SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JohnM who wrote (76721)2/23/2003 11:37:22 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (4) of 281500
 
There is a line in here somewhere that everyone is in danger of crossing. Brooks' article gets very close to the line. An argument can be made that it hasn't crossed it; another that it has. The line is to find yet another reason to bash critics of the Bush administration by arguing not that they are unpatriotic or communist or whatever, but that they are anti-semitic.

Sometimes I get the impression from your remarks that you think that calling someone anti-semitic is a worse offense than being anti-semitic.

A simple list of facts:

ANSWER is Stalinist anti-Zionist, and anti-semitic
ANSWER is one of the chief organizers of the anti-war marches - not a "fringe" (Where they are getting the money for this would be very interesting to discover, but that's another story)
ANSWER has been allowed to blackball noted Jewish liberals from speaking as "pro-Israel"
ANSWER has also been allowed to put up mullahs as speakers who lead the crowd in chants of "Allahu akhbar" and "jihad".

The other organizing groups know this and don't mind. ANSWER is still organizing the next marches.

Now, an impartial observer would have to say at the most charitable interpretation, this amounts to a big "Don't Care" vote about anti-semitism from the other anti-war groups.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext