Jews Backed 'Innocence Of Muslims' Conspiracy Theory Will Not Die, Say Jewish Groups

[oberliner]

(RNS) Respected news outlets unwittingly sent a lie around the world on Sept.12: a Jew backed by 100 Jewish donors made a film insulting Islam's Prophet Muhammad.

Within a day, the lie unraveled. But the damage to the Jewish community had been done, and Jews will continue to suffer for it, say Jewish civil rights leaders.

"This is another blood libel that's in place," said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, referring to a history of conspiracy theories that has fueled anti-Semitism for centuries.

In much of the Muslim world, the myth persists that Jews made the film. The Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press initially reported that an Israeli-born California real estate agent named Sam Bacile and his Jewish backers made the crude video, which has sparked anti-American protests throughout the Middle East.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/30/jews-backed-innocence-of-muslims-conspiracy-theory_n_1924548.html

These myths end up lasting forever, unfortunately.

[richmwill]

1. It wouldn't surprise me if Muslims believe that Jews murdered the hijackers on 9/11... (n/t)

[Kindly Refrain]

2. Isn't the damage done to the Muslim community a little greater?

[oberliner]

4. How so?

Can you clarify?

[Kindly Refrain]

6. Ummmm well that film caused riots in the global Muslim community.

Making US, European and Israeli fear-mongers targeting Muslims and holding them up and saying "Look at these savages!" .

[oberliner]

7. Within the global Muslim community, Jews are blamed for the video

That's the issue that the OP is addressing.

Fear-mongers using these riots to paint all Muslims as savages ought to be condemned for sure - but that is a separate issue, I think.

This issue deals with the fact that those very Muslims who rioted or who were angry about the video are still under the impression that "The Jews" were responsible for it.

[Kindly Refrain]

8. Well of course

They are sworn enemies. There is no changing that. Unless one or both sides back down. But from a PR point of view nobody outside of the extremist Muslim community believes that Jews were responsible except for maybe white supremacists.

[oberliner]

11. "nobody outside of the extremist Muslim community believes that Jews were responsible"

See, I'm pretty sure that is not true.

I think your average, non-extremist Muslim living in the Middle East believes it.

[Kindly Refrain]

61. "I'm pretty sure", "I think"

Got anything to back that up?

[oberliner]

65. Well Iran's Press TV continues to report it as such

And they are relatively moderate as far as Iranian new outlets go.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. Add to that the Lebanese papers out of Beirut

[Warren DeMontague]

9. No, the rioters caused the riots.

They could have done the sane thing and said "That piece of crap 'film' is offensive as fuck, but it's no reason to get violent"

They COULD HAVE done that. They did not.

No film "makes anyone" freak out and start killing people. Sorry.

[Nevernose]

38. They COULD have said

"Gosh, blasphemy is a sin in my religion, maybe I shouldn't watch it."

Instead they chose to riot and arson and murder until other people, people not of their religion, felt cowed into following some other religion's blasphemy rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. Yeah, that was pretty much my point.

[Nevernose]

63. I was agreeing

And I wanted to point out that what the Muslim world is calling out for is not really laws governing hate speech, but laws governing blasphemy.

[sabrina 1]

55. We don't know what caused the riots. And just as the rumor that Jews created

the film was wrong, it was also wrong for the media to portray the protests as 'riots' and to make it seem that they were huge, when in fact the numbers were pretty small and mostly peaceful. The media created the image of all the protests being the same as the Libyan attack which had little to do with the film, if anything at all.

The film makers and Pamela Geller and her right wing bigoted hateful backers COULD have refrained from making the film in the first place. I don't know about you but I consider hate and bigotry to be worst kind of violence and always has been throughout history.

But it's interesting the pass and even the defenses these bigots and hate-mongers get here while all the blame is put on a relatively small number of protesters, some of whom, according to some reports, may even have been paid to start the protests.

We know for certain that Geller has wealthy right wing backers, that millions has been spent to spread this hatred. THAT is the problem, hate and bigotry. Some of those protests had more to do with our continued killing of Muslims around the world than with the film.

I know it's not considered important here when Muslims are murdered in their own countries by Western powers, but during that time, several, innocent young girls and their teachers were killed while gathering wood in Afghanistan by Drones. We once said 'oops, sorrrrreeee' and moved on. Most Americans didn't even know it happened.

So maybe those daily killings had more to do with the outrage than the film. Just a thought as I know how devalued the lives of Muslims have become in the West, including innocent children. 'We don't do body counts'.

We don't, but they do.

[Quantess]

58. You are second guessing their stated reason for their outrage.

The middle east has what seem to be very good reasons, from our perspective, to be outraged. However, they themselves say that blasphemy and the mocking of Islam is what is making them so angry.

Also, what about the Danish cartoonists? Denmark is not actively engaged in bombing the ME, as far as I know.

[sabrina 1]

59. I don't know what caused the protests, but they were mostly peaceful and generally

pretty small. We have also been told that some of them were paid to go out and protest. There should be, but I doubt there will be, a thorough investigation into that allegation. I would not be surprised at all if that happened.

Remember eg, the 'huge crowds' around the statue of Saddam Hussein all waving little American flags. Except they were not huge crowds as we found out when a photographer revealed with a long shot that the crowd was not only very small, they had been brought there with the flags etc by Chalabi

Otoh, many of these countries regardless of religion, have very good reasons to be angry at western powers who have for decades, supportered their worst dictators not to mention invaded their countries and killed untold numbers of innocent men women and children, not to mention torture and destruction of their countries. I am surprised to be honest that there have not been daily riots against the killing and destruction of their countries.

[Kindly Refrain]

60. There was that little incident in Colorado

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-20/us/us_colorado-theater-shooting_1_gunshot-wounds-gunman-theater

[Warren DeMontague]

62. Right, and I don't blame Batman for that, either.

[snooper2]

64. I think some fundies went bezerk when they saw "The Mist"

[4th law of robotics]

80. No: ignorance, superstition, manipulation, fear, anger etc

cause those riots.

The movie caused. . . I don't, a headache maybe? Regret for having wasted X amount of your life?

[longship]

3. Two-State Solution!!!!!

The only peaceful approach.

Bibi sucks! He, and his Likud idiot friends do not want peace and have not ever wanted peace. They only want Armageddon.

Israel security is a shadow without fucking actual peace talks and the end to settlements waxing messianic.

Fuck Israel's current government. Security comes only with peace. And JHVH didn't give anybody any land. Not now. Not ever.

Disgusting situation made worse by all participants, but especially Israel.

[oberliner]

5. What does this have to do with the OP?

The OP is about how the initial false info about Jews being behind the video is still believed by many in spite of information to the contrary.

[loli phabay]

13. i got no idea either, unless its some kind of code or something

[leftynyc]

56. Yawn

Your screed has absolutely nothing to do with the OP. Try changing the subject someplace else. Like a playground.

[OldDem2012]

10. Just curious, but does anyone think this video...

...may have been backed by people linked to extreme right-wing GOPers like the NeoCons? Could they have been hoping to create much more of a foreign policy mess for President Obama just a couple of months before the general election?

[oberliner]

12. You don't buy that it was Egyptian-American Copts?

Curious to know if there is something that seems fishy to you.

[OldDem2012]

14. The funding for the full-length film...

...and trailer had to come from somewhere, didn't it?

The cost of the film was widely reported to be in the neighborhood of $5 million. Do you think the Egypt-American Copts had that much cash to invest in this kind of project?

Yes, I do think there is something fishy about the timing of the "release" of the trailer. And yes, GOP operatives have done similar things in previous election campaigns.

[loli phabay]

15. what do you think all american copts work minimum wage jobs or something

they like all peoples cover the whole range of financial situations and 5 million is not a lot to raise if you put your mind to it and you tap into the religious strife that abounds between the copts and the muslims.

[OldDem2012]

18. Wow. That's a cheap shot. nt.

[loli phabay]

22. and appropriate to your contention that the copts wouldnt have that kind of money to spend.

[Scootaloo]

26. As opposed to your apparent belief in some sweepting Coptic conspiracy

Instead of the notion that maybe just maybe the GOP has its fingers in this particular cow pie.

How strange.

[loli phabay]

30. not sweeping i just know that copts have no love for the people who have treated them abysmly in

aeygpt, so its not to far a jump that some copt guy made the movie or the trailer due to his own hatred of muslims. not everything is some grand conspiracy involving the gop, zionists or the illuminati.

[Scootaloo]

36. "the people who have treated them abysmly"

Yeah, those fucking animals, right?

I think I just shit myself in fear!



Anyway. Yeah, it's most likely the one asshole and some of his buddies. But if we're gonna talk conspiracy - and why not - I think the GOP is a better target for it than the Bavarians.

[loli phabay]

41. not sure why you think this picture has anything to do with the coptic christians

i think you will find that is the US ambassador in the pic, go do some research and see the animosity towards the coptic christians in aegypt and you will find some reasons why a lot of coptic christians are not enamoured of their muslim neighbours.

[Scootaloo]

44. Because the film dehumanizes Muslims as a group.

Including those ladies there. Apparently you feel this is justified, because some Copts have a rough time because of some assholes in Egypt.

[loli phabay]

45. no im saying i can understand copts having issues with muslims due to their treatment from them

regardless if its a minority or not, and i wouldnt call gettting killed and having your churches burned just a rough time it goes way beyond a rough time i think.

[Scootaloo]

46. Good to know.

I sense the frayed edges of a double standard though. Enjoy yourself, DU is very tolerant of your sort, I've found :wave:

[loli phabay]

47. nope no double standard i just know there are nuts in all religions, i got no probs with them until

they start killing and burning, as to my sort what sort would that be. One thing i hate about DU is the posters writing stuff that can be misunderstood rather than just saying what you mean, not sure if its a cultural thing or a lack of courage thing.

[Scootaloo]

48. I've noticed the same problem.

Lots of wink wink nudge nudge stuff.

[loli phabay]

49. yeah i dont get it, took me a while to understand the amount of whats called troll hunting

never seen anything like it on any other forum ive been in, not my sort of thing but it seems to be a full on full time thing for some. Seems to be a part of du culture to intentionally try to have people banned by goading them and setting people up. Im still lost half the time with whats going on.

PS i hate that dog avatar thing you have it creeps me out lol

[Scootaloo]

69. That's not a dog! Good lord, you heathen...

It's a pony.

[loli phabay]

85. lol i honestly thought it was some wierd cartoon dog

now i see its one of those ponies, funnily enough my kids watch that show though ive never seen it.

[oberliner]

16. Looks pretty cheap

I'm pretty sure the interested parties could've gotten the funds together relatively easily.

Incidentally, the "trailer" gained attention when it was broadcast in Egypt by an Egyptian television program.

It had been sitting around on YouTube for months prior.

[OldDem2012]

19. Yes, the film was cheap to make, but...

...it is believed "Bacile", the "film-maker", pocketed the remainder of the cash. That would certainly fit what we know about him today.

By the way, what do you know about Steve Klein?

[oberliner]

21. I'm saying the film could have been made for a few thousand dollars

Have you seen the clips? There is no way in hell millions of dollars were spent. That was clearly a lie.

Steve Klein is an anti-Islamic fundamentalist Christian activist who was some sort of spokesperson for the film.

[JI7]

17. this is just the type of Conspiracy in the OP , we know who is behind it

already.

[OldDem2012]

20. ??? Explain, please.

[Nye Bevan]

23. I'm sure that's what Mel Gibson and Helen Thomas believe (nt)

[Scootaloo]

29. Good to see that the right-wing bullshit about Helen Thomas still has a home on DU

Next maybe I'll hear all about how ACORN endorsed child prostitution, and other Okeefisms!

[Nye Bevan]

31. So she never said "Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by Zionists"?

or that Jewish people should "go home" to Poland and Germany?

I apologize. I guess she never made those horrible anti-Semitic remarks. I made the mistake of trusting Wikipedia, and I stand corrected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Thomas

[Scootaloo]

33. Maybe you should read the wiki. Or even watch the video of the exchange.

Since Thomas is talking about the settlers in Palestine, and not the Israelis in Israel. Said settlers are mostly immigrants from the countries she named.

Of course, since she's just some stupid irrational Arab, she must have meant "THROW THE JEWS INTO THE SEA!" rather than what she actually said, right?

[Nye Bevan]

35. Ah, so Congress, the White House, Hollywood and Wall Street are owned by the SETTLERS IN PALESTINE.

OK, got it. Thanks for the clarification,

[Scootaloo]

37. Zionism is a political ideology.

And does not equate "Jews" in the minds of rational people.

In all honesty, it's a much better shorthand for "christian fundamentalism," anyway

[aquart]

51. Bullfuckingshit.

Zionism is the euphemism for "dirty Jews." "I don't hate Jews, just Zionism."

Because only the Jews aren't permitted their historical homeland.

[Scootaloo]

52. Thanks for proving my point.

"in the minds of rational people."

As for this line?

only the Jews aren't permitted their historical homeland

One, I posted an image on this thread. Look at it. It's a map of this place called "Israel." I understand that maybe a few Jews live there, and it's sort of in the region as an iron-age Jewish kingdom. They have this policy there, called "Aliyah" or something to that effect, which to the best of my understanding is sort of the opposite of "No Jews Allowed!"

Two, have you ever heard of a people called "Chickasaw?" How about "Roma"? No? "Chagossians?" "African-Americans?" "Ngunnawal?"

Point is, there's a long list of peoples who aren't permitted to live in their historical homeland. Unless Israel has suddenly vanished from the time-space continuum, Jews aren't among those groups, and haven't been for over sixty years.

[loli phabay]

53. can you tell me where the rom homeland is

thanks and i dont mean where in asia origination was, i mean where home is thanks on edit or where tsigan and rom are headed towards or which land should be the homeland.

[Scootaloo]

68. What, does point of origin only "count" for some people?

Isn't that one of the arguments presented for Israel? "This is where they come from so it's theirs"? Surely, with this logic, we can hand Uttar Pradesh back to the Roma people, and their many and varied descendants through Eurasia and America, right?

Frankly from an anthropological and historical view, it's a fucking dumb argument in the first place; if we're going to play it like that, then Israel, Lebanon, most of Syria, and probably the Sinai belong to whoever on the planet has the highest concentration of neanderthal genes.

However, I felt like making the point to counter Aquart's garbage.

[loli phabay]

73. point is israel is seen by the jewish people as their homeland

There is no such feeling towards any geographical area within the rom. Home is the horizon and the place the bead lays that night. I get what you were trying to do just wondered why you used the tsigan as your example.

[redgreenandblue]

75. So if the Cherokee nation decides that all of Georgia, Lousiana, Tennessee and Alabama...

... is their homeland, do we give it to them?

Their claim is much stronger than that of Jews to Israel, since their historical ties to the region are only a few centuries old, and not 2000 years as is the case with Isreal.

Hell, if one believes the ancient books, it laid out precicely in the Old Testament that even then it was taken through genocide.

[loli phabay]

76. uh i was saying that unlike the jewish people who see israel has their home

Tsigan dont see any area as the homeland and have no wish to have one. Now if the cherokee could organise and had the strength to take and hold what they see as their homeland then i dont even know if they would but if they did would you support them. Im of the mind that every piece of land at one time or another belonged to someone else and it would be a clusterfuck and a half if we tried to right every invasion.

[Scootaloo]

78. So, you're disagreeing with your own argument?

Im of the mind that every piece of land at one time or another belonged to someone else and it would be a clusterfuck and a half if we tried to right every invasion.

Except you clearly feel the Jews have entitlement to a homeland they ruled two thousand years ago.

So, which is it? Is the patchwork of human history too messy to try to rectify every "lost homeland" it contains, or is rectifying that situation an absolute right for the people involved?

'Course, there's two other options, from what you've posted.

1) Only one ethnic group in the history of humanity has this entitlement. That's pretty damned racist.

2) Anyone who can kill and take land is entitled to that land, end of story. This appears to be the argument presented in this particular post. "Might makes right." I would hope you understand the ethical problems of this notion.

[loli phabay]

83. unfortunately might makes right is the way of the world

as to israel we have to deal with the situation as we find it, its not as if you can deport every person who emigrated there since 48, plus you now have the issue of a large number of israelis actually being born there. Mayby today if there was no israel as a political entity then it wouldnt be set up but there would probuably still be a movement to do so, much the same as other groups aspire to become independant. now to entitlement every group has the absolute right to advocate for their rights to their own independance, as many already do i just prefer it to be through the ballot box. point two i take in a historical stance as i was talking aqbout invasions as in the past, the world is different today than it was even 150 years ago. Hope this clears stuff up for you.

[Scootaloo]

87. Alright then. Might makes right.

You have no problem if Israel is "pushed into the sea," because might makes right. You had no problem with the near-extermination of Jews from Europe, because might makes right.

Or do you mean it only makes right, when it's a group you support that has the might?

[loli phabay]

88. not sure where you are coming from here

i think i was saying that might makes right is unfortunate but that has been the way of the world until fairly recently, as to israel being pushed into the sea no idea were that came from either, you do understand that i was talking historically that that has been the way of human civilisations and i wasnt making any judgements on it. Israel is a fact on the ground regardless of what people think and its here to stay. I think to even bring the notion of the darkening into a conversation to try to make a point was unneccassry.

[Scootaloo]

91. I'm coming from the position that you don't appear to believe it is "unfortunate" at all.

At least, not so long as it supports an angle you want to see supported. Let me guess; "until very recently" stopped exactly on March 10th, 1949, then became unacceptable. It was, of course, acceptable again for exactly six days in June, 1967 (but utterly unacceptable, six years later!) And of course, if we decide to bomb the shit out of Iran, I guess "Might makes right" will have its acceptability renewed in your books, for however long that takes?

No, I think you cleave pretty tightly to the notion of "Might makes right." Trouble is, it's an ethically indefensible notion, that the strong should dominate the weak, survival of the fittest, lesser races fall before greater races bullshit. And you have decided to not make judgement on it. Really? You have no standing on the subject? Horse puckey.

[Scootaloo]

79. Well, point of order...

Most Jews don't live in Israel. ~4 million live in Israel, and ~10 million live elsewhere. So a big blanket statement like in your title, seems to fall short. It appears "The Jewish Prople," like most human beings, figure home is where you hang your hat.

Second, "home is the horizon"? Do they play the fiddle while frolicking in a devil-may-care way the whole time, too? With scarves and pretty painted vardos and the occasional "adopted" village child?

C'mon. Don't do the romanticized stuff, you know better.

[loli phabay]

84. no romantism home is the on the horizon is a valid feeling regardless if settled or not

home is best defined as the piece of ground you stand on and the place you will stand on tomorrow thus tomorows home is the horizon. now to the point of the jewish people regardless if they live in israel or not israel whether the physical place or the ideal is woven into the culture from prayers to their toasts, at least in the interactions i have had with them, hell they even have a word for returning aliyah (spelling?) whereas the rom have no such conception or dream of returning to the land of plenty.

[Scootaloo]

90. And you think in all cases, it points to a particular strip of Levantine dirt?

It doesn't. Zionism is a political ideology, but not all Zionism is "political Zionism." There's such a thing as "cultural Zionism," with a subset of "spiritual Zionism," the idea that the Jewish People comprise a unified nation unto themselves without need for a particular chunk of land dedicated to them (spiritual Zionism posits, appropriately a "spiritual homeland" in terms of relationship to God).

There's also such a thing as Romani nationalism. Which does look more like the "cultural" than "political" variety of the comparable Zionism. But since the latter grew from the former, who knows, maybe the same will happen with Romani nationalism, and one of their congresses will demand a tangible homeland in the future. Would you support their demand?

[loli phabay]

93. no ii would not support that demand though any nation who wanted to settle can

Much the same as many jews dont support israel but many do and haved moved there. Not sure many rom would even want to return to the cursed land even if it was preposed.

[Scootaloo]

94. I didn't figure you would.

Some people are more equal than others, I guess.

[loli phabay]

95. uh no idea what you mean by that care to elaborate

[Scootaloo]

96. Very simple.

I asked if you would support a nationalist Romany bid for a physical homeland, if it ever came up. You said you would not.

However you hold that Jews deserve such a homeland.

My thought on this is if we're going to apply a standard, it should be applied equally. I think the idea of "People X deserve a homeland" is kind of silly, for the anthropological and historical reasons outlined above. But if that's the game we're going by, it needs to be applied to all people who want such a homeland. Fair is fair, after all.

You seem to believe it is a "right" that is exclusive to exactly one group of people on the planet through the whole of history. Unquestionable for them, impermissible for all others.

In other words, that some people are "more equal" than others

(if the phrase itself confuses you, it's an "Animal Farm" Reference; all the animals on the farm are equal, but the pigs get together and decide that they are "more equal" than the rest - I.e., are actually above the other animals and get to determine what 'equality' means for those lesser creatures.)

[loli phabay]

97. i believe i said i would not support a return to a cursed land for the rom

but if some of the nation wanted to they could, speaking for my family i would not cast my voice for it, same as i wouldnt support virginia from leaving the union but if the majority of virginians decided they wanted to then i would not stand in their way. another good example is i dont support an independant scotland but if the people want it then thats there call.

[redgreenandblue]

74. "All human life is from Africa. Where is my free piece of land and privileged status in Nigeria?"

... pretty much sums it up that brand of "logic".

[oberliner]

66. Do you have any thoughts on this exchange?

PLAYBOY: In America you’re talking about a relatively small community. Jews make up roughly two percent of the U.S. population. On a worldwide level, the percentage is well under one percent. Those numbers don’t exactly spell domination.

THOMAS: I get where you’re leading with this. You know damn well the power they have. It isn’t the two percent. It’s real power when you own the White House, when you own these other places in terms of your political persuasion. Of course they have power. You don’t deny that. You’re Jewish, aren’t you?

PLAYBOY: Yes.

THOMAS: That’s what I thought. Well, you know damn well they have power.

[Scootaloo]

67. Yeah, I do, and thanks for making me aware of it.

I think context and timing is important. By the point of this playboy interview, Thomas' name had been utterly ruined over what amounts to nothing; her statement was basically, Israel has no rights to the occupied territories. And because of this statement, she's suddenly a ravening antisemite nazi arab whore, who gets fired and everything she's ever said thrown out with her, fifty years of awards rescinded, all because she said something that, weirdly, the "pro-israel" factions of America pretend to agree with.

This was the result of an O'keefe-style "gotcha interview," done by right-wing propagandist (I'm sorry, 'journalist') David Nesnoff. In this video, I'm sure you've seen, he initially asks about Israel, and then switches to talking about Jews, while Thomas continues discussing about Israel. Nessnoff then launched a campaign to basically fuck Thomas over, providing a minute of the two-minute interview to her employer (Hearst Newspapers) and talking with them about how they needed to fire her over this. Meanwhile the edited footage is being used to promote his son's new "journalism" website. later the two minutes is released in full, but by then... Helen Thomas is that ravening antisemitic nazi arab whore that you guys enjoy portraying her as now.

In that context? She got royally fucked by a "Pro-Israel" right-winger and his allies who had set out to fuck her over, and a complicit media who was more interested in demonizing an Arab journalist who said something that doesn't fit the wax-faced Fox news Consensus than in actually handling the story.

So, my opinion? Had this statement of hers come before all that, it'd be utterly contemptible. Since it came after, it's still wrong, but it's the angry words of someone who got fucked over lashing out.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. It isn't "right-wing bullshit."

The real question is why so-called progressives defend what she said. She wasn't talking about "settlers", she was talking about ALL of Israel. It amazing her bullshit is still defended, in a thread about anti-Semitism, no less!

[Scootaloo]

50. Yes it is.

Allow me to demonstrate, through the magic of a jpg image and audience participation.

Here's the image:

(edited because yikes that was bigger than I thought!)

Now, what I want you to do, take your finger, now point to "Israel" on that map. Okay, good. Now. Point to "Palestine" on that map. Or well, at least what Americans understand as "Palestine" (yes yes, semantic hangup on that one. Just call me antisemantic, I guess.)

Palestine is shorthand for "The Occupied Palestinian Territories," because fourteen syllables is a heck of a mouthful for an impromptu conversation. We do say "Palestinians" and not "Westbankers and Gazans" for about the same reason.

Now. You are faced with a choice of conclusions.

Either a well-respected American journalist who's been on the White House press committee forever, just fucking suddenly turned into the Wicked Witch of the Wahabbi and declared all Jews in Israel should "go to Poland!"

Or...

She was saying that the illegal settlers - mostly immigrants from the named countries - should get the fuck out of territory that does not belong to them, and maybe go back to their original nations.

I think the real question is why you would unquestioningly, religiously almost, accept the first, worst notion.

Oh. Right.

She's Lebanese-American. Makes all the difference.

[Behind the Aegis]

54. Typical.

Here's the transcript:

Interviewer: Any comments on Israel? We're asking everybody today...

Thomas: Tell them to "Get the hell our of Palestine."

Interviewer: Oooo. Any better comments?

Thomas: (laughing) Remember these people are occupied and it's their land. It's not German and not Poland.

Interviewer: So where should they go? What should they do?

Thomas: Go home.

Interviewer: Where's home?

Thomas: Poland. Germany.

Interviewer: So you are saying the Jews should go back to Germany and Poland?

Thomas: And America and everywhere else.

So, she was either stating the fantasy you and others wish to adhere too because she was a poor old, confused woman accosted by a "sneaky Jew rabbi" and was totally misunderstood and taken out of context.

Or...

She was talking about all of Israel being Palestine. Given most of the settlers aren't German or Polish, and given that all of the settlers are Israeli, wouldn't it have been more prudent to tell them to "Go back to Israel."? Given it was 2010 and there were no "Israelis" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) left in Gaza...well. And when the conniving Jew said "are you saying Jews should go back to Germany and Poland?", rather than correcting him, she continued with "America and everywhere else" but she really was only talking about the settlers.

I think the real question is why you would unquestioningly, religiously almost, accept the first, best notion, despite claiming you are "...fighting against hypocrisy and bigotry.

Oh right.

It's Israel. Makes all the difference.


ETA: Let Helen speak for herself (oh, BTW, she does that whole conflating Jews and Israelis thing you supposedly hate): http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2011/02/16/behar.helen.thomas.hln

[Scootaloo]

77. Funny how the "sneaky, conniving Jew" bullshit is all coming from you, Aegis

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

Nor do I think Thomas was a "poor old confused woman." I think what she said has been misrepresented, and intentionally so, by a right-wing engine that has been trying to tear her down for forty fucking years, because she was an icon of the "liberal media."

Because again, somehow she's managed to pull off fifty years in the public eye as a media icon, with innumerable awards, speaking engagements, correspondences, interviews, pressers, columns written, etc. Works just fine with her many Jewish colleagues the whole time, and then, what, two minutes of criticizing Israel and then...

After those two minutes, she's revealed as the "sneaky conniving Arab."

Imagine that.

[Behind the Aegis]

82. But Scootaloo..."the Wicked Witch of the Wahabbi " from you?!?!

I guess you didn't hold back on how you really feel either.

Of course you think she was "misrepresented", that factI was already established .

And after 50 years in the press, it is finally revealed she doesn't know what to do when she is on the other side. Perhaps she needs another Playboy interview with a non-Jew doing the interview for her to get the fair shake she so "richly" deserves.

[Scootaloo]

86. Well, that is exactly how she has been portrayed over this, Aegis

You're a fool if you believe her Lebanese background does not figure into it. There's definitely this "Aha, I knew she was just like all those other damn dirty Arabs all along!" strain running through this whole thing.

You really think she had never been "on the other side" before that moment? That's what you're going with, "Oh, Helen Thomas's ugly dirty antisemitic secret was never revealed before, because oh! She had never been under interview, ever!"

Right. Well, if that's what you think, then you are a pretty damn big fool.

Maybe she should have just pointed at Nesenoff and screamed "KAPO! JUDENRAT! FILTHY SELF-HATING JEW!" because that never seems to burn the asses of Alan Dershowitz or Charles Krauthammer. Good thing they're not Arabs, I guess.

[Behind the Aegis]

89. Yes, she is, by some detractors and many of her defenders.

Make her look like the victim and her nasty, ugly remarks are suddenly "a-OK" with some in the liberal set. That's how it works Scootaloo, the same way people are portraying the interviewer as a "sneaky, Jew bastard" picking on some poor old woman.

I love your false conclusions, they just add to her defense, and are totally expected. I guess it makes you feel better and allows you to feel good about making personal attacks, because, well, then it is ok.

In a thread about anti-Semitism, here you are ignoring the actual topic and only interjecting with something when it interferes with the "correct" version of events about another example of anti-Semitism.

[Scootaloo]

92. Well, please don't attribute this to me, then

I do not think that Thomas is a "poor old woman," nor do I feel that Nesenoff is a "sneaky Jew bastard." I think she's a journalist who's been misrepresented, and I think Nesenoff is a sneaky right wing bastard (thus my comparison to james O'Keefe, which clearly indicartes my loathing of the Irish, I'm sure). Her nasty remarks in the playboy interview are not "a-OK" but in context, I can say "I see where she's coming from," an angry person lashing out after being screwed.

Also please do note, I haven't ignored the topic of the thread, any more than you have as we engage in this Helen Thomas sub-thread started by Nye Brevan (the fuck does Helen Thomas have to do with Bissouley's lies? Not a damn thing, but let's cram her in there anyway!)

[Fire Walk With Me]

24. I've received about five email spams linking to it so =someone= truly has an investment

in causing problems in the world.

[oberliner]

25. Linking to the movie itself?

For what purpose?

[Fire Walk With Me]

32. On youtube, talking it up. I haven't kept any of the emails but it's certainly evidence

of some sort of campaign. Someone somewhere wants to stir shit in a big way. It's quite purposeful.

[Scootaloo]

27. And this is WHY the makers of that film created the lie

It was plainly made with the full knowledge SOME asshole somewhere was going ot start shit with it.. .And it was the apparent design of the producers that that shit be targeted at Jews.

[SIDURI]

28. It's not a "theory", it is a slander

It is not a "myth", it is a lie.

It would help if the media could get that part right.

Siduri

[MADem]

42. It died with me the very SECOND I heard that the "producer" was a naturalized Egyptian Copt nt

[Behind the Aegis]

43. I don't know why this is surprising news.

The "Protocols" were long disproved and yet they still keep popping up in movies, plays, and articles. It is just like the article says, it is akin to the blood libels; it doesn't matter how many times it is disproved, it will be an everlasting mark that would outlast us, even if they managed to kill us all.

[leftynyc]

57. But according to many here

it's blasphemy against Muslims that's the problem. Muslim countries can broadcast (WITH government okay) any crap against Jews and that's perfectly okay....nobody riots about that. It's why those calling for blasphemy laws are such a fucking joke.

[David Zephyr]

71. Exactly.

+1000

[David Zephyr]

70. K&R.

First, oberliner, I see your OP got thread-jacked and that's a shame.

I saw and heard with my own eyes and ears the media saying that this stupid piece of shit film was financed by Jews here in America.

I also have yet to hear anyone in the news media make an attempt to clear up that incindiary falsehood.

What's pathetic is that on one hand there's the big lie that Jews control the media and here's a clear example where Jews were blamed by the media for something they had nothing to do with whatsoever and where the media will not clear up this lie.

I salute you, oberliner, for your thread.

If I heard the lie, then millions more heard the lie and the lie is still out there.

It's surreal. Lunatic Christians make a stupid film about Muslims and the Jews get blamed. Pathetic.

K&R.

[oberliner]

72. Thanks

Iran's Press TV is still pushing this lie.

An article was published there just six days ago which included this line:

The Muslim world has been outraged over the $5-million movie that was reportedly financed by more than 100 Zionist Jews.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/09/26/263610/catholic-bishop-slams-antiislam-movie/