that you've ever written, I'll actually remember what Jonathan wrote.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 222 (view)
What puts you off messaging someone?
Posted: 12/30/2012 6:23:05 AM
If someone could send me a copy of the original post of jonathan or anything similar, I'd be really grateful.

They deleted both the thread he started and his post on this forum. What he wrote was gold and spot on, and I have no reason why the moderators took it down.
Censorship, pure and simple.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 220 (view)
What puts you off messaging someone?
Posted: 12/30/2012 5:17:31 AM
Jonathan, great post. Although what follows will not reach up to what you've written, here's my addition.

WARNING (You will not like any of the following):

-You're listed as 'A Few Extra Pounds' (Sorry, I just am not attracted to you. It's not meant in a judgemental way, it's just a physical preference)
-You're under the categories: 'BROWSING' (you're wasting everyone's time)= 'Looking to Date but nothing serious' (why do we have airheads on a DATING site?)
-Your picture just shows a close-up of your face. We’re not clueless concerning what you’re trying to hide.
-Looking for 'friends'.... on a dating site. Can one not stress enough how annoying this is?
-You're in a relationship/ 'not looking' (WHY exactly are you on the site?)
-You're using the site as some self-confidence bulging playground. (many pictures in skimpy outfits, nothing to say)
-You're not looking to go out of your hole, away from your computer screen. If you’re on a dating site, one would assume you’re not here to chat for 2 months before meeting at a café.

As an added point:
List of Stupid, Useless Majors overcrowded with female students that have no clue why they're at University:

-Women's Studies (Haven of lesbian feminists who don't shave their armpits)
-Environmental Studies
-Sociology (I can indulge in wannabe post-modernist hybris as well without needing a degree for it)
-Psychology (Some go on to do great things with it, others just use it as an excuse to go to class while partying the rest of the semester. Other poor saps think they can read people's minds from it)
-Communication (To learn to communicate, one would assume)
-Ethics (To be ethical??)
-Film Studies (I can watch movies too)
-Conflict Studies/Human Rights
-Global Studies (Yes, the world is big and round. Now learn something more specific)
-Globalization Studies (Big Bad Corporations taking over the world and building McDonalds Restaurants on top of Navajo Teepees yadayadayada)
-Theatre (speaks for itself)

-Bohemian Dance Studies… etc etc..
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 48 (view)
Posted: 12/29/2012 9:08:28 AM
Maybe it does but disagreeing with the foreign policy of Israel doesn't equate to being anti-Semitic if the party disagreeing does so on the actions of a political party which just so happens to be in power.

I think you would need to reread my comment. I made clear that disagreeing with Israel and/or Zionism is not anti-Semitism. But sadly many of the people that are of that persuasion are also anti-Semitic.
I've met plenty that aren't, but some are and those people should be condemned.

As the comments that I quoted show.


You're so deeply rooted in your beliefs and seeing perceived prejudice anywhere and everywhere, it's impossible to have any sort of debate with you, without you reaching for the insults and pigeonholing.

So sad, but a graphic illustration of just why Israel and it's supporters just don't feel the need to, or will ever grow up.

No, I see racism and prejudice where it is and your comments are replete with them.
Your comments went way past the line of simple politics and disagreement with Israeli foreign policy. The only person you have to blame is yourself. I merely quoted what you wrote.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 43 (view)
Posted: 12/28/2012 7:15:15 AM
You're a disgrace and your comments condemn you more than I ever could.

Let me be clear to stress that I don't think all critics of Israel and Zionism are anti-Semites. Indeed I gave you and other people the benefit of the doubt, but what you've written reveals something deeper.

All Jews are not Zionists. All Zionists are certainly not Jews. Tell me Guru, Lord Rothschild of Balfour Agreement and International Banking fame. Was he a Zionist? You made the reach there Guru, trying to score cheap points, not me.

Your quoted statement about 'Zionist' bankers is essentially what I've read from lots of different people in the past who usually think they can get away with the most vicious of attacks on Jewish people by replacing 'Jewish' with the word 'Zionist'.
Zionism is a political ideology, mostly associated with the State of Israel. Here, instead, you evoke some kabal of 'Zionist bankers'. Given the constant rhetoric, including on here, of Jewish bankers controlling the world economy and being apart of a greater conspiracy, you expect to get away with words like this? Come on.

Witness North Korea, and possibly the greatest Nuke bluff ever. Israel wants access to the Caucasian oilfields, Iran isn't playing, nor is it about to allow Zionist banking cartels to control their currency. So, they have to be punished.

You know Arabs are Semites too don't you?

Anti-Semitism in every usage and every dictionary from beginning of time means a hatred and dislike of Jewish people.

This is usually how anti-Semites try to answer their accusation, with word games. It's what one would call a red herring.

I find it funny how start trying to bring up what I would call legitimate criticism of Israel now, as if to insinuate that THAT is what I have a problem with. No, my poor lowlife, it's your comments from before, which I will gladly repost:

Do it on your on Joos , the world is tired of being emotionally blackmailed into doing your made up sh1t for you.

I suppose you meant to say 'Zionist' there as well right?
You're a pathetic joke.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 41 (view)
Posted: 12/28/2012 4:44:24 AM
call them whatever you wish ... Illuminati...New Worl Order ...Rothchild Zionists..etc ....the name is irrelevant... its Banks (Jewish Banks ) that manipulate 'everything' that goes on ...Period !

Looks like happychappie brought another racist friend along.

Israel (just like the USA) is an evil regime, having invaded Palastine & slaughtering their citizens at will ...even to this day. The hysterical nonsense about Iran gaining nuclear powers is laughable

I'll take the US and Israel any day over Iran, Saudi Arabia and the rest of tyrannical regimes. If you like them so much, I suggest you try and live there for a single day.

I think the only misguided people are weirdos like you, who basically think of the world as a playground of conspiracies that just happen to be concurrent with what they want to believe.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 40 (view)
Posted: 12/28/2012 4:36:03 AM

which further enriches Saudi Arabia, and their Israeli Oil Broking and Zionist Banking cartel chums.

Israel wants access to the Caucasian oilfields, Iran isn't playing, nor is it about to allow Zionist banking cartels to control their currency. So, they have to be punished.

I can't believe you're serious with comments like this. "Zionist Banking cartel?" Maybe you should just be clear and use the word 'Jewish'. Those greedy Jewish bankers messing up the world, right?

As for Nukes, Israel is estimated to hold at least 250 TacNukes+ and illegally too. Conversely, Iran, who IS a signatory to the NNPT and allows inspections

I suppose you haven't been reading the news for the past 3 years. Iran has violated the mandatory inspections and enriches uranium with none whatsoever. Maybe you wish to think the world is worked over Iran for nothing, but it clearly doesn't make sense.

Witness North Korea, and possibly the greatest Nuke bluff ever. Israel wants access to the Caucasian oilfields, Iran isn't playing, nor is it about to allow Zionist banking cartels to control their currency. So, they have to be punished.

Zionist banking cartels... Israel wanting to control oilfields in the Caucasian mountains...

Are they any more conspiracy theories involving Jews and Israel that you wish to bring up? Then try to ward off the accusation that you might be a bit anti-Semitic?

Do it on your on Joos , the world is tired of being emotionally blackmailed into doing your made up sh1t for you.

This comment says it all: You're a lowlife.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 57 (view)
Palestine wins UN vote to become a non-member observer State – UK Government abstained from voting
Posted: 12/12/2012 11:58:06 AM
Break out.
Be object, and rational, and skeptical.
Leave me now, I grow weary....

I think practicing what you preach might be a good way to show you really mean it.
I usually find it the height of arrogance for people to accuse others, with whom they disagree, of not 'being critical'. Being critical involves continuously challenging one's own pre-conceived notions. You don't seem to do that, but rather try to fit what you hear within your own worldview. I.e: Religions are wrong, there I have to fit the idea of 'Jewish people', incorrectly, within a framework of 'religion' and therefore make it wrong.
The reader can decide for himself whether what I have written is closed-minded. I stand by what I've written.

As for you:
I think you either just don't get it or you pretend not to in order to stick to ridiculous points that you think are more defensible:

Jewish identity and Jewish history as a people is more than just the religious component. I can't keep repeating this part, which you just blatantly ignore.

The article goes into genetic evidence, history, archaeology, both ancient and modern Judaism.

Ultimately, you'll just ignore it all because you prefer to just stick to a closed-minded view of things and of the world.

It's not sufficient to change the subject and again attack the straw man. You cannot win an argument by making up arguments the other side never advanced. and then attack them. It's pathetic and you've done it at least 3 times in your last comments.

But let's go a step further:

Even if everything, and I mean everything in the bible were completely wrong. And every idea of people hood from the Bible is wrong, it does not take away from the fact that there is a group of people, connected to one another, that consider themselves Jews and have a shared history and identity and culture together. A people, that way before your time and my time, considered themselves different, were treated differently by the surrounding people in every place that they lived. A people that had different customs, spoke different languages from where they lived. Under every criteria (including, but not restricted to genetic), the Jewish people count as a separate national identity. The "Jewish Question" was a hot topic in Europe centuries before the Holocaust.

Finally, on your obscure need to bring up the Bible (as if its relevant):
The French connection of people does not depend on the veracity of the myths surrounding Charlemagne, nor does the idea of British identity depend on King Arthur.

Every nation equally has the right of self-determination, whether you like the nation or not. This is what Zionism is.
Whether you like it or not, Israel will continue to exist and make decisions of self-preservation that any other country or people in the same decision would make. If the Arab side chooses war, which is its track record, then Israel will defend itself, even if the Arab/Palestinian side chooses to cry "victim-hood" after getting its ass kicked.

Having said that, I've had enough. I've said what needs to be said, and spending even more hours going back and forth, regurgitating the entire Middle East conflict, Judaism, modern Israel, is just simply beyond my time.

The original topic was the Palestinian accession to the UN. I gave my viewpoint.

I've had enough, and ultimately whether you choose to learn from what I've written or not is your own choice.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 54 (view)
Palestine wins UN vote to become a non-member observer State – UK Government abstained from voting
Posted: 12/12/2012 4:57:22 AM
That's because, with hindsight, there was no "legitimacy".
They might have existed there, as a 'tribe', some 3,000 years ago (albeit briefly), but "god" didn't "give them the land"

Jewish identity was born there and has always been attached to that land.

But again, the point in terms of Palestine is that many of these Zionist settlers had come, bought land, lived there for at least a generation (not including the Jewish communities that had lived there even longer) and built settlements legally, including the city of Tel Aviv.

The truth is out there.

There are lots of 'truths' out there. And one quote from Noam Chomsky who is clearly not on the side of Israel, is not going to change that.

Secularity (adjective form secular,[1] from Latin saecularis meaning "worldly" or "temporal") is the state of being separate from religion, or not being exclusively allied to any particular religion.

People can believe themselves to be anything they like, but that doesn't make them right, or exempt from scientific scrutiny, which proves otherwise.

And even if there is some ancestral genetic link to that area, you can't analyse the DNA of any individuals, back to some arbitrary point in time, to some point of origin, and then stake some contemporary claim to "ownership", based on that. It's a ludicrous proposition.
If that was the methodology used to vindicate Israel's existence, Palestinians would still have a far better claim, than someone who's family had resided in northern Europe, for the last few centuries.

According to you, secular Jews don't exist because, according to your limited knowledge, being Jewish is all about being religious. Then, you quote some source led by people that 'identify' as Jewish but aren't religious.
You can't have it both ways.

And even if there is some ancestral genetic link to that area, you can't analyse the DNA of any individuals, back to some arbitrary point in time, to some point of origin, and then stake some contemporary claim to "ownership", based on that. It's a ludicrous proposition.

The argument was never based solely on DNA. It was only brought up as an example of proof of a contiguous Jewish people across the world.

Essentially, this is your problem: You don't know much either about Jewish people or about Judaism, and therefore make the wrong kinds of generalizations with other 'religions', and refuse to inform yourself further.

If that was the methodology used to vindicate Israel's existence, Palestinians would still have a far better claim, than someone who's family had resided in northern Europe, for the last few centuries.

I never said it was. You can't make up arguments that the other side never made, then beat the straw man to death.

I feel we're making progress.

Don't bother with the condescending 'we'.
My comment was "Either way, just because a Jew says something about Israel, doesn't make it true either." Arguments and truth stand on their own merit.

All this while you still quote Noam Chomsky and other Anti-Israel Jews and therefore expect it to be taken as gospel.

Rather than feigning knowledge about a subject you know nothing about, here's a suggestion:

Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 140 (view)
What puts you off messaging someone?
Posted: 12/12/2012 3:35:56 AM
Want children
have children
open/undecided about children (!) either you want one or you don't... if not sure then i guess you are weak!
Smoke socially (liar!)
Occupation: james Bond! ...
Message me !!!!!!
Full of themselves
am a masterchef

list goes on.
and on
and on


Clearly overweight in the pic but the guys still goes in the gym 5 times a week
has travelled everywhere
want to travel the world but has never had a passport...
want a rock ( call social services!)
looking for a nice lady.. (means: anyone will do,I am desesperate ;-)

Sorry, forgot about grammar and spelling...

Despite the fact that I am French I still care about the above...

And all the guys begging me to send them a message to confirm that i got theirs! ??????

Asking for a max size girl!!! (size 10-12-14 max please) but not caring about the height (ahhahah) silly bugger

Well apart from the fact that perhaps with exhaustive filters like that and that you wonder why you're still single, a lot of what you've written is ridiculous.

People do smoke socially. I have no clue why you think that is lying?

When you decline both people who want children (fine), then go further to decline people who 'aren't sure', surely you're paranoid. Some people, including myself, put that up because they are genuinely not sure, sometimes bordering on 'no', but are open to compromise if the relationship develops. I'm not sure what your problem is. Many men do not have his natural push to have children and therefore don't feel its a huge issue either way. Just because you have enough experience popping them out, doesn't mean everyone sees it through your lense.

"has travelled everywhere" Yes, clearly that's a bad thing. Who the hell wants someone smart and worldly?

"Asking for a max size girl!!! (size 10-12-14 max please) but not caring about the height (ahhahah) silly bugger "
Why do both have to be connected? Clearly the bigger concern is weight for many guys. As your comment about 'overweight guys' goes. Did you add something about their height?

"looking for a nice lady.. (means: anyone will do,I am desesperate ;-)" Yes, given the warm quality of the girls on this site (and in London), I suppose asking for someone nice must mean 'desperate' (where do you get this crap from?)

"am a masterchef" Guys that can cook with a humorous description. The nerve!

"Full of themselves" Right... And how do you square this with considering that the person is a desperate weakling from asking for a 'nice' girl? Maybe actually acting confident is not 'full of themselves', just simply, someone who perhaps is out of your league and intimidates you?

"list goes on.
and on
and on"
No doubt it does. Maybe that's apart of your problem?

Welcome fanfan, to the long list of stupid females on this site, who seemingly live in a bubble about guys, and wonder why the quality of their choices are what keep them single.

Happy fishing, I hope you drown.

Petites bises
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 52 (view)
Palestine wins UN vote to become a non-member observer State – UK Government abstained from voting
Posted: 12/11/2012 5:10:15 PM
It's an oxymoron of the highest order, and truly laughable

It's an oxymoron to people that still think Judaism is just a religion, yeah.

You forgot the word "occupied" territories.

The goal of the Arab armies was to completely wipe out the new Jewish state. According to them in 1948, and many even nowadays: ALL of Israel is occupied territory.

Their country was being stolen.

It wasn't just their country.
This is the problem, you concentrate on the rights of the Arabs while delegitimizing the Jews.

I see. So "might is right"..?

Seemingly that's the way the Arabs saw it.

This illustrates the attitude of the zionists perfectly.
Israelis and jews aren't the "victims", not any more, you should stop playing it, it's truly pathetic.
Like I said, the truth will always come out.

The only side playing the victims, but using violence over and over again has been the Arab side, so don't bother.

Israel is losing this argument, hence the UN's recognition of Palestine.

Anything can pass at the UN General Assembly, here the majority is made up of Arab states clearly in an anti-Israel bloc, and other allies such as tin-pot dictatorships, theocracies and other corrupt 3rd world members of the Non-Aligned movement who think that they're sill waging a colonial struggle.

In the words of Abba Eban: "If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions."

A meaningless vote at the UN (the same one which equated 'Zionism with Racism' in the 1970s, then rescinded it later) means nothing. Truth is something intrinsic, it's not established by consensus.

One of the reasons why the anti-Israel side is often so bitter and angry is the very fact of the weakness and mediocrity of their cause. Where essentially the argument has to come from a position of perceived victimhood.

How can it be "biased", when it's written entirely by self-proclaimed "jews"..? (Which is all any of them are)

How do you square this with your view that 'secular Jew' is an oxymoron?
You can't.

Either way, just because a Jew says something about Israel, doesn't make it true either.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 49 (view)
Palestine wins UN vote to become a non-member observer State – UK Government abstained from voting
Posted: 12/11/2012 4:15:38 PM
Please don't try and cherry pick one example to make a counter-argument and then get even that wrong.

Well don't do it then.

If you remember your original comment, which suggested "collaboration" ('co' means both sides being involved) of the Zionists with the Nazis, it has ended up being cut down to, one group, the Irgun/Stern Gang, who if you remember history, were not mainstream. Furthermore the Nazis wanted nothing to do with them. Even more, shortly after the war, the Hagana sank one of their weapons ships, killing some of their members and disbanding the rest.SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT LEFT WITH?

I'm sick of the stupid amalgamation and 'guilt by association' game. What you said clearly wasn't correct, so just admit it, rather than, like a spoilt child, concentrating on some tiny disputable inaccuracies in my answer.


They were asked, they said no. It's their land.
Why couldn't the "Jews" who wanted their own state, accept that.?
But no, religious people insisted.

What the hell are you talking about? The founders of Israel were not religious people, and the religious had no role in these decisions.

In terms of who was in charge it was the Ottomans, and afterwards the British.

Because Jews owned their parts of the land, the Arabs owned theirs. Both couldn't stand each other and that point and had already come to blows. The UN decided that would be the workable solution.

The White Paper agreement in turn reneged on the Balfour Declaration. The British increasingly screwed over everyone, before giving up and handing it to the UN.

The arabs were fully entitled to say no.

Yes, they were, just as letting the natural 'law of the jungle' prevail. Their rejection wasn't simply a passive one, but one followed up on by 5 Arab armies invading the territory.
They lost. It is only in this situation seemingly, where, a side chooses violence over peace, then gets its ass kicked, and still feels like things should be the same as before.

The 'law of the jungle' applies to both sides.

Lawrence of Arabia incidentally was pro-Zionist.

Read the history.
It's obvious who started this, and who are to blame.

I think the maturity of your arguments need to progress beyond "Read he history", then posting some further biased source.
I know the history, I just disagree with you and think that I'm right.

A growing number of jews are disassociating themselves from Israel's shameful history.

As an even greater number are joining the ranks of its supporters. Don't bother playing that game either.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 47 (view)
Palestine wins UN vote to become a non-member observer State – UK Government abstained from voting
Posted: 12/11/2012 3:36:06 PM

It's a belief.
there is no scientific basis to it.
The truth will always come out.

Jewish identity is not 'belief' anymore than any other national identity is 'belief'. It's a fallacy to compare 'Jewish' to 'Christian' or 'Muslim' in terms of identity. It aint it.

-Sounds like magic to me.

The politics and philosophy of identity are complicated and there have been many books written about them.
The ultimate point, where I believe you will not disagree, is that Jews consider themselves as a Jewish people, and that this identity has been around for thousands of years. It was one of the reasons why the 'Jewish question' was a big debate in Europe throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th century.

There were no negotiations, when those early Israelis bulldozed 136 (?) villages in 1948, and created some 700,000 refugees and 'displaced persons'. And in some cases, massacred entire villages.

Damn right there wasn't. The Arabs and their 5 Arab armies were in no mood for negociation.
It was war: Demonizing one side in war and simplifying the facts is always problematic. I disagree with what you're saying entirely. The only thing that comes close to 'massacring an entire village' is the what happened at Deir Yassin, and there it's a bit more complicated, and anyhow was done by the Irgun, a then opponent of the modern day Israeli Defense Forces.

There are entire branches of academics, especially in Israel, which deal with the conflict: It's not as simple as saying that the Palestinians left voluntarily, or to say they were all driven out by force.
Either way, rioting and Jewish communities being massacred by the Arabs throughout the 1920s and 30s show that it's incorrect to blame one side for the violence.

now the Palestinians constitute less than 20% of the population, in their own country

This is your problem: You're amalgamating. Are you referring to Arab Israelis living in Israel or Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza? The situations are different.

Elsewhere, they make up much more than 20%.

At the end of the day we end up with the same question:
Why can Jews not have one tiny strip of land (even smaller back in 1948 under the UN plan), surrounding by 22 (23) other Arab states?
Why couldn't the Arabs just accept that?
This ultimate question should underline who the aggressors are, and I don't think for a second, that it's the Israelis.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 44 (view)
Palestine wins UN vote to become a non-member observer State – UK Government abstained from voting
Posted: 12/11/2012 3:08:20 PM

why do hundreds of thousands of Israelis protest for a two state solution?

Apart from saying "Well, if people protest about something, it must be right", I'll point to my comment that the Palestinians have a right to self-determination.
It doesn't however that from the fact that such a state or national identity has never before existed and is in a sense a continuation of the claims of the Arab cause on the land. It's a myth that the Palestinians are an age-old people who have been trying to create their own state there for aeons.
Had Israel not been established, the land would have been apart of Jordan, as it was between 1948 and 1967, without a peep from the modern day 'Palestinians'.
Sometimes the truth hurts.

Finbarr asked you a question regarding Zionists and Nazis. Apart from the usual buried bits like the Haavara Agreement, and those Zionists that helped fund Hitlers rise to power, perhaps you know of the collaboration between the Zionists and the Nazis concerning Palestine?

I don't think wasting my time with close-minded racist bigots is worth it. But since that you brought it up:
The 'collaboration' was an attempt by one arm of the Irgun to present a plan by which all Jews in Europe would be moved to Palestine, which would then become a fascist satellite. The Nazis never answered it, and the people involved lost their credibility and support because of it. In retrospect, perhaps that plan would have saved millions of Jews from extermination. Who knows.

The Nazis were prime opponents of Zionism (you can see in mouthpieces such as 'Der Stuermer') and supported Arab movements against it. The pictures of Hitler with Jerusalem Grand Mufti will not just 'fade away'.

I hate when people bring up half-truths.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 42 (view)
Palestine wins UN vote to become a non-member observer State – UK Government abstained from voting
Posted: 12/11/2012 2:37:58 PM
Israel’s attempt to lobby the Western governments to vote “No” or in the very least abstain from voting if they can’t bring themselves to vote in its favour so that it can claim moral high ground by saying only despot led countries voted “Yes”. What did the result show? 138(yes) Vs 9(no, including some pacific island-nations)."

After getting past that countries like Spain and France voted in favour of the resolution...
Anything can pass at the UN General Assembly, here the majority is made up of Arab states clearly in an anti-Israel bloc, and other allies such as tin-pot dictatorships, theocracies and other corrupt 3rd world members of the Non-Aligned movement who think that they're sill waging a colonial struggle.

In the words of Abba Eban: "If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions."

However, whenever Palestinians try to pursue a diplomatic route they get blackmailed. Ever wondered why more often we hear about aid-cuts, sanctions and withholding of Tax (collected on behalf of the Palestinians) happens every time the Palestinians seek a peaceful route

In essence, going to the UN was apart of the PA's blackmail against Israel, because it knew very well it would pass.
Why is the PA having the UN General Assembly decide about a matter that needs to be resolved by negotiations?

It is the Palestinian side, not the Israeli side that is refusing to return to the negociation table, and instead has tried to bring other means into it: Hamas, with its rocket attacks, and the PA by unilateral moves at the UN.

If there is a solution, it can't be resolved by marginalizing Israel at the UN and avoiding talks.


It's not a "race", it's a religion. That's why so much variation exists.

It helps to know a bit about Judaism before 'deciding' what it is. It is neither entirely but has elements of religion, race, culture and national identity.
It's complicated thing to define Judaism, but simplifying it to meet your opinion is not going to get you anywhere.

A Jewish identity may have had its roots in a religion at one point (2000 or 2500+ years ago), but it is far beyond that point now.

I don't believe in the bible, the tora, or the q'uoran, all three religions share a belief in the old testament.
Primitive superstitious beliefs, written by people who knew no better.
There is no magic.

I didn't ask what you believed and none of my arguments rely on 'magic' or 'superstition'.

Until 1948, there was no such country as Israel.

While the modern state of Israel did not exist, a Jewish people did, and history shows that every single independent sovereign state on that very land has been Jewish throughout history.

Israel has ignored the UN., that is indefensible, as is their position.
Particularly as more and more people become aware of the history.

Just as the Arab side has ignored the UN since its very beginning. A law is only good when both people hold by it.

So for now, they have observer status.
Next, full nationhood.

That's up to their leadership and to their negociation with Israel. I'm indifferent towards it.

As I said in an earlier post, we'd stand a far better chance of peace, without religious nutters stirring-up trouble.

I agree, and have seen first hand how they make the conflict worse.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 39 (view)
Palestine wins UN vote to become a non-member observer State – UK Government abstained from voting
Posted: 12/11/2012 2:18:55 PM

Forget your bias,

Change starts at home.

There are "black" jews, and there are blue-eyed, fair-haired ones, from northern Europe.
"Jews" are the best example there is, of the folly of "racial" classifications.

Not at all, they're the best examples of it.
The "Black Jews" are the exception to what I described as their community, the Ethiopian community, are largely converts from local Ethiopian tribes a while ago.

It's not enough to say, well there are some blond haired Jews and some black Jews, therefore there is no Jewish race. There very simply is, and the myriad of genetic evidence stands testament to it.
I can't MAKE you see, I can only tell you that if you look it up, you'll find it.

Anyway, that is for the racial component.
As for the actual component of having a distinct cultural identity and considering themselves a nation for the entire time of the Diaspora, that is something that requires researching Judaism. I can't MAKE you do that either.

Of course the Palestinians are pissed-off, they were asked, they said no, but the British and Americans, and French all pushed ahead with the project to create a "jewish" state, in their midst, against their wishes.

There were no 'Palestinians' at that point, and the decision was largely made by an Arab block.

It was more than just the British, Americans or the French. You can check the vote on the UN partition plan to see.
It was a decision endorsed by the UN and would have brought peace. Given, that I assume you are a believer in the UN and that its resolutions should have some sort of validity, perhaps you should keep that in mind, rather than looking for every loophole possible to defend the indefensible, just because you have a soft spot for the Palestinian cause.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 37 (view)
Palestine wins UN vote to become a non-member observer State – UK Government abstained from voting
Posted: 12/11/2012 1:48:44 PM
Yes, my 'editing' however to correct spacing and typos, as well as to get this bad 'quote' system to work is sort of irrelevant.

No-one is and "always has been, a people", or a "race".
Much less the "jews", who only "count" half of the genetic contribution."

The Jewish people I speak of, in the same way as I speak of French and German or Polish people.
Nevertheless, if you wish to speak 'race', genetic tests among the Jewish communities the world over show that Jews are more related to themselves then to their neighbours, this includes of course tests on the people's that they used to reside with.
That there is a difference in Jews in terms of their DNA is clear, and it cannot be otherwise in a people where Jewish status is handed down via matrilineal descent, tribal distinctions such as with people are Cohens or Levis, go down through patrilineal descent. Equally tests among people that are Cohens show a common genetic ancestor, aeons ago.

The facts are there, in both Judaism, Jewish culture and in studies done.

Genetically, as Finbar points out, they share the same gene-pool as the Palestinians, though that has obviously been added to by whatever genes were accumulated during the alleged "diaspora"."

Please don't bother with quoting Shlomo Sand. He's one opinion, and indeed one among many.
People usually quote him because of his political views and political implications that his views imply.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 35 (view)
Palestine wins UN vote to become a non-member observer State – UK Government abstained from voting
Posted: 12/11/2012 12:54:43 PM
Are you a caricature?

good little goy that you are. Try not to choke on a bagel!

I think this comment indicates which of both categories you belong to.

Anti-Semetic? The usual lie peddled by Zionists morons. The Palestinians are a Semetic people!

To add again to the constant discussion I have with caricatures, Anti-Semitism in every dictionary since the beginning of time means a hatred, dislike of Jewish people.

A pseudo-intellectual sickness that unfortunately, you suffer from as well.

People that disagree and criticize Israel are not all anti-Semites, but you sir, are.

Now that I've done with you.

Jo van:

Yes, that's the version which most people still believe.
To my shame, it's probably the version I believed, until I researched it in about 1990.

That is however the history. It's one version of it, but the facts are there. It's war, war war and more war.

Perhaps you think every religion should be "given" it's own country.>?
Jordan for the Jehova's Witnesses,
Mozambique for the Moonies..?
Sweden for the Scientologists..?

I don't think you know much about Jews or Judaism if you think that those comparisons are valid.
Jews are, and have always been, a nation, a people with their own distinct identity. Not simply a religion.

Israel was founded on a mistake.
Eventually, history will record that.

National determination is not a mistake. It's the right of every people in the world, including the Palestinians.
Joined: 9/22/2010
Msg: 32 (view)
Palestine wins UN vote to become a non-member observer State – UK Government abstained from voting
Posted: 12/11/2012 12:29:39 PM
I'm not in the mood to replay the entire history of the Middle East.

The Palestinians, the Arabs, and probably in response, the Israelis, are violent, aggressive people.

If you wish to look upon the 'poor Palestinians' as the oppressed, who are only seekers of peace, then I suggest you look at their history.
In essence, it's only in the last 20 years that the wider conflict of Israel vs. the Arabs, has been downsized to a mini-conflict of Israel vs. the 'oppressed Palestinians'.
The Arabs and the Palestinians would like nothing better than for Israel to disappear(1948, 1967, 1973 to start with) , and have done their utmost to make that a reality. The very conflict even starts with a peace agreement rejected ONLY by the Arabs, and a subsequent invasion with 5 Arab armies. I see this cycle as repeated over and over again.

Then, as soon as they lose every single one of the aggressive conflicts that they themselves start, shout 'oppression', with then, every far left-wing moron and anti-Semitic fanatic to be there to cheer them on.

Perhaps anything will do for you. It won't for me. The PLO and Hamas are not the ANC, they are not Gandhi's INC and to even mention them in the same sentence cheapens their struggles.
Show ALL Forums