Irish passports used in Hamas killing

[Capt. Beaky]

There are specific reasons why anti-Semitism was common in Europe. Notably (in the middle Ages) the ban on Christians profiting from “usury”. In the context of the times usury covered charging any interest on loans, not just exorbitant rates. Because of this Jews were resented and blamed when debtors couldn’t pay their bills (just as bankers are now). The fact that many knights going on Crusades to the Holy land financed their trips with Jewish backed loans and then returned broke also added a religious twist to the equation. Jewish religious laws about cleanliness and marriage and traditions around social contact also led to social isolation.
In short there are reasons why Jews in Europe were resented by many and hated by some, just as there are reasons why the Irish were hated in England and America (remember the New York Times cartoon showing the drunken Irish ape-man riding on the back of the disgruntled Anglo-Saxon protestant local?). Every minority was hated in Europe through the middle ages (the Cathars in Languedoc France for example) so Jewish people we nothing special in that regard. The reason that they stand out is that they survived their oppression, unlike most of the rest.

There is indeed a reason why European Jews were and are hated but it has much more to do with the ignorance and bigotry of non-Jews than their victims. If in doubt just look at those at the forefront of anti-Semitic movement at the moment; German and Russian skin-heads and the most extreme sections of the National Front in the UK. If you are happy to be associated with these people by virtue of nod-and-a-wink insinuations in your posts then that’s your prerogative but it’s not something that I would wish for.

Although it is 44 years since I sat the Leaving Cert , I do remember learning that anti-jewish sentiment was around in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Purple, when you say "anti-Semite", are you including all Semites or just Jewish ones? Because a lot of Semites have a justified hatred of Jews. Palestinians for example.

 

[Purple]

"The export markets open to Israel are frequently among the world's most unsavory; indeed, to be off limits to the superpowers they often are located inside the very gates of hell. Already under international censure for its oppression of the Palestinians in the territories it occupies, Israel's dealings with the scum of the world's tyrants-including the white clique in South Africa, Somoza of Nicaragua, Gen. Pinochet of Chile, Marcos of the Philippines, Duvalier of Haiti, Mobutu of Zaire, the allegedly cannibalistic Bokassa of the Central African Republic-invariably result in its further exclusion from more "respectable" circles. "A person who sleeps with dogs shouldn't be surprised to find himself covered with fleas," comments the military correspondent for Israel's major daily newspaper."

The language used in this quote shows a bias and downright childishness by the author. None of the leaders listed above are in power, most have been out of power for decades. None of them were put in place by Israel (it was the USA, UK and France). All of the major powers, and some minor ones like Belgium and Holland, sold them weapons. Looking at world since the Second World War the country with the most blood on its hands as a result of colonial or pseudo-colonial activities is France, between Algeria and Rwanda alone they are getting on for 1.5 million deaths... and yet France sees fit to lecture Israel about how it behaves. Every state, just like every person, is, to some extent, a hypocrite. Ireland as much as any. That’s why I’m wary of those that stand on the moral high ground.

Latrade’s post above is excellent. Emotion solves nothing in a complex conflict were right and wrong depend on perspective and what historical period you start counting from. A careful examination of the historical facts and the historical and current players shows that Israel to a great extent, and the Palestinians to a greater extent, have been pawns in other people’s power games for generations. There’s no reason why the current situation cannot change. Look at Jordan and how it has transformed from an aggressive protagonist to a constructive peace maker.

 

[Purple]

Although it is 44 years since I sat the Leaving Cert , I do remember learning that anti-jewish sentiment was around in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Purple, when you say "anti-Semite", are you including all Semites or just Jewish ones? Because a lot of Semites have a justified hatred of Jews. Palestinians for example.

Definitions of anti-semite.

 

[Capt. Beaky]

Definitions of anti-semite.

Purple, I had a feeling that you were an old fashioned boy, but, obviously, not this old fashioned
Ancient Semitic peoples
[broken link removed]
Approximate distribution of Semitic language around 1 A.D.




The following is a list of ancient Semitic peoples.

• Akkadians — migrated into Mesopotamia in the late 4th millennium BC and amalgamate with non-Semitic Mesopotamian (Sumerian) populations into the Assyrians and Babylonians of the Late Bronze Age.[4][5]
• Eblaites — 23rd century BC
• Aramaeans or Chaldea — 16th to 8th century BC[6] / Akhlames (Ahlamu) 14th century BC[7]
• Ugarites, 14th to 12th centuries BC
• Canaanite language speaking nations of the early Iron Age:
  • Amorites
  • Ammonites
  • Edomites
  • Hebrews/Israelites — founded the nation of Israel which later split into the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The remnants of these people became the Jews and Samaritans.
  • Moabites
  • Phoenicians — founded Mediterranean colonies including Carthage
• Old South Arabian speaking peoples
  • Sabaeans of Yemen — 9th to 1st c. BC
• Ethio-Semitic speaking peoples
  • Aksumites — 4th c. BC to 7th c. AD
• Arabs, Old North Arabian speaking Bedouins
  • Gindibu's Arabs 9th c. BC
  • Lihyanites — 6th to 1st c. BC
  • Thamud people — 2nd to 5th c. AD
  • Ghassanids — 3rd to 7th c. AD
  • Nabataeans — adopted Arabic in the 4th century AD

 

[Purple]

Purple, I had a feeling that you were an old fashioned boy, but, obviously, not this old fashioned
Ancient Semitic peoples
[broken link removed]
Approximate distribution of Semitic language around 1 A.D.




The following is a list of ancient Semitic peoples.

• Akkadians — migrated into Mesopotamia in the late 4th millennium BC and amalgamate with non-Semitic Mesopotamian (Sumerian) populations into the Assyrians and Babylonians of the Late Bronze Age.[4][5]
• Eblaites — 23rd century BC
• Aramaeans or Chaldea — 16th to 8th century BC[6] / Akhlames (Ahlamu) 14th century BC[7]
• Ugarites, 14th to 12th centuries BC
• Canaanite language speaking nations of the early Iron Age:
  • Amorites
  • Ammonites
  • Edomites
  • Hebrews/Israelites — founded the nation of Israel which later split into the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The remnants of these people became the Jews and Samaritans.
  • Moabites
  • Phoenicians — founded Mediterranean colonies including Carthage
• Old South Arabian speaking peoples
  • Sabaeans of Yemen — 9th to 1st c. BC
• Ethio-Semitic speaking peoples
  • Aksumites — 4th c. BC to 7th c. AD
• Arabs, Old North Arabian speaking Bedouins
  • Gindibu's Arabs 9th c. BC
  • Lihyanites — 6th to 1st c. BC
  • Thamud people — 2nd to 5th c. AD
  • Ghassanids — 3rd to 7th c. AD
  • Nabataeans — adopted Arabic in the 4th century AD

I know all that. It doesn't change the fact that "anti-semite" has a clear meaning in modern english just as caucasian has a particular meaning in modern English and yet some caucasian peoples are black (sub-Saharan African). Pedantry alls nothing to the discussion.

 

[Capt. Beaky]

............. If in doubt just look at those at the forefront of anti-Semitic movement at the moment; German and Russian skin-heads and the most extreme sections of the National Front in the UK. If you are happy to be associated with these people by virtue of nod-and-a-wink insinuations in your posts then that’s your prerogative but it’s not something that I would wish for.

As I was saying, it seems to have been around quite a while and not just from middle ages to modern day skins. Surely malicious gossip could not cause so much trouble over the ages? People, for whatever reason, make up their own minds. I'm merely asking if anyone can come up with a non-excitable reason for this sort of loathing up to the start of the 20th century.

 

[Teatime]

i know all that.

:d

 

[ajapale]

What would the reaction be if agents from a muslim country used false irish or british passports in a plot to kill an israeli national?[broken link removed]

What would be the reaction if agents from a European country used false passports to plot to kill people of other nationalities in, say, a south Pacific Island?

 

[Capt. Beaky]

Apart from Samoans, haven't heard of many Pacific Islanders creating havoc in European countries. And they tend to do it in the scrum

 

[Purple]

As I was saying, it seems to have been around quite a while and not just from middle ages to modern day skins. Surely malicious gossip could not cause so much trouble over the ages? People, for whatever reason, make up their own minds.[/URL]

Do you hold the same views about black people and homosexuals? No smoke without fire, eh? What about Muslims, going around in traditional dress and fasting and praying... we Europeans haven't liked then since... well, since we first met them. There are over a billion of them. Are they bad guys too?

I hope you never get stuck in a lift with a black Ethiopian Jew, who’s gay.

 

[Capt. Beaky]

Do you hold the same views about black people and homosexuals? No smoke without fire, eh? What about Muslims, going around in traditional dress and fasting and praying... we Europeans haven't liked then since... well, since we first met them. There are over a billion of them. Are they bad guys too?

I hope you never get stuck in a lift with a black Ethiopian Jew, who’s gay.

Personally speaking, I hold no grudge against any nationality, colour or creed. However, as a human being with the ability to make decisions about things, I think that a pretty homogenised world would have less strife. If people assimilate, then there is little room for racism. Now you may or may not be aware that in SA and Brazil (to name but two) peoples of lighter skin look down upon those of darker hue. And they are entitled to do that.
As regards my not liking 'foreigners' ...... maybe wide of the mark. Considering that I was best man at a black/white wedding, one of my best friends is Jewish and I patronise Curry houses on a weekly basis. The latter, I may add, not when the pub has just closed.
One type of person that does irk me is someone who is full of PC guff and constantly takes the moral high ground.

 

[Purple]

Personally speaking, I hold no grudge against any nationality, colour or creed. However, as a human being with the ability to make decisions about things, I think that a pretty homogenised world would have less strife. If people assimilate, then there is little room for racism.

I agree with you there.

Now you may or may not be aware that in SA and Brazil (to name but two) peoples of lighter skin look down upon those of darker hue. And they are entitled to do that.

We all have our prejudices, myself included, but that doesn’t make it right. When you say that people who hold racist views are entitled to hold such views do you also think that such views have merit? For example I don’t have a particularly high opinion of the travelling community but I don’t consider my biases to be a virtue.
I also find it hard to understand that logical and intelligent people can hold strong religious beliefs, it’s all just different kinds of crazy to me, but unless they seek to limit the freedoms of others because of their beliefs I have no problem with that.

As regards my not liking 'foreigners' ...... maybe wide of the mark. Considering that I was best man at a black/white wedding, one of my best friends is Jewish and I patronise Curry houses on a weekly basis. The latter, I may add, not when the pub has just closed.
One type of person that does irk me is someone who is full of PC guff and constantly takes the moral high ground.

So while you judge people as you find then, on the merits of the individual, you have no problem with others who judge people based on race, creed or sexual preference. How do you square that one? Are you a “I take people as I find them” person or a “He might be black but he’s all right” kind of guy?

 

[Latrade]

If people assimilate, then there is little room for racism. Now you may or may not be aware that in SA and Brazil (to name but two) peoples of lighter skin look down upon those of darker hue. And they are entitled to do that.

I don't get the point you're making here. Assimilation sounds as if the "immigrant" or whatever is to absorb themselves completely into the culture of the new country. Why? It's not like the Irish immigrants did and that's not a bad thing. The retention of the Irish Culture had an eventual positive impact on where they settled. Boston, Liverpool, Glasgow, to name a few, wouldn't be the cities they are without the stubborness of the Irish to not assimilate.

As to SA and Brazil, why do the lighter skins have the right to look down on darker skins? Is it just their right to hold a prejudice? While true, this doesn't negate a person's right to hold their views in contempt. Secondly the lighter skins are the immigrants and so didn't assimilate.

This isn't being overly PC, I just don't get the point you were trying to make.

As regards my not liking 'foreigners' ...and I patronise Curry houses on a weekly basis. The latter, I may add, not when the pub has just closed.
One type of person that does irk me is someone who is full of PC guff and constantly takes the moral high ground.

That's a joke right? Going for a curry means that people are fully accepting of foreigners?

Why is it PC guff for Purple to disagree with you? You claimed a no smoke without fire position when it came to the historical hatred and persecution of the Jewish people, then hid behind the argument that people have the right to hold racist and prejudice views, but when this is argued against it's PC Guff from people taking the moral high ground.

Nothing Purple has said is PC guff, unless historical accuracy is now PC guff. It just happens to devalue and discredit the views you have put forward. As uncomfortable as that is, it isn't guff.

 

[Capt. Beaky]

..........

So while you judge people as you find then, on the merits of the individual, you have no problem with others who judge people based on race, creed or sexual preference. How do you square that one? Are you a “I take people as I find them” person or a “He might be black but he’s all right” kind of guy?

Yes, it's the former for me. However after working in the Middle East, Africa and continental Europe for over 20 years I took certain things on board when making work decisions. Just as you'd do in Ireland.

 

[Capt. Beaky]

I don't get the point you're making here. Assimilation sounds as if the "immigrant" or whatever is to absorb themselves completely into the culture of the new country. Why? It's not like the Irish immigrants did and that's not a bad thing. The retention of the Irish Culture had an eventual positive impact on where they settled. Boston, Liverpool, Glasgow, to name a few, wouldn't be the cities they are without the stubborness of the Irish to not assimilate.

As to SA and Brazil, why do the lighter skins have the right to look down on darker skins? Is it just their right to hold a prejudice? While true, this doesn't negate a person's right to hold their views in contempt. Secondly the lighter skins are the immigrants and so didn't assimilate.

This isn't being overly PC, I just don't get the point you were trying to make.



That's a joke right? Going for a curry means that people are fully accepting of foreigners?

Why is it PC guff for Purple to disagree with you? You claimed a no smoke without fire position when it came to the historical hatred and persecution of the Jewish people, then hid behind the argument that people have the right to hold racist and prejudice views, but when this is argued against it's PC Guff from people taking the moral high ground.

Nothing Purple has said is PC guff, unless historical accuracy is now PC guff. It just happens to devalue and discredit the views you have put forward. As uncomfortable as that is, it isn't guff.

Tell the British government that multiculturism has worked there! When is the last time you visited Harlesden, Peckam, areas of Hackney, Toxteth, Balsall Heath or Southie? Times have changed Latrade. This is how ghettos form. By thinking along your rigid lines you are in danger of getting paradigm paralysis.
Regarding your ideas about changing the inherent views of non caucasians in Brazil ............ try visiting the favelas of Recife.
The bit about restaurants was not meant as a joke. You don't see many right wing bigots in Curry houses. I've gotten to know quite a lot of the waiters and owners. These people I chat to when meeting them in the street.
Finally, about the single issue bores and PC brigade .......... well, enough said.

 

[Latrade]

Tell the British government that multiculturism has worked there! When is the last time you visited Harlesden, Peckam, areas of Hackney, Toxteth, Balsall Heath or Southie? Times have changed Latrade. This is how ghettos form. By thinking along your rigid lines you are in danger of getting paradigm paralysis.
Regarding your ideas about changing the inherent views of non caucasians in Brazil ............ try visiting the favelas of Recife.
The bit about restaurants was not meant as a joke. You don't see many right wing bigots in Curry houses. I've gotten to know quite a lot of the waiters and owners. These people I chat to when meeting them in the street.
Finally, about the single issue bores and PC brigade .......... well, enough said.

Sorry, but by making the statement I highlighted in bold, you've completely invalidated your point about visitng Britain. If you were to visit Britain and some of the areas renouned for their curry you would actually see a lot of right wing bigots in the curry houses. It's part of the irony of their stupidity. One well local group of the BNP are known to hold their post meeting meals in the local curry house without a trace of irony.

However, I've a huge experience of Britian having lived there for the first 25 years of my life. I know London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Newcastle, Birmingham and numerous other places would not be the huge cultural centres they are without immigration and multiculturalism.

Multicultrualism has proven to work, what failed in Britain was the well intentioned, but ultimately misguided forcing of multiculturalism. It was the attempt to fast track it via local authority policy that failed, not the concept of multiculturalism.

I have no rigid views and that's an amazing leap to make just from me asking for clarification on a point you were making. You state "assimilation" is needed, but then excuse or seek to justify the view of white immigrants feeling superior to the darker natives. So my conclusion from that is that assimilation is something the "darker" economic immigrants should do, but not the "lighter" immigrants who tend to be part of an invading superior force.

Again, when you make outlandish statements, people will question them. If you're not prepared or able to present a logical argument (beyond what restaurants you frequent) then don't attack the individual making the statements.

 

[Purple]

Yes, it's the former for me. However after working in the Middle East, Africa and continental Europe for over 20 years I took certain things on board when making work decisions.

What things do you take on board?

 

[Capt. Beaky]

Sorry, but by making the statement I highlighted in bold, you've completely invalidated your point about visitng Britain. If you were to visit Britain and some of the areas renouned for their curry you would actually see a lot of right wing bigots in the curry houses. It's part of the irony of their stupidity. One well local group of the BNP are known to hold their post meeting meals in the local curry house without a trace of irony.

However, I've a huge experience of Britian having lived there for the first 25 years of my life. I know London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Newcastle, Birmingham and numerous other places would not be the huge cultural centres they are without immigration and multiculturalism.

Multicultrualism has proven to work, what failed in Britain was the well intentioned, but ultimately misguided forcing of multiculturalism. It was the attempt to fast track it via local authority policy that failed, not the concept of multiculturalism.

I have no rigid views and that's an amazing leap to make just from me asking for clarification on a point you were making. You state "assimilation" is needed, but then excuse or seek to justify the view of white immigrants feeling superior to the darker natives. So my conclusion from that is that assimilation is something the "darker" economic immigrants should do, but not the "lighter" immigrants who tend to be part of an invading superior force.

Again, when you make outlandish statements, people will question them. If you're not prepared or able to present a logical argument (beyond what restaurants you frequent) then don't attack the individual making the statements.

The places I spoke of were run down, graffiti strewn, crime ridden areas. Most businesses have upped and left.
I was talking about Dublin - not Brick Lane. Tell me any of these restaurants in Dublin where skins gather ........ I'd go along to see how they are received.
If multiculturism worked then there would be no need to force it on people. Positive discrimination didn't help much either. Remember Brent council under our Ken ............ or Lambeth council, under Ms Diane - to name a few.
As regards the lighter pigmented peoples looking down on darker skinned - it doesn't always go that way worldwide. You may have seen recently how in the Cape area, indigenous Africans told the whites and coloureds to leave if they didn't like the situation. Presumably, in your book this is OK.
Finally, I can only take from a passage what I see. Surely, as Roy Keane says, "I've got the right to be wrong" - providing that I think I am right . This is something that others, who are high in the pontification stakes, should look into.
I don't think I've attacked the poster. If you percieve that, then maybe you are a tad oversensitive. Please don't see this as an attack on your blinding enlightenment.
This post is very much off topic.

 

[Capt. Beaky]

What things do you take on board?

Different nationalities have their strong and weak points. You allocate work in this way. It may not be 100% but, hey, it was not a voyage of discovery in humanities but purely empirical.

 

[Purple]

Different nationalities have their strong and weak points. You allocate work in this way. It may not be 100% but, hey, it was not a voyage of discovery in humanities but purely empirical.

OK, so now it seems that you don’t take people as you find them, you not only have a pre-ordained bias but you allow that bias to decide what a person is good for even after you meet them. If that’s not the case then why you first two sentences above? In the past it was generally accepted in the UK and USA that Blacks and Irish were good at manual work but couldn’t be trusted and weren’t that bright. Jews were good with figures but no good at manual work and Germans were disciplines and hard-working. Catholics were also thought of as dishonest and lacking a good work ethic by Protestant Brits and Yanks. Generally speaking those perception are now accepted as inaccurate as they are neither logical or rational.
If I was looking for a person in an engineering role I would rather hire a well qualified black Irish engineer than German with a degree in fine arts. That’s not PC rubbish or limp-risted liberalism, it’s simply the triumph of logic over bigotry.

You allocate work in this way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPcLPzItOQs