News0 min ago
Jews in Britain
32 Answers
Yes Ok I am watching Richard Littlejohn, bad bad of course, but a few things flit through my head.
Anything anti-Israel nowadays is applauded. Anything pro-Palestine is applauded (Ken is a prime example).
Israelis (Jews) tend to be technologically advanced, they have an infuriating habit of defending their homeland, which is about the size of Wales, against missiles coming in with righteous indignation from all sides.
Why don't they just give in ? I mean, they are on a hiding to nothing surely. Bush and BLAIR have supported them illegally and those two criminals will be brought to justice under international law soon enough.
How comfortable is your Western armchair ?
Anything anti-Israel nowadays is applauded. Anything pro-Palestine is applauded (Ken is a prime example).
Israelis (Jews) tend to be technologically advanced, they have an infuriating habit of defending their homeland, which is about the size of Wales, against missiles coming in with righteous indignation from all sides.
Why don't they just give in ? I mean, they are on a hiding to nothing surely. Bush and BLAIR have supported them illegally and those two criminals will be brought to justice under international law soon enough.
How comfortable is your Western armchair ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by whiffey. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sorry, I can't add much to this debate, however flip-flop mentioned that what Livingstone said to the Standard 'reporter' was anti-semetic. i do not believe this to be true.
KL was simply comparing the reporter to a concentration camp guard "just doing his job". I have in the past described people in this way (usually council workers - computer says no!) - and not known or inquired about their religion.
It could be argued that KL was told about the reporter's religion and therefore shouldn't have made the comment, but I would disagree with that to.
KL was simply comparing the reporter to a concentration camp guard "just doing his job". I have in the past described people in this way (usually council workers - computer says no!) - and not known or inquired about their religion.
It could be argued that KL was told about the reporter's religion and therefore shouldn't have made the comment, but I would disagree with that to.
I can accept that Livingstone's first comment can be put down to his usual crassness, but once Finegold had told him he was Jewish and was offended being likened to a concentration camp guard, why did Livingstone continue?
He continued because he is an anti-semite.
In my book this is on a par with Livingstone likening a black man to a slave.
Equally unacceptable.
Or am I missing something? Is it OK to be anti-semitic even though we have to tread on egg shells around other minorities?
He continued because he is an anti-semite.
In my book this is on a par with Livingstone likening a black man to a slave.
Equally unacceptable.
Or am I missing something? Is it OK to be anti-semitic even though we have to tread on egg shells around other minorities?
This answer is 'off topic' but I am at a loss to understand some of the insults on this forum.
I have looked at and read many, many other posts/topics and they make reference to people who, to my mind, have not posted.
Some of these posts have been edited but reference is made to the complete post or the history of the poster, or name changes involved.
How is this possible ? Is there a facility I am missing ?
Thanks.
I have looked at and read many, many other posts/topics and they make reference to people who, to my mind, have not posted.
Some of these posts have been edited but reference is made to the complete post or the history of the poster, or name changes involved.
How is this possible ? Is there a facility I am missing ?
Thanks.
Verbatim - this was recorded as KL was leaving Chris Smith's party.
Finegold: Mr Livingstone, Evening Standard. How did tonight go?
Livingstone: How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?
Finegold: How did tonight go?
Mr Livingstone: Have you thought of having treatment?
Finegold: Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?
Mr Livingstone: What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?
Finegold: No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal and I'm actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?
Mr Livingstone: Arr right, well you might be [Jewish], but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?
Likening a Jew to a concentration camp guard AFTER he was told that he was Jewish was disgraceful and, in my opinion, anti-semetic.
Finegold: Mr Livingstone, Evening Standard. How did tonight go?
Livingstone: How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?
Finegold: How did tonight go?
Mr Livingstone: Have you thought of having treatment?
Finegold: Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?
Mr Livingstone: What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?
Finegold: No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal and I'm actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?
Mr Livingstone: Arr right, well you might be [Jewish], but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?
Likening a Jew to a concentration camp guard AFTER he was told that he was Jewish was disgraceful and, in my opinion, anti-semetic.
I honestly don't see how one can reach that conclusion!
He is quite clearly making an analogy about people who do nasty things and then claim they are just following orders. It might well be crass and uncalled for, and it's certainly meant to be offensive, but it's equally not racist - he starts his analogy *not knowing* the reporter's religion, but seeking to make a particular point and clearly continues with the same analogy to the end that he initially inttended.
Hate Ken all you want, but I genuinely can't agree with your logic.
He is quite clearly making an analogy about people who do nasty things and then claim they are just following orders. It might well be crass and uncalled for, and it's certainly meant to be offensive, but it's equally not racist - he starts his analogy *not knowing* the reporter's religion, but seeking to make a particular point and clearly continues with the same analogy to the end that he initially inttended.
Hate Ken all you want, but I genuinely can't agree with your logic.
In response to the original question l am not anti Palestine and for Israel or anti Israel pro Palestine. However, like others I do not approve of the behaviour of many on both sides of the conflict.
The conflict, its origins, the maintenance spread far beyond and more than these two nations. The West have meddled not because of some altruistic reasons but self serving ones which have not had the well being of Jews or Arabs as being the primary objective. To think that USA and Britain were only motivated by a wish to help Jewish people is a bit like thinking we invaded Iraq only to free the people from Sadam.
To respond to rubberneck. I suspect you have come across mention of some posters who by meeting their needs to be provocative they get banned and then come back with a new name to go through the process again. If there are names you do not see, its probably former ones.
The conflict, its origins, the maintenance spread far beyond and more than these two nations. The West have meddled not because of some altruistic reasons but self serving ones which have not had the well being of Jews or Arabs as being the primary objective. To think that USA and Britain were only motivated by a wish to help Jewish people is a bit like thinking we invaded Iraq only to free the people from Sadam.
To respond to rubberneck. I suspect you have come across mention of some posters who by meeting their needs to be provocative they get banned and then come back with a new name to go through the process again. If there are names you do not see, its probably former ones.
Thankyou, Ruby.
And are they then recognisable by the 'continuity' of their views or is it that they reintroduce themselves under their new moniker ?
Sorry to be a pest but there is one person I have seen referred to but I've never seen THAT name on any posts..............
In my naiivity I thought that if you got 'kicked' it meant that you couldn't come back.............am I wrong.
Many thanks
And are they then recognisable by the 'continuity' of their views or is it that they reintroduce themselves under their new moniker ?
Sorry to be a pest but there is one person I have seen referred to but I've never seen THAT name on any posts..............
In my naiivity I thought that if you got 'kicked' it meant that you couldn't come back.............am I wrong.
Many thanks
rubberneck. either or and both. I have not been using this site for long so others could give you better information, but what I have noticed is that joe the lion became tony something and anouther name and is now leon the something - but he has had previous names apparently. He is clearly visible as he vacilates between providing sensible and rational questions to asking those he is aware that will be provocative and at times is downright abusive. As soon as he is banned he comes back with a new name and announces that he is back following a ban. There is someone on B and S who posters doubt that she is female but they call themselvs sexyrussian or something and comes on at other times with different names. She/he/it often gets posts removed so it looks a bit strange when others make a response that later others can not see.
I assume (do not know for sure as haven' t needed to), that you can come back anytime you are banned as long as you provide a new name, several people here keep a back up to use when they have been banned. The reasons for banning can be for being over helpful and anwereing to many questions too quickly, not just for being naughty.
I assume (do not know for sure as haven' t needed to), that you can come back anytime you are banned as long as you provide a new name, several people here keep a back up to use when they have been banned. The reasons for banning can be for being over helpful and anwereing to many questions too quickly, not just for being naughty.
Ken Livingstone hates reporters, not Jews. As the London Evening Standard has always hated him, this is understandable. The particular background to this 'insult' is that the Standard's sister paper - the little-known Daily Mail - backed fascists before the second world war. So Livingstone asked a Jewish reporter how he could work on a paper with that background. Seems like a reasonable question to me.
Just on Ken Livingstone, I think this just about says it all.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3054 506,00.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3054 506,00.html
Latest Posts
News6 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Technology13 mins ago
Horror As 'Man Doused In Bleach' In Busy...
News21 mins ago
