Granny Danger Posted April 29, 2016 Author Share Posted April 29, 2016 This is risible whataboutery. Anyone who claims that Israel gave Al Qaida in Syria chemical weapons is an anti-Semitic dog whistler. It's that simple. No it's not. You repeating it continually does not make it so. I'd happily condemn Galloway if he made anti-Semitic comments. People like you who try to twist statements, some of which are incendiary and/or downright stupid, into being anti-Semitic make a poor job of trying to confuse the issue. Galloway is a self publicist. There must be hundreds if not thousands of sound bites of his. If he was an anti-Semite I'm sure that there would be cut and dried examples of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 No it's not. You repeating it continually does not make it so. I'd happily condemn Galloway if he made anti-Semitic comments. People like you who try to twist statements, some of which are incendiary and/or downright stupid, into being anti-Semitic make a poor job of trying to confuse the issue. Galloway is a self publicist. There must be hundreds if not thousands of sound bites of his. If he was an anti-Semite I'm sure that there would be cut and dried examples of it. This is a cut and dried example. Dog whistle tactics *are* the instruments of a racist anti-Semite. There is precisely ZERO evidence to support the claim that Israel gave Al Qaida in Syria chemical weapons. ZERO. Put this remark in context. It was spouted on Press TV: sponsored and controlled by the Iranian Government. A government whose immediate previous president has said in the past he wishes to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. The *only* possible motive of falsely connecting Israel and Al Qaida is a motivation to fuel unfounded and profoundly antisemitic conspiracy theories. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 The waddle and quack principle is inviolable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 Put this remark in context. It was spouted on Press TV: sponsored and controlled by the Iranian Government. A government whose immediate previous president has said in the past he wishes to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. . ...off the face of the map. A subtle difference meaning back to the 48 borders. Extremely anti zionist but still not proof of his anti semitism which is out there in abundance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 ...off the face of the map. A subtle difference meaning back to the 48 borders. Extremely anti zionist but still not proof of his anti semitism which is out there in abundance. Nonsense. The 1948 borders recognise the existence of Israel. Wanting to wipe it off the face of the map means it's destruction as a state in its entirety. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 (edited) Livingston's answer on Hitler was ridiculous. Mein Kampf was published in 1925 and chapter 11 set out Hitler's hatred of the Jews and desire to get rid of them. Yet Livingstone seems to think that Hitler was rational and only went mad in the 1930s. His comments are those that you would expect hear from a BNP or National Front candidate, not a former MP and Mayor of London. Livingstone has past form - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/london-mayor-election/9229285/Ken-Livingstone-fury-at-concentration-camp-guard-jibe-was-a-huge-fuss-over-nothing.html. "Mr Livingstone also defended his behaviour towards the Jewish journalist Oliver Finegold, who he accused of being a “German war criminal†and “concentration camp guard†and to whom he has never apologised." The rest of the article is interesting - "Mr Livingstone was repeatedly asked by the Hampstead audience about his decision to host and publicly embrace al-Qaradawi, who backs suicide bombing, has called for Jews and homosexuals to be killed and said that “to be absolved from guilt, a raped woman must have shown good conduct.†He replied: “We can spend the rest of our lives going on about what happened with Qaradawi or we can look to the future… Why is it such an obsessive point?†Such a nice caring man who believes in equality for all. I think he answered those points on the Daily show.He had no idea what religion a jurno was who was chasing him down the street. And the preacher he said he only spoke about peace at any meeting he was at . And again Hitler, i dont believe he's implying that he supported a Jewish state, but that he used it as part of his racist anti semitic policy to get them out of Germany . Also "before he went mad" doesnt mean he thinks Hitler was rational beforehand. Eta heres what he actually said about Quaradawi. Edited April 29, 2016 by THE KING 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 (edited) What evidence do you offer for your accusation of Galloway being 'genuinely anti-Semitic'. I can't stand the guy but I've not heard him making anti-Semitic comments. 'Forced removal of Israeli Jews to America'? Other than yourself who has used that term? This is old ground - want me to repeat it again?Walking out of a student meeting because a Jewish student was there saying "I don't debate with Israelis". His statement that he was " enthralled" by Gilad Atzmon’s book The Wandering Who (probably one of the most anti-semitic publications in recent years). Declaring Bradford to be Israeli-free. Need I go on? Galloway is an anti-semite. Edited April 29, 2016 by DeeTillEhDeh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 29, 2016 Author Share Posted April 29, 2016 This is old ground - want me to repeat it again? Walking out of a student meeting because a Jewish student was there saying "I don't debate with Israelis". His statement that he was " enthralled" by Gilad Atzmon’s book The Wandering Who (probably one of the most anti-semitic publications in recent years). Declaring Bradford to be Israeli-free. Need I go on? Galloway is an anti-semite. A wee bit like Ad Lib, simply repeating the same old stuff doesn't make it any more accurate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 You are talking utter shite. That does not support the ridiculous supposition that Israel is giving CHEMICAL WEAPONS to Al Qaida. And that ridiculous supposition does not mean it's anti-semitic. You're a lawyer, you know what words mean and what evidence means. Stop being a bellend for the sake of being a bellend. Galloway may well be antisemitic, he's certainly a cnut, but saying Israel gave terrorists chemical weapons is not antisemitic. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Its not exactly the most far fetched thing ever said. The Israeli government are abject cnuts and capable of all sorts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 A wee bit like Ad Lib, simply repeating the same old stuff doesn't make it any more accurate. Is this proof enough? Or are you going to deflect yet again? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 29, 2016 Author Share Posted April 29, 2016 Is this proof enough? Or are you going to deflect yet again? He was 'enthralled'. Equally he could have said he was 'fascinated'. At no point did I hear him say he agreed with it. If he said he agreed with it I would be willing to call him anti-Semitic. I 'defended' David Cameron on here recently when he was accused of racism in the London Mayoral campaign. What he said was no racist, in the same way saying he was enthralled with Atzmon's book does not make Galloway an anti-Semite. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 And that ridiculous supposition does not mean it's anti-semitic. You're a lawyer, you know what words mean and what evidence means. Stop being a bellend for the sake of being a bellend. It does when the motive of the supposition is to smear Jews by perpetuting conspiracy theories of false flaggery. Galloway may well be antisemitic, he's certainly a cnut, but saying Israel gave terrorists chemical weapons is not antisemitic. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Provide me with an alternative explanation to this being a dog whistle statement then. In law we use standards like "balance of probabilities" and "reasonable doubt". Both require alternative plausible explanations to the proven ones. Its not exactly the most far fetched thing ever said. The Israeli government are abject cnuts and capable of all sorts. It is the most far fetched of things to have been said. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 If you say "I don't debate with Israelis" then you are antisemitic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 The waddle and quack principle is inviolable. The most pedantic, literal bore on the forum reduced to abductive reasoning. Never thought I'd see the day 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 29, 2016 Author Share Posted April 29, 2016 If you say "I don't debate with Israelis" then you are antisemitic. You seem to think that if you keep repeating this nonsense then it makes it more valid. It doesn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 If you say "I don't debate with Israelis" then you are antisemitic. What's worse the student wasn't Israeli but Jewish. The equating of Jew with Israeli is a common theme for anti-semites. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 I like Granny's Lucille Bluth type response here. "I won't hear it, and I won't respond to it." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 29, 2016 Author Share Posted April 29, 2016 What's worse the student wasn't Israeli but Jewish. The equating of Jew with Israeli is a common theme for anti-semites. That's probably true. As is equating Zionist with Jew for those seeking to tar all anti-Zionists with anti-Semitism and to shut down legitimate debate about the excesses of the Israeli government and their U.S. enablers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 You seem to think that if you keep repeating this nonsense then it makes it more valid. It doesn't. Ironically for you, repeatedly saying that repeating something doesn't make it valid isn't a counter argument. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 29, 2016 Author Share Posted April 29, 2016 Ironically for you, repeatedly saying that repeating something doesn't make it valid isn't a counter argument. Christ you're a boring pedantic c**t. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.