Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Anti-Israel | |
Author: Roberdin | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 19:22:52 12/03/04 Fri In reply to: Kevin (U.S.) 's message, "U.N. really in control?" on 18:22:45 12/03/04 Fri This is going to be a controversial post... 'Anti-Israel'?? I don't blame them to be honest... if Mexico started building a wall through the USA, do you think anyone would hesistate to condemn the Mexicans or their actions? Of course they would not. I'm aware that Israel has suffered numerous terrorist strikes from Palestine, but that's what happens if you essentially annex someone else's country (not to mention invent the bloody idea of terrorism). Can't they just live in peace side by side, as they near enough did under British rule? Of course not. And to exacerbate the situation further, they build a bloody wall in someone else's country. Because everyone is afraid of being percieved as anti-semetic, no-one is prepared to lift a finger to stop it. I have no problem with Judaism or Jews, indeed, many close friends of mine are Jewish. What I have a problem with, is terrorism. And if the UN condemns terrorists acting for Israel, then good for them. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Israel was in part formed through horrific terrorist atrocities against the British | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:06:52 12/04/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: "anti-semitic" would logically have to include "anti-Arab" | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:28:25 12/04/04 Sat The Arabs are a semitic people too. An "anti-semitic Arab" is either a case of linguistic failure or a case for therapy. Very probably both, given that hatred of any ethnic group can only be a kind of psychosis. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: correct | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:25:02 12/04/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Semantics and semitics | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:07:46 12/05/04 Sun I believe that you are technically correct, but the word has really lost all racial connotations and refers to the Jewish religion these days. Even those who have been proud haters of Jews have called themselves anti-semitists. I understand that the whole thing is derived from Genesis, anyway. Noah's three sons, Shem (or Sem), Ham, and Japheth, being the only surviving humans after the flood, are the source of all people subsequently. Those who descend from Ham are Hamites (Africans), those from Shem are Semites (Middle Easterners) and those from Japheth are Japethites (Europeans). Firstly, the whole thing is clearly nonsense; and, secondly, it does rather indicate that the blokes who wrote it had never heard of the Chinese, Indians, Native Americans, Polynesians, etc etc. Perhaps if the writers of these Bible stories had known about races other than those three which came into contact with each other in the eastern Mediterranean, Noah would have been given more sons! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |