I hope this short commercial break will not affect your enjoyment of B-BBC but I wanted to take a few moments of your time to tell you about my new book called “Unionism Decayed” and to explain why I think it has a direct relevance to this site. For over ten years, I have watched the role the State Broadcaster has played in the relentless and merciless perversion of democracy in Northern Ireland. I have seen the bias, the spin and the neo-Stalinist questioning of the character of those people like myself who oppose putting murderers into government! I watched the BBC’s chief political correspondent jump ship and become part of the very administration that he was supposed to impartially report upon. I watched BBC behaviour during a crunch referendum that was bias incarnate. Worst of all, I have seen how the BBC can help crush the spirit of freedom by acting as a compelling echo chamber for an immoral appeasing government. It’s all detailed in my book along with my own political journey over this period. If you are interested in reading about this, please email me here and I will provide you with pricing details. My final observation is that you can be sure that the views I express are verboten on Al Beeb – the terrorists friend – so perhaps that is the finest recommendation I can have?
“You argue on the one hand that it’s not racist to call Mandela a terrorist unless you regard all blacks as being immune from any or all critisism but on the other hand anyone who calls “Jews” terrorists is antisemite”
Nice distortion – do you work for the BBC?
This is not even remotely what I said. In fact, this is a lie.
I said that calling BG a terrorist is antisemitic, because factually he didn’t call for or promote the indiscriminate murder of civilians – which Mandela and Adams did. Therefore, he was not a terrorist. Therefore to call him a terrorist can only be a an antisemitic attitude (well, OK – perhaps also could have been said by someone who is stupid and ignorant).
“The one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter arguement is neither idiotic or pseudo. It highlights different perceptions and positions”
Nonsense. The word terrorist has a very specific meaning; which is why Al Beeb doesn’t use it about Islamo-Nazis because then it would stand accused of telling the truth about them.
“Stop being so prickley!”
Sorry, I’ll continue to tell the truth about beeboid distortions and lies.
What acts of terrorism exactly was Ben Gurion supposedly behind?
Nearly Oxfordian
“I said that calling BG a terrorist is antisemitic, because factually he didn’t call for or promote the indiscriminate murder of civilians – which Mandela and Adams did. Therefore, he was not a terrorist. Therefore to call him a terrorist can only be a an antisemitic attitude (well, OK – perhaps also could have been said by someone who is stupid and ignorant).”
So therefore Jews can’t do wrong! All Israeli retaliation is justified whatever the circumstances! Any critisism of Israeli action is antisemitic even the bombimg of the King David Hotel!
And you wonder why there is antagonism towards Israel!
I am pro-Israel. This does not mean that I have to agree with everything that happens.
How dare you critisise what has happened in NI. At least there is relative peace. compared to what is happening in Israel & Gaza.
So therefore Jews can’t do wrong! Matt | 17.05.08 – 8:45 pm
No, we certainly can, but it’s probably not a good idea to advertise our failings on a public forum. The anti-Semites jump up and down and rant and rave against Israel for imagined wrongs anyway, so we don’t need to give them real ammunition.
Any critisism of Israeli action is antisemitic even the bombimg of the King David Hotel!
Criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic in itself, but when Israel alone is singled out for criticism and abuse, that certainly is anti-Semitic. Israel is surrounded by regimes with appalling human rights records but the “international community” politely averts its gaze from these regimes and concentrates on Israel instead. Why do you think that is the case?
Why is nobody pointing fingers at Egypt for shooting and killing numerous refugees from Sudan and elsewhere in Africa when they try to get into Israel from the Sinai, or for oppressing and killing Coptic Christians and destroying their churches?
And why is nobody pointing fingers at Saudi Arabia for sponsoring terror worldwide and for its apartheid policy of denying Jews entry to the country and allowing no infidel to set foot in Mecca?
And why is nobody pointing fingers at the Satanic Iranian mullahs for hanging teenage girls from cranes for being sexually abused?
And why is nobody pointing fingers at Hamas for throwing Fatah prisoners off high buildings and killing Christian booksellers and destroying Christian centres in Gaza?
And why is nobody pointing fingers at Hezbollah for doing its best to murder its way into power in Lebanon?
And, moving down south a bit, why has it taken decades of the systematic brutality visited on Zimbabwe’s people and the destruction of the country’s economy for “news” organisations like the BBC to start pointing a timid finger or two at Robert Mugabe while continually demonising Israel?
If the King David Hotel had been blown up by Arabs, do you really think people would still be pointing fingers at the Arabs for that attack? The King David housed the British military headquarters. Three warnings were issued before the attack: to the Palestine Post, the nearby French Embassy and the hotel. The British refused to evacuate the hotel saying, “We don’t take orders from Jews.”
Now compare that to the attack by Arab terrorists on the UN headquarters in Iraq in which non-combatant UN personnel were slaughtered, forcing the UN’s departure from the country. I have yet to hear any of the usual Israel-bashing crowd utter the slightest condemnation of that atrocity.
If you have any explanation other than anti-Semitism for this gross imbalance in what people do and don’t get agitated about I’d be interested to hear it.
Why is it so many BBC employees post on B-BBC with just their first name?
They follow concerted ‘attacks’ with a few ‘genuine’ posters.
They make out, quite falsely, they are just interested members of the public.
Watch out guys, if you are all traced to the BBC and you are faking again I await the scandal to erupt…
People like to point out that we have made deals with murdering terrorist scum before and therefore we need to do it again.
No we dont.
Its no so long ago that wet liberals liked to point how we had made a deal with Mugabe to end the war in Rhodesia (trans: sold out our people there). Well look how thats worked out now, even the Beeb cant pretend he is any good now.
Lets also not forget the Jewish terrorists in Palestine were attacking us up until the foundation of Israel and more importantly some of them were doing it while we were still fighting the Germans.
Bryan
“Criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic in itself, but when Israel alone is singled out for criticism and abuse, that certainly is anti-Semitic.”
I agree. However on this Blog, any criticism of Israel or Unionism for that matter is not seemingly allowed. Maybe the Blog should be renamed the Biased BBC and Pro Israel & Unionism Blog.
For the record:
1) I have nothing to do with the BBC.
2) I am pro Israel. That however does not mean that I agree blindly with everything Israel does.
3) I am not particularily happy about Sinn Fein being in Government in NI but it is an Irish solution to an Irish problem. As I have said before, Unionism must take their share of responsibility for what has occured.
So lighten up guys and deal with it.
Lets also not forget the Jewish terrorists in Palestine were attacking us up until the foundation of Israel and more importantly some of them were doing it while we were still fighting the Germans.
Lurker | 18.05.08 – 5:20 am
Menachem Begin worked for a while as a translator for the British. And many Jews fought with the British against the Nazis. The history if the time is very complex indeed but there is no doubt that there was tremendous resistance from the British administrators on the ground against the Jewish state they were mandated to establish in Palestine. And not only resistance. There was also active British support for Arab insurgents entering Palestine to attack and kill Jews and prevent the establishment of the state, while on the other hand the British limited the influx of Jews fleeing the Holocaust to 15000 a year for five years and then did not even allow entry of the full number of that miserly quota.
However on this Blog, any criticism of Israel or Unionism for that matter is not seemingly allowed.
Matt | 18.05.08 – 8:48 am
Dunno about Unionism but nobody has ever been banned here for criticising Israel. Otherwise we would have seen the back of John Reith and others years ago.
Glad you support Israel, Matt. We need all the help we can get. And criticism should be tempered by the realisation of what Israel is up against.
“Lets also not forget the Jewish terrorists in Palestine were attacking us up until the foundation of Israel and more importantly some of them were doing it while we were still fighting the Germans”
They were not ‘terrorists’, you utter dumb prat. They were not murdering civilians in markets and fish shops: they were fighting the British military which was occupying their country. You really have no clue as to what the word ‘terrorist’ means.
Bryan,
Matt’s phrase ‘That however does not mean that I agree blindly with everything Israel does’ is the standard figleaf of all the hypocrites who single out Israel for opprobrium.
Nearly Oxfordian
“Matt’s phrase ‘That however does not mean that I agree blindly with everything Israel does’ is the standard figleaf of all the hypocrites who single out Israel for opprobrium.”
No it isn’t.
I missed this ignorant crap earlier:
“So therefore Jews can’t do wrong! All Israeli retaliation is justified whatever the circumstances!”
Military retaliation against military attack is always justified, yes.
“Any critisism of Israeli action is antisemitic even the bombimg of the King David Hotel!”
Jesus wept, that standard antisemitic lie again! It was NOT a ‘hotel’, you sad little arsehole! It was a British military facility. As such, it was a legit target. Someone like you who thinks it was a hotel and shoots his mouth off about it is probably too stupid to come in out of the rain. AND an adequate warning was given. Instead of recognising the moral position of those who gave the warning, you trot out this vile blood libel yet again.
Nearly Oxfordian
Clear evidence that no critisism of Israel or Jews is tolerated on this blog.
“sad little arsehole”
Oh dear.
Nearly Oxfordian
Clear evidence that no criticism of Israel oor jews is tolerated on this blog.
“sad little arsehole”
Oh dear!
Clear evidence that no criticism of Matt is tolerated by Matt?
Or merely that he doesn’t like being called sad, little or arsehole?
Sue,
Call me what you like. I happily accept criticism as I argue my point.
“Jesus wept, that standard antisemitic lie again! It was NOT a ‘hotel’, you sad little arsehole! It was a British military facility. As such, it was a legit target”
You know it could have been both. British military guests, local hotel staff.
This is a common complaint here – not understanding that two different words can apply to one thing, for example a person being both a militant and a terrorist at the same time.
Matt | 18.05.08 – 11:46 am
But don’t forget N.O. was saying it is antisemitic to call Ben Gurion a terrorist.
With rational explanation attached.
You ignored that and launched into your ‘no wonder there is antagonism towards Israel’ and ‘therefore Jews can do no wrong’ remarks.
Bryan is unfailingly polite. He also explains that in the circumstances “criticism should be tempered by the realisation of what Israel is up against.” He doesn’t say there should be no criticism, and neither does anyone else who comments here on BBC bias, as far as I can see.
In the face of the onslaught of condemnation endured by supporters of Israel, arguments in defence of Israel deserve to be listened to and considered rationally without having “Israel right or wrong” immediately thrown back at them.
People who recognise Israel’s plight, who take the trouble to find out something about its history, and who are aware of the diversity of opinions held by its population, get justifiably angry when any argument they make is dismissed with that particular rejoinder. It’s more than a debate silencer, it’s a gross misjudgment, especially when it comes from someone who says they are pro Israel. In what way are they pro Israel?
I just wonder what people mean when they say that.
Sue,
My simple point is that it seems that any critisism of Israel on this blog seems to be regarded, certainly by Nearly Oxfordian, as antisemitic.
I most certainly did not ignore his arguement about it being antisemitic to call Ben Gurion – I simply don’t agree with it.
If, as you say, arguements about the defense of Israel deserve to be listened to and considered rationally, then the same should apply to critisism of Israel.
Nearly Oxfordian attacks any critisism of Israel with insults and abuse. I am quite enjoying his annoyance. I’m not sure I would use the adjective rational to describe him!
In what way am I pro Israel? In the same way that I am pro British. I am not a supporter of the war in Iraq but that does not make me anti British. I am not a supporter of everything that Israel does in retaliation for attacks on itself. That does not make me antisemitic.
Matt | 18.05.08 – 7:26 pm | #
I was going to say that Ben Gurion’s name symbolises the creation of Israel.
Even if one takes methodology alone as the criteria by which one judges whether the King David Hotel bombing qualifies as an act of terrorism, even if one ignores the way the British treated the Jews at that time, and attests that nothing justifies violence where innocent people get hurt, it does sound anti-semitic to call Ben Gurion a terrorist.
But that is not an argument I want to get into.
Silencing debate by accusing either side unfairly of silencing debate is a road to nowhere. I’m pro the world but I can criticise anything in it without risking you trying to shut me up by saying I’m anti-world. Or me to shut you up by complaining that as soon as I criticise anything you say I’m anti the world.
“any criticism of Israel on this blog seems to be regarded (by N.O.) as antisemitic.”
That’s because there is so much antisemitism masquerading as anti-zionism you need a very secure criticism of Israel to avoid that accusation.
Say you support Britain and someone makes what you regard as an unfair anti British comment. You tell them you think their comment is unfair and anti-British. They reply: “Clear evidence that no criticism of Britain or British is tolerated by you”.
And to think I thought the topic of this thread was a book set in the Alps about a gun-totin’ werewolf.
Sue,
“That’s because there is so much antisemitism masquerading as anti-zionism you need a very secure criticism of Israel to avoid that accusation.”
If I critisise the actions of the USA, does that mean I am critising Christians specifically? If I critisise the actions of the Republic of Ireland, does that mean I am critising Catholics specifically? If I critise the actions of Israel, does that mean I am critising Jews specifically?
The answer to all the above is, in my opinion, no!
Critism of Israeli actions is not necessarily antisemitic. That is my point, simply.
Bryan is unfailingly polite.
Sue | 18.05.08 – 12:55 pm
Thanks for that, Sue. I prefer calm debate. It’s much more productive than yelling at each other. Though I can get quite impolite with people like John Reith.
The appropriately named John Bull is probably too thick to know what anti-Semitism is. Ben Gurion is probably the only Jew from those times he’s ever heard of so he threw him into the conversation and said, “Look, there’s a Jewish terrorist.” In fact, Ben Gurion preferred to stay on the good side of the British, condemned the King David bombing, and the violent acts he committed were actually against the more radical Jews who challenged his leadership – like Menachem Begin.
Anti-Semitism is so deeply ingrained in so many people through so many generations of indoctrination that they carry it with them as a largely unconscious attribute. They would be horrified to be accused of being anti-Semitic simply because they don’t realise that they in fact are.
Bryan,
“Anti-Semitism is so deeply ingrained in so many people through so many generations of indoctrination that they carry it with them as a largely unconscious attribute. They would be horrified to be accused of being anti-Semitic simply because they don’t realise that they in fact are.”
Now this is where I have difficulty. This is the equivalent of accusing people of Racism when they argue against immigration, for instance.
It ranks up there with Nearly Oxfordian’s comment “‘That however does not mean that I agree blindly with everything Israel does’ is the standard figleaf of all the hypocrites who single out Israel for opprobrium.”
Talk about stifling debate! We’re antisemitic – it’s just that we don’t know it!
Critising Israel’s actions does not automatically make one antisemitic.
Matt | 19.05.08 – 9:24 am
We are going around in circles here. No time for a debate right now but if you are really interested in this subject there’s a rich field of research open to you. I’m Jewish and originally South African and I have encountered a great deal of anti-Semitism of all degrees and types. I don’t make the statement you object to lightly. Thousands of years of history have formed the collective unconscious of mankind and anti-Semitism has been and continues to be a powerful thread running through this history.
As an example, it was only in 1965 that the Pope formally moderated Christianity’s anti-Jew stance.
The impression I get from your comments is that you are unwilling to dig beneath the surface and really explore these issues.
Matt is obviously an antisemite since he doesn’t even realise how hateful he is (sincere criticism of Israel is just no excuse); nor, appallingly, does he seem to recognise the uniqueness of Jewish suffering.
You must realise Matt that when a Zionist terrorist orders a bombing then has second thoughts he is no longer a tewwowist. An Irish terrorist is rightfully labelled a liar when he denies any knowledge of an outrage such as Eniskillen. Terrorists are natural liars, but Israelis seem to be the exception.
However, why stop at Ben Gurion when you are spoiled for choice.
John Bull | 19.05.08 – 4:26 pm | #
At least you are open about your antisemitism Mr Bull, and you obviously do realise how hateful you are. Thank you for taking the trouble to tell us about it.
Sue,
“At least you are open about your antisemitism Mr Bull, and you obviously do realise how hateful you are. Thank you for taking the trouble to tell us about it.”
I hope you are not implying that I am not.
As I have repeatedly said, it appears that any critism of Israel on this blog is deemed to be antisemitic.
I totally refute that premise.
If you can’t even maintain a dialogue about what’s going on, then there will never be a solution. Is that what you want?
In a word, yes. It’s just the standard rhetoric: criticism of Israel (whatever the logic or crime) = antisemitism. Criticism of anyone else = fair play. And these are the same people who spend their time berating the PC loonies at the beeb. Oh, the irony of it all. Let us read some Melanie Phillips to cleanse our souls.
Matt | 19.05.08 – 7:38 pm
“At least you are open about your antisemitism Mr Bull,”
That comment was addressed to John Bull. Obviously.
Matt, I am not implying anything . Before Mr Bull crashed into the china shop we were discussing:
“Talk about stifling debate! We’re antisemitic – it’s just that we don’t know it!”
Yes, you can criticise Israel and Jews, but unless your criticism is scrupulously fair and knowledgeable you do risk it being seen as antisemitic even if it is just ignorant. Critics ought to take into account, as Bryan said before, what Israel and the Jews are up against.
This is partly because wildly ill-informed and slanderous remarks about Israel and Jews are flung around with gay abandon. Gay in the old sense.
The BBC is very largely responsible for that state of affairs. For years Israel has been demonised and Arab propaganda has been so eagerly accepted and regurgitated by the BBC that it is hardly surprising that people are misinformed.
In that atmosphere it is very difficult to avoid ‘debate stifling’, ‘racist’, ‘antisemitism’, ‘Israel right or wrong’ arguments, mainly because you are so often arguing from a completely different premise than your opponent.
“Anti-Semitism is so deeply ingrained in so many people through so many generations of indoctrination that they carry it with them as a largely unconscious attribute. They would be horrified to be accused of being anti-Semitic simply because they don’t realise that they in fact are.”
Bryan | 18.05.08 – 11:32 pm
Bryan is right. I have spent my life amongst British people of all shapes and sizes and have certainly seen much inadvertent antisemitism from people who make wild assumptions about Jews yet have never knowingly met any. People can be staggeringly unaware of the antisemitic message conveyed in some of their casual comments, made, I believe, with no malicious intent at all.
Mr Bull sneers at ‘Jewish suffering,’ – or should he have written ‘suffewing’ -usually precursory to the ‘exploiting the holocaust’ accusation. Stupidity with knobs on, and nothing inadverant about his racism. Or shoud I say ‘wacism’.
“Mr Bull sneers at ‘Jewish suffering,’ – or should he have written ‘suffewing’ -usually precursory to the ‘exploiting the holocaust’ accusation. Stupidity with knobs on, and nothing inadverant about his racism. Or shoud I say ‘wacism’.
Sue | 19.05.08 – 9:04 pm |”
Incorrect. I mentioned the “uniqueness of jewish suffering”. You must try harder.
Mr. Bull,
“In a word, yes….
Thanks for answering Matt on my behalf. But it’s the wrong answer. Wrong, Uncalled for and Uniquely Unpleasant.
Sowwy, will twy vewy hard not to be incwwect in future.
Good comments, Sue, and this is spot on:
People can be staggeringly unaware of the antisemitic message conveyed in some of their casual comments, made, I believe, with no malicious intent at all.
But I can’t see this debate being productive of anything. Though they have very different approaches to the subject, John Bull and Matt would rather get hot under the collar than do any research into it. Bull has no idea who or what Ben Gurion was or maybe he’s mixing him up with Menachem Begin but couldn’t be bothered to find out who is who as long as he can get his anti-Semitic digs in, and Matt prefers the circular argument rather than digging a little deeper.
I’m going to leave it here and get back to the anti-Semi…er, sorry anti-Israel BBC.
I’m mixing nobody up. Gurion was a cowardly terrorist who didn’t have the guts to accept responsibility. Imagine IRA / UDA terrorist commanders up in court claiming they had ordered killings then changed their minds, and were therefore ethically innocent – puh-leeze. Like I said earlier, you are spolied for choice with regards to Israeli terrorists in government. Yes, Bryan, get back to whatever you usually do.
“John Bull is an imaginary figure who is a personification of England.”
http://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/JohnBull.htm
Thankfully he’s just a figment …
Matt and John Bull,
Certainly criticism of Israel can be legitimate and not anti-Jew by default. However, there are forms of criticism that are very much anti-Jew. In addition, it does seem that anti-Jew sentiments often go hand-in-hand with criticism of Israel.
I will certainly accept that both of you can make legitimate criticisms of Israel without automatically being anti-Jew. But I most certainly do not accept the argument that just because some criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, that none is, nor do I accept the corollary that no criticism of Israel can be considered anti-Semitic either because saying “Israel” doesn’t mean “all Jews everywhere”, or because some extremists do cry “anti-Semite” every time somebody frowns in Israel’s direction. There is an implicit connection between Israel and all Jews everywhere, whether we like it or not. To deny this leads to the removal of the entire reason for Israel’s existence.
The trouble is, when arguments against Israel get broken down into the fine details, anti-Jewish sentiment starts to reveal itself all too often. I’m not saying either of you are doing that here, as this is just a discussion about the concept of criticism, and neither of you are making any actual criticisms of Israel at this point.
David Preiser
“Certainly criticism of Israel can be legitimate and not anti-Jew by default.”
I agree.
“I most certainly do not accept the argument that just because some criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, that none is.”
Neither do I accept that arguement but nobody is making it here.
“There is an implicit connection between Israel and all Jews everywhere, whether we like it or not. To deny this leads to the removal of the entire reason for Israel’s existence.”
Absolutely. The difficulty however is that the term antisemitic is bandied about too much on this blog. Certain contributers blatently use it as a means to try and silence debate.
I do not accept that Israel (therefore Jews) are a special case that should be given more leaway that another other country, race, group or religion.
“Gurion was a cowardly terrorist who didn’t have the guts to accept responsibility”
You are a cowardly, ignorant antisemitic tosser.
“I do not accept that Israel (therefore Jews) are a special case that should be given more leaway that another other country, race, group or religion”
What you and other antisemites do all the time is single out Israel and Jews for more rigorous criticism than the criticism you apply to anybody else on the planet. That is what makes you antisemites.
I haven’t critisised Israel at all on this blog. All I have said is that I reserve the right to critisise without being called antisemitic.
It seems you throw the antisemitic smear about without any reason other that someone doesn’t fully agree with you.
You object to my position. This says more about you then me.
“ignorant antisemitic tosser.”
Oh Dear!
Yes, but you have also said that you support Israel, in the same way that you support the UK, and that you criticise both. But I see no evidence at all of your “support” for Israel. Again, I object, as does Nearly Oxfordian, to people bashing Israel out of all proportion to criticism of other countries, many of which are far more deserving of criticism than Israel. The BBC does this almost automatically.
You have not responded to this point, so I’ll ask you again. If disproportionate criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, then what is it?
Bryan
Of course disproportionate criticism of Israel is anti-semitic but who decides on what is or not proportionate?
Nearly Oxfordian adopts a scattergun approach of insult and abuse to anyone who offers any critisism.
This I object to so now I get the abuse.
“But I see no evidence at all of your “support” for Israel”.
Is this a club.? Does one have to provide evidence of support for Israel and Unionism before one can post? Show me any evidence that I don’t support Israel!
You can whine ‘Oh, dear’ all you like. He is, as I said, an ignorant antisemitic tosser by any meaningful definition of the term, all 3 constituent parts of it, and every one of his posts in relation to the matter under discussion proves it. If you can’t see that, it says more about you than about me because it demonstrates that you cannot engage your brain where Jews are concerned, any more than JB can. Or you don’t want to.
More nonsense from Matt. He doesn’t like my objection to demonstrable anti-Jewish and anti-Israel bias, which I have been and will continue to characterise as antisemitism for the simple reason that it is, so he attributes to me some silly method he calls ‘scattergun approach’. This is brainless. I use ‘antisemitism’ in a very precise way (see above), when I see evidence for it. If Matt doesn’t like antisemitism to be criticised, he’d better say so instead of resorting to this weasely nonsense.
Of course disproportionate criticism of Israel is anti-semitic but who decides on what is or not proportionate?
Common sense old chap. Israel’s neighbours carry out the most appalling acts of savagery on a daily basis against their own people and others in the name of “religion”, while Israel is a fundamentally democratic, Westernised country following the rule of law and with complete freedom of religion, but these savage neighbours of hers don’t attract a tiny fraction of the criticism continually fired at Israel.
I don’t understand why this is apparently such a difficult concept, unless of course you have been force-fed the doctrine of moral equivalence by lefty teachers and media like the BBC.
No, there’s no club here, and anyone can post, as should be evident by the kind of stuff we get from the John Bulls and John Reiths of this world. When I last looked, they hadn’t been banned.
I was heartened by your statement that you support Israel because, as I said, we need all the help we can get. I’m just curious to know what form this support takes or whether it is simply a position you adopt for purposes of your argument.
Nearly Oxfordian
“This is brainless””
There you go again. You can’t help yourself can you?
What is brainless is your seeing antisemitism in any comment about Israel that doesn’t suit you. No discretion or arguement required.
Bryan
“I don’t understand why this is apparently such a difficult concept.T
It isn’t. Who is argueing that it is?
“What is brainless is your seeing antisemitism in any comment about Israel that doesn’t suit you. No discretion or arguement required”
An utterly stupid statement. Aka a complete lie.
I could point you to Bryan’s excellent analysis above, if I thought you had the mental apparatus to appreciate it.
Nearly Oxfordian
“An utterly stupid statement. Aka a complete lie.”
Really!
“if I thought you had the mental apparatus to appreciate it.”
I think you may be a teenager. That would explain, though not excuse your unreasonable and dare I say pitiful manner.
Bryan, is prepared to enter into debate. You appear unable to.
And you have the temerity to call me a bully!
Well, it was a lie, and there are plenty of examples on this site that do give it the lie.