Heh. Delightful non-story, Sa'eed. It's got a catchy, poorly reported headline, even!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Not even going to click on the link. Someone tell me if the columnist is a radical feminist woman or a jew please, cause there's no way in hell it's not about either.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: A nervous Adler told me over the phone that he wasn't advocating Obama's assassination by Mossad agents. "Of course not," he said.
But do you think Israel should consider it an option? "No."
But do you believe that Israel is in fact considering the option in its most inner circles? "No. Actually, no. I was hoping to make clear that it's unspeakable—god forbid this would ever happen.
So that'd be a 'no', then.
What's the point of this thread?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh, ok. so it's jew.
quote:What's the point of this thread?
Sa'eed (alternate names include the_Somalian, Clive Candy, and several other banned alts) is wildly antisemitic and keeps trying to inch in opportunities to talk about how scary and 'tribal' the jews are. Any opportunity will do.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Heh. Delightful non-story, Sa'eed. It's got a catchy, poorly reported headline, even!
Columnist suggests Mossad assassinate Obama over current tensions: a total non-story? Are you for real?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote: A nervous Adler told me over the phone that he wasn't advocating Obama's assassination by Mossad agents. "Of course not," he said.
But do you think Israel should consider it an option? "No."
But do you believe that Israel is in fact considering the option in its most inner circles? "No. Actually, no. I was hoping to make clear that it's unspeakable—god forbid this would ever happen.
So that'd be a 'no', then.
What's the point of this thread?
Well, it's likely that he's in legal trouble and getting investigated so it's not likely he'd say yes, he does in fact hope that Mossad assassinate Obama should that be necessary in his eyes.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Not even going to click on the link. Someone tell me if the columnist is a radical feminist woman or a jew please, cause there's no way in hell it's not about either.
But it's true, Jews are a tribal people and that creates problems when they're in gentile societies.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
go on
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
No don't.
Sa'eed: You can post about the article, and whether it warrants serious consideration all you want. I'm not comfortable with your discussing Jews as a people. We all know where that train goes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Too bad we can't...yknow, ban him for open anti-semitism, yes?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
That would be discriminatory against discriminative discriminators, and that would be wrong. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I've already told Sa'eed what he can and cannot do. I'd appreciate it if nobody tried baiting him into saying something where I would have to ban him. I don't get any pleasure in it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
*Wince*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'd appreciate it if nobody tried baiting him into saying something where I would have to ban him.
what if we had had a racist who had posted extremely, brazenly racist things that were hateful to blacks, been ordered not to discuss race issues anymore, and yet still hung around ~totally innocently~ making threads with a bizarre penchant to always be about, say, black on white crime. Or jeremiah wright. or "the bell curve: interesting study!" sa'eed is transparently doing this, just with jews. occasionally women or gays. whatever he thinks he can press.
Not asking for anything now. Just saying to keep that in mind and know that sa'eed's reliable pathology is to put in a tactical delay, then wait, then get right back to needling the forum with his antisemitic, misogynist, homophobic narratives. By making a big deal about it and making sure to stress exactly what he is and what he is doing in explicit and confrontational terms (apropos of nothing: sa'eed is an antisemitic, neurotically misogynistic, homophobic troll, and should be banned), we can at least throw out enough controversy and accusation that he stays quiet for ever larger stretches between ~innocuous posting about subject that only happens to involve jews~
cut it, print it, ship. that's a wrap everyone, see you next sa'eed thread
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My only point is: if Sa'eed has been told what he cannot do, to the point that when he does those things he cannot do he's reminded he's been told what he cannot do...
Well. I freely admit I don't understand why it would cause you any displeasure to ban him, JB. He's not an honest participant around here, and he regularly likes to toe the anti-Semitism line as much as he's permitted to get away. Or, as others have noticed many times, the misogynist line or the homophobic line. It's not as though he's an ordinary poster who's got some wacky ideas that he just can't quite keep to himself every now and then.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.
Yes, you read "three" correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles?
Another way of putting "three" in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives...Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?
You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.
This guy makes Glen Beck look level headed. Did he even pause to think how badly such a plan could backfire?
I'm pretty sure that even most of the republicans who have a visceral hatred for Obama, would not react favorably to Israel plotting his assassination.
Did he even consider how the average American might react to any foreign government assassinating our President before he put these words in print?
Seriously?? It's not like the guy was just talking off cuff about an idea he hadn't had the time to think through clearly. This was printed in a newspaper. He carefully wrote that down and sent it to an editor who published it. And apparently, up until he got a call from Gawker, he never really thought about the consequences of suggesting that assassinating the US President was an option Israel should keep on the table.
I'm pretty sure that just putting that idea in print is more likely to hurt than help Israel in court of public opinion.
The best possible interpretation of this is that the writer believes that Israel's right to protect itself gives Israel a moral right to dictate US foreign policy. It doesn't. Not even close.
[ January 23, 2012, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
A tie-in to that interpretation is that the writer was writing for a tiny, insignificant local apparently deeply reactionary publication. It's not as though this was read at a lecture at the regular world Jewry meeting which of course everyone just knows is a real thing.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'm just happy it's not OSC calling for it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*snort* Yeah, the closest he's come to that brand of crazy is to suggest-what was it-that Americans would potentially be justified in the future to armed revolution if sneaky liberals kept messing with the way things are.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: A tie-in to that interpretation is that the writer was writing for a tiny, insignificant local apparently deeply reactionary publication. It's not as though this was read at a lecture at the regular world Jewry meeting which of course everyone just knows is a real thing.
A reasonable assumption but mostly inaccurate. The Atlanta Jewish Times is available on line. You are correct that it is a small community paper, but based on the content of the online edition it doesn't seem be reactionary or even particularly political. It consists mostly of reports on community events, reports on national events involving prominent Jews and an occasional articles on Israeli politics. The couple of opinion articles that I read seemed fairly liberal.
The article in question does not seem to available in the online version of the paper. I have no idea whether it was removed or only appeared in the print edition.
It seems that the general readership of the paper was anything but sympathetic to Adler's view. He has now apologized and resigned as editor of the paper.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ahh, I took the 3500 circulation number as representative of its real readership, didn't think it might have a wider readership online. My mistake.
In any event, I'm sure we won't be hearing from Sa'eed the 'not-anti-Semite' about how this guy has resigned in disgrace.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The story isn't something of real consequence, but it is an amusing tale of zealous stupidity.
It can't be that common for the editor/owner of a small community paper to print something so appalling incendiary that he garners international attention and is forced to resign as editor of his own paper.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think it's probably not uncommon for the editor of a small newspaper to print something so stupid and incendiary, but not nearly as common to pick a topic that will-especially in the 21st century-so easily and so quickly garner that kind of attention.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I've already told Sa'eed what he can and cannot do. I'd appreciate it if nobody tried baiting him into saying something where I would have to ban him. I don't get any pleasure in it.
I agree with Rakeesh. You should get pleasure from it. It would be the right thing to do.
I understand why you don't, because you seem to be almost pathologically nice and forgiving.
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)