Anelka - Quenelle gesture

[QuartzGooner]

MrT

Of course it is right to check someone out first before labelling them as something.
In this case I and others were well aware of Dieudonne's activities and have been for a few years, he is well reported on in the Jewish press, as is the racial tension in France.
His bigotry and hatred promoting activities are clear for all to see.

This was no "Offense" being taken from a one-off remark, or an ill judged comment ie. Kanye West's recent remark about Jews having money and being connected; offensive as a stereotype but basically ignorant, rather than the views of a hardcore anti-Semite.

The media storm over Anelka was a desire on to fully inform what Anelka was buying in to, the support of a persistent anti-Semite and a man who has promoted violence and mocked racially motivated murder at many times over the last decade.

An interesting point made by David Horovitz in the Times of Israel.
Anelka scores his first goal in two years in English football.
But there is no smile, no joy, no spontaneity, no arms aloft in celebration, no running to celebrate with his team mates.
Just a stone face and a political gesture.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/nicolas-an ... of-hatred/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rest of my post off at a tangent from the thread but anyway:

For the record, even if Dieudonne was anti-Zionist but somehow not an anti-Semite (which for a non-Jew is the virtually the same thing in my book) I would still have a problem with him, myself being a Zionist and Israeli citizen.
Zionism in my "bottom line" definition being the Jews' desire to live in Israel so that we can perform certain religious duties in Israel, an integral part of the Jewish faith.

I do, as stated in a previous post, have some "Internal" differences from some aspects of some Zionists regarding those who are/were in favour of promoting secular nationalism in place of religion, but that is very much going off on a tangent for this thread and indeed this Forum.

As for Christianity I am far from the greatest expert on that faith but the Christian friends I know have charity and kindness as their chore beliefs. The atrocities carried out over the years in it's name are twisted interpretations of it.

As for what you call the "Old Testament" G-D, then his ways are mysterious, but fair.
I do not expect you to agree with that.
(What mass murder do you refer to? )

[Monkeymaw]

MrT

Of course it is right to check someone out first before labelling them as something.
But in this case I and others were well aware of Dieudonne's activities and have been for a few years, he is well reported on in the Jewish press, as is the racial tension in France.
His bigotry and hatred promoting activities are clear for all to see.

This was no "Offense" being taken from a one-off remark, or an ill judged comment which was ignorant. ie. Kanye West's recent remark about Jews having money and being connected; offensive as a stereotype but basically ignorant, rather than the views of a hardcore anti-Semite.

The media storm over Anelka was a desire on my and others' parts to make it fully known what Anelka was buying in to, the support of a persistent anti-Semite and a man who has promoted violence and mocked racially motivated murder at many times over the last eight years or so.

An interesting point made by David Horovitz in the Times of Israel.
Anelka scores his first goal in two years in English football.
But there is no smile, no joy, no spontaneity, no arms aloft in celebration, no running to celebrate with his team mates.
Just a stone face and a political gesture.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/nicolas-an ... of-hatred/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rest of my post off at a tangent from the thread but anyway:

For the record, even if Dieudonne was anti-Zionist but somehow not an anti-Semite (which for a non-Jew is the virtually the same thing in my book) I would still have a problem with him, myself being a Zionist and Israeli citizen.
Zionism in my "bottom line" definition being the Jews' desire to live in Israel so that we can perform certain religious duties in Israel, an integral part of the Jewish faith.

I do, as stated in a previous post, have some "Internal" issues with some aspects of some Zionists regarding those who are/were in favour of substituting nationalism in place of religion, but that is very much going off on a tangent for this thread and indeed this Forum.

As for Christianity I am far from the greatest expert on that faith but the Christian friends I know have charity and kindness as their chore beliefs. The atrocities carried out over the years in it's name are twisted interpretations of it.

As for what you call the "Old Testament" G-D, then his ways are mysterious, but fair.
I do not expect you to agree with that.
(What mass murder do you refer to? )

Since having kids I see religion and it's detrimental effects everywhere around me.
I went to two religious schools (catholic) until I was 16 and all the "real" Christians involved in teaching us were absolute nutters. I'm sure most of the kids knew this but we had to play the funny worship game to humour them. Having studied The Bible throughout schooling it has plenty of mass murder tales to thrill children of all ages.
Luckily the Christians haven't got the power these days to really do damage like they have done over the centuries with the torture and burning people like don't like.
My six and four year olds go to our local village school which happens to be cofe. I always thought they were more relaxed but both of them come home spouting off God is great rubbish. It's like Children of the bloody Corn sometimes.

[Cockerill's chin]

Quartz, it appears you are saying that for a non-Jew to be against Zionist principles then they would be anti-semitic. This if true, would be a preposterous, offensive and bigoted statement.

[armchair]

What was that other "celebration" Anelka used to do? The arms crossed over the chest and the wiggly fingers thing?

What was that all about?

[Red Gunner]

What was that other "celebration" Anelka used to do? The arms crossed over the chest and the wiggly fingers thing?

What was that all about?

It was a secret pro-Falange celebration. Just look at Anelka's fingers and the Falange logo arrows:





I've done analysis and...



Anelka has been celebrating with subliminal fascist gestures for ages now... He's as bad Adolf Shearer:

[SteveO 35]

I'm offended by the lack of offensive posts in the last hour

[armchair]

[SteveO 35]

I blame John Cleese

[armchair]

[father_ted]

Bloody 'ell, forehead scored for us??? This offends me.

[SteveO 35]

Bloody 'ell, forehead scored for us??? This offends me.

I'm offended that Father Ted is offended by the offensive Forehead. Can we shut this offensive thread down please, otherwise I'll be even more offended

[QuartzGooner]

Quartz, it appears you are saying that for a non-Jew to be against Zionist principles then they would be anti-semitic. This if true, would be a preposterous, offensive and bigoted statement.

Of course you would have to define what you mean by "Zionist principles", but if you regard Jews wishing to live in the land of Israel and have sovereignty over the land as wrong, then there can be no doubt that you would be anti-Semitic.

If you were against the modern nation state of Israel then you would have to qualify that in very specific terms as to why for you to not be anti-semitic.

Jews who are against the formation of the nation state are so because they believe Jewish soverreignty over Israel can only happen after the Messiah arrives.

So they are against the timing of the state's establishment.

They would also regard it as a secular state whilst they would want a theocracy.

But for a non-Jew to oppose on thse principles? That would be anti-semitic as it would mean they would be saying Jews are somehow not "allowed" to have their own state, which would be bigoted.

The argument against the modern nation state of Israel that I hear is that"it was built on occupied Palestinia land."
To me that is a fallacy.

Israel existed as a country over 3000 years ago and lasted roughly 1300 years.
The Romans conquered it, and then after 260 years of Roman rule most Jews were kicked out, after 1.5M of us had been killed by the Romans.
So ever since then we have tried to retake the land, several armed attempts failed over the years until 1948 when we were successful.

The place called Palestine was a Roman notion, an attempt to de judaiaze the names israel and judah.
The British Mandate of Palestine went 2 percent to Syria, 76 percent to jordan and 22 percent to modern Israel, and that was going to be split in half until the Arabs rejected that in 1947.

But for some muslims, their desire for an Empire is strong, and they want no religion but Islam to have doninion over the Middle East, so Jews in Israel (and other Middle Eastern Countries), Christians in Israel, Egypt, syria and Lebanon, and druze in Syria (past few months have seen jihadists threaten the Druze with coversion to Islam or death in Syria) all pose a threat to their Caliphate ambitions.

Hence we fight.
,

[Cockerill's chin]

We have debated the history of the region before. Your view is quite simply an interpretation of historical events which suits the agenda you are advocating. As a moderator, it may be best if you post a link to that thread rather than us going over this again.

Would you call those opposed to the internationally criticised Israeli settlements on Palestinian land anti-semitic? Was resolution 446 anti-semitic? Illegal settlements adhere to Zionist principles. Would questioning them be anti-semitic? If the answer is yes then you are completely disrespectful to the suffering of families who have faced genuine anti-semetism.

If the answer is yes then you should think twice before you use a forum like this to espouse such right wing nationalistic nonsense under the pretense of rallying against a gesture which may reflect the genuine anti-semetism of Dieudonne.

[MM99]

Quartz, it appears you are saying that for a non-Jew to be against Zionist principles then they would be anti-semitic. This if true, would be a preposterous, offensive and bigoted statement.

Of course you would have to define what you mean by "Zionist principles", but if you regard Jews wishing to live in the land of Israel and have sovereignty over the land as wrong, then there can be no doubt that you would be anti-Semitic.

If you were against the modern nation state of Israel then you would have to qualify that in very specific terms as to why for you to not be anti-semitic.

Jews who are against the formation of the nation state are so because they believe Jewish soverreignty over Israel can only happen after the Messiah arrives.

So they are against the timing of the state's establishment.

They would also regard it as a secular state whilst they would want a theocracy.

But for a non-Jew to oppose on thse principles? That would be anti-semitic as it would mean they would be saying Jews are somehow not "allowed" to have their own state, which would be bigoted.

The argument against the modern nation state of Israel that I hear is that"it was built on occupied Palestinia land."
To me that is a fallacy.

Israel existed as a country over 3000 years ago and lasted roughly 1300 years.
The Romans conquered it, and then after 260 years of Roman rule most Jews were kicked out, after 1.5M of us had been killed by the Romans.
So ever since then we have tried to retake the land, several armed attempts failed over the years until 1948 when we were successful.

The place called Palestine was a Roman notion, an attempt to de judaiaze the names israel and judah.
The British Mandate of Palestine went 2 percent to Syria, 76 percent to jordan and 22 percent to modern Israel, and that was going to be split in half until the Arabs rejected that in 1947.

But for some muslims, their desire for an Empire is strong, and they want no religion but Islam to have doninion over the Middle East, so Jews in Israel (and other Middle Eastern Countries), Christians in Israel, Egypt, syria and Lebanon, and druze in Syria (past few months have seen jihadists threaten the Druze with coversion to Islam or death in Syria) all pose a threat to their Caliphate ambitions.

Hence we fight.
,

And there lies the problem. Just because a supposed 'holy' book and has told you thousands of years ago that a piece of land is yours, it doesn't make it true. Empires have been gained and lost over history. Would it be fair for all of those who have lost lands to then start reclaiming them back as their own? Fair enough the Jewish people have suffered terrible persecution in the past, but that doesn't give Britain and the USA the right to divide Palestine in two to create Israel. Nor does it give Jews a greater right to the land than the Arabs that had been living there for hundreds of years.

Furthermore, anti-zionism does not equal anti-semitism. There are plenty of high profile vocal Jews who are anti-zionist but do not adhere to your definition of being "against the timing of the state's establishment." They simply disagree with the boundaries of the state of Israle as well as the bellicose tactics adopted by the administration.

[Chippy]

This thread is risking going off into a dangerous area. We have had problems when this subject has been discussed before. We are now a long way away from football. I am going to lock it now. Quartz if you want to unlock it again I will not be offended but I'd ask you re-consider.