If Helen Thomas is an "anti-semite"...

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Prinnctopher's Belt, Jun 7, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    ...then my ass, along with the majority of the world with common sense, must be Hitler. How ridiculous is it that in the American media, no one is allowed to express any dissent, in any regard whatsoever without being apologetic, to Israel's terrorism of Palestine. Now this elderly woman has to put up with this kind of laceration of her name, causing her insurmountable distress, and it's not good for her heart. These Zionists are just ruthless pigs. And most of the media is owned by them anyway, and since she knows this, this faux controversy has affected her so much so that she has now retired after many many decades of quality journalism and "in your face" honesty where it was absent.

    This is what happens when you criticize Israel, the terror state. No one bitches when someone gives an opinion that Palestine should disappear, do they? No. THAT is anti-semitism, because they, too, are Semites!

    What a bunch of bitches. Free Palestine.
     
  2. Hache

    Hache Well-Known Member

    Don't Jews own 80% of US media
     
  3. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    This is extremely upsetting. Regardless of what she said, and to whom, she has every right to say it. Freedom of speech runs both ways, and no side in any ideological conflict has a right to squelch the other. The backlash against her statement was pretty excessive.
     
  4. bluegrey

    bluegrey Antiquities Friend

    America has free speech but if you throw a molotav cocktail as Ms. Thomas did you will almost certainly get banished from having a public forum. Her geographical choices for the Jewish people to "go back to" was by no means an innocent suggestion. Poland and Germany, next to the Ukraine were where the majority of the innocent Jewish Holocaust victims were slaughtered in WW2.

    What Ms. Thomas said was hateful, as bad as saying something incredibly insensitive as "All blacks should go back to Africa". She has a very long and well documented hate for Israel.
     
  5. Axiom

    Axiom Account Closed

    Well.. I just saw this on the news so. The way she said it was wrong. I don't particularly think she should have "retired" but maybe she wanted to step down anyhow.

    As a reporter you should be neutral when reporting, but not when you are not reporting. The problem is her simplistic blunt way of saying it. She was a high profile reporter, she should have worded herself better. Though stepping down seems to harsh to me.

    Here is a video clip of what she said http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aeqb8h0I-Bg

    Bastard thing cuts out too quickly for me, I wonder what else she said... On the news I didn't even get this whole clip that is on youtube. Bloody cut and paste pricks in the media. Yeah Im talking to you CTV!
     
  6. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    I am the first to back up someone's right to free speech, but her employer had every right to drop her after what she said.
     
  7. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    Several issues to consider:

    1) Hache and PBelt...citations please as to the ownership of US media...btw...Ted Turner who owns a fairly large chunk is NOT JEWISH. Steve Forbes and Rupert Murdoch who own huge chunks of media outlets ARE NOT JEWISH. You can check on your own as to who owns CNN, NBC, etc...most are owne by Multi-National corporations such as Westinghouse and Time Warner communications and General Electric...all of which are publicly owned. As to who owns the majority share, I leave it to you to discover that! It is far too complex to determine. All of this info is available at your fingertips at "WIKIPEDIA"!

    2) Helen Thomas is both a news reporter and an opinionated columnist...she is relieved of duties as a news analyst, who is to remain neutral and report the news. She has a right to her opinion as an individual but not as a news reporter as stated by Blake above.

    3) As to her comment specifically...it is moronic and an indication of senility or idocy to state that the Jews should move back to Poland or Germany where they were being exterminated. Ari Fleischer (White House spokesman under the Bush administration) stated (and although he is Jewish his comment seems to apply, though up for discussion) that it would be akin to stating that the African American population of the U.S. should go back to Africa.

    4) Israel is allowing aid to flow into Gaza but retains the right to check flotillas that might be sending material which can be used as weapons to attack Israel as has been done in the past.

    If you agree with what Helen Thomas said, I guess that most of the Austrailians should all go back to England, which founded it as a penal colony, and leave the land to the aboriginal peoples of that land who were there first.

    The U.S. should give back the entire country to the Native American Indians...the Canadians should relinquish their land to the aboriginal natives who were there first and were later occupied by the British and French....the Turks should relinquish land to the Armenian peoples, ad infinitum...

    Seriously...is there any country that can stand in judgement of another at this point in time?

    I will now check on the Islamic and Muslim populations and the countries which they inhabit and get back to this thread with additional info and commentary

    Anybody who demands that the Israili's leave their now settled piece of land had best do some research before spouting off on who originallly occupied that territory...maybe by going back a couple of thousand years.

    Hypocrisy at it's finest!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 8, 2010
  8. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    Good post Shades.
     
  9. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    See Wikipedia for citations on the history of Syria, whose land was granted by the French in 1946

    See "Pre-Islamic Arabia"

    See "Palestinian Jew"

    See "Palestine" which includes portions of Lebananon, Syria and Jordan...all of whom refuse to grant territory to the Palestinain peoples.

    Gee...maybe we should allow ALL ABORIGINAL and or INDIGINOUS peoples to inhabit the lands they once had...and all of you above climbing aboard the "pound Israel into submission" bandwagon can move to whatever country will have you or to where you determine your people came from, as you are most certainly not the original inhabitants of your current country (with few exceptions).
     
  10. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    All those people you named in ownership of media are Zionists, having expressed their ideals openly that are unconditionally in favor of Israel's occupation and expansion over Palestine. Zionist =/= Jewish, as we know not all Jews are Zionists and vice versa.

    And Shades, you don't know what you're talking about and off-topic. This isn't about a flotilla. This is about conflict and oppression that's been happening there since before you were born; not a couple of weeks ago in a flotilla... :dry:

    This is nothing like saying blacks should go back to Africa. Thomas was asked a question of what she thinks of the ongoing conflicts between Israel and Palestine, and she said Israel should get the hell out of there, because the people in Palestine have been occupied, and will continue to fight, and justifiably so. The fighting is never going to end. The analogy of Blacks being kidnapped and purchased from Africa and being laid in America, unwillingly, is completely and entirely unrelated to saying that an occupying nation (Israel) that terrorized the people (Palestinians) who currently and generationally have resided in said land (Palestine), should go back to Europe from whence they came and invaded.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 8, 2010
  11. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    I would suggest that people who don't prefer to read long works of history, to watch a program titled "Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land" if you can find it. It's a documentary and it's fairly neutral. I think it was produced sometime in the mid-2000's. You can see the difference in what has been actually happening, compared to what the Western media (mainly the US) has been willing to publish and air. What many of us were exposed to about this ongoing situation when we were growing up, was mostly one-sided and biased, emotional hoodwinking.
     
  12. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    You're right, and I certainly agree. Private entities are entitled to do what they wish every bit as individuals are. But clearly there was a lot more external pressure put on her - and her associates and employers - then I felt was merited. Her comment was certainly off the cuff and politically incorrect, but much worse is said without people losing their livelihood.

    People like Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh attract millions of listeners and get away with saying far nastier things without a threat to their careers. We have a double-standard when it comes to discussing certain topics in this country, and criticism of Israel is one of them.

    I'm not saying the Jews control the media or anything like that. All I'm saying is that lobbying interests like AIPAC obviously have a role to play in stifling commentary and debate alike with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is often presented with great one-sidedness. Notice how Obama is being framed as anti-Israeli and even antisemitic just because he's taken a slightly harder stance against Israel regarding the settlements (even then he's scarcely been that bad).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 8, 2010
  13. shades

    shades Staff Alumni


    Ms. Pbelt,

    Your suggestion here and thought process are incredibly obtuse! (see definition here= http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obtuse)

    One can no more understand the complexities of the Israeli/Palestinian situation in question by watching a single documentary ("FAIRLY" neutral or otherwise), than one can understand the 'Stone Age' by watching a 'Flintstones' cartoon!

    The history and issues regarding the land in question are the most important issue, considering that the theme of this thread is about who is entitled to said land.

    Also, please provide citations for your statement insisting that Turner, Murdoch and Forbes are "zionists". Your word is simply not acceptable as a source for such a statement.

    have a nice day
     
  14. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    Look at the programming they publish and endorse. 'Nuff said. Actions speak for everything.

    How about you ditch your emotional response and use well-reasoned and relevant language in your posts if you want to have a discussion with grown-ups. As far as understanding the history of the Palestinian and Israeli conflicts, it's never sufficient to simply only watch one documentary for an abstract historical perspective; the documentary I posted is specifically for the purpose of providing some insight on how the conflict has been covered in journalism and how public opinion in the US is shaped around a largely biased media -- which is exactly what this thread is about.

    If you don't understand what's happening in a thread, and you think it's all "too obtuse" for you to understand, all you have to do is ask for clarification.
     
  15. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    Well said Shades. However, interestingly enough, this is just the sort of argument that justifies why we should be *more* critical of our relationship with Israel. If the US were to follow the precedent of our Israeli allies, then Native Americans would get rights to this entire country - and we'd be every bit as opposed to that as the Palestinians are to the settlements.

    That is what makes our unwavering support of Israel so cynical and downright hypocritical. Who are we to back their claims to the land at the expense of the Palestinians when we would never allow the same to happen to us? If we're taught to view our treatment of Native Americans as wrong and regrettable, why do we support the same being done in Levant?

    I'm not saying we should abandon Israel altogether or anything, nor am I saying that all Israelis are land stealing monsters. All I'm suggesting is that we need to tone down our tendency to back them at every turn and that we need to put our relationship under as much scrutiny and debate as we do every other issue.
     
  16. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    I'm hardly a person who needs a vocabulary lesson for fifth grade words, so this is just unnecessary.

    That's why I don't like having discussion with you, Shades, because you try too hard to insult people, getting all emotional, instead of sticking to the point. That's not my style.
     
  17. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    Ms. Pbelt,

    Based on this post of yours, you calling me "emotional" is like Tiger Woods calling Sandra Bullock's husband an adulterer.
     
  18. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    Okay, then stop acting like you need to insult someone to make a point that's irrelevant to the topic anyway. When you get to the point where you start to insult someone, that is getting emotional; not making a commentary on an issue.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.