Do Jews really think like this?

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 5:32 pm

anastrophe wrote: false. i've already stated why i feel it's a perfectly legitimate descriptor.
I'm sorry, the only reason I can find that you've stated is "that it exists". This does not dispute its existence as an epithet.

i'm devastated.
As am I. At your lack.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:12 pm

type in "islomofascist definition" or "islomofascist dictionary" there is no legitimate top 10

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:14 pm

or top 20

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:15 pm

or top 30. Need I go on?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:30 pm

koan wrote: or top 30. Need I go on?

if you were making an ounce of sense, i'd say 'sure'. but you're not.

"type in "islomofascist definition" or "islomofascist dictionary" there is no legitimate top 10"

what does this mean? "type in" to what? where? and why should there be some sort of "legitimate top 10" or "top four million" as a result?

are you by chance referring to a search engine? if so, which search engine? and how do you determine "top ten" - what does that refer to? do you mean the top ten results returned? if so, when did the ranking of results somehow become a determinant of the legitimacy or lack thereof of a search term?

this is lunacy.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:01 pm

anastrophe wrote: if you were making an ounce of sense, i'd say 'sure'. but you're not.

"type in "islomofascist definition" or "islomofascist dictionary" there is no legitimate top 10"

what does this mean? "type in" to what? where? and why should there be some sort of "legitimate top 10" or "top four million" as a result?

are you by chance referring to a search engine? if so, which search engine? and how do you determine "top ten" - what does that refer to? do you mean the top ten results returned? if so, when did the ranking of results somehow become a determinant of the legitimacy or lack thereof of a search term?

this is lunacy.
your favourite. Google.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:21 pm

koan wrote: your favourite. Google.

i happen to hate google, as they're evil. but perhaps you were being ironic.

search results returned by google are usually ranked by how many other sites link to a given site, and often by their relevance in terms of potential for advertising revenue for google. as such, rank is devoid of any probative value. it's meaningless. definitely not a substitute for scholarship.

there are a great many words that are used as epithets and badges of honor by turns. liberal. intellectual. soldier. lawyer. politician.

the responsibility for the interpretation lies with the interpreter. in the context i use islamofascist, it is indeed an epithet. no doubt offensive to apologists for terrorists and thugs who toil to rid the world of jews and other infidels, and who wish to impose the caliphate, and shar'ia law, upon all.

i'm not obliged to apologize for despising the mindset.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:27 pm

anastrophe wrote: in the context i use islamofascist, it is indeed an epithet.
that is all i sought to establish.

btw, you have recommended google searches in the past. it just doesn't suit your needs at the moment.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:34 pm

koan wrote: that is all i sought to establish.

btw, you have recommended google searches in the past. it just doesn't suit your needs at the moment.

bollocks. i use google all the time even though i hate them. that's irrelevant however; i have never, nor would i ever, claim that the 'rank' at which a result came up in a google search meant anything at all. what matters is the content found within the search result itself, not the location in the list of results google returned.

give google a simplistic and 'gamed' query, and you can get any result you want at the very top of the list. it's meaningless.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:59 pm

The question is whether "islamofascist" is a legitimate word. Aside from an epithet. I have yet to see any evidence. You hate google yet you use it. You claim is is a legitimate term yet you use it as an epithet...how are you making a point here?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:08 pm

koan wrote: The question is whether "islamofascist" is a legitimate word. Aside from an epithet. I have yet to see any evidence. You hate google yet you use it. You claim is is a legitimate term yet you use it as an epithet...how are you making a point here?

i ask the same every time you post.

Richard Bell · Post by **Richard Bell** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 pm

Posted by Scrat :

This is disturbing propaganda but then all lies stem from truth in some form.

About Jewish Religion by Professor Israel Shahak

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis.htm

Your source is complete bollocks.

When can we expect your rabid dissertation on the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion ?

I'm still waiting to hear you say that you "own Malibu".

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:36 pm

Richard Bell wrote: Your source is complete bollocks.

Says who? Not being snarky, I really want to know why it's "bollocks."

ETA: It helps if you include a name in your quote, too...saves us from having to go back and see who it is you're quoting. Just a friendly tip! :yh_bigsmi

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:51 pm

anastrophe wrote: i ask the same every time you post.
your quip does not provide proof that you were in the right.

You ask. I provide my sources. I ask you for yours. You skate around and try to make it about me again.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:05 pm

koan wrote: your quip does not provide proof that you were in the right.

You ask. I provide my sources. I ask you for yours. You skate around and try to make it about me again.

yawn.

islamofascism is a cold, calculated descriptor. it derives from the fascist - that is to say, antithetical to freedom and democracy - tendencies of radical, fundamental islamic rhetoric, which calls for a return to the caliphate, and imposition of shar'ia law upon all. as well as either the conversion or execution of infidels.

i'm sure some do find it an offensive epithet; those who are apologists for religious zealots who have no qualms at killing anyone who is not a muslim (and even other muslims who aren't professed to their particular branch of islam).

Richard Bell · Post by **Richard Bell** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:06 pm

BabyRider wrote: Says who? Not being snarky, I really want to know why it's "bollocks."

Sez me!

Fundamentalist screeds give me the creeps. (I'm all about being snarky, BTW, when the situation arises. Dismissing putrid anti-Semitisism is such an occasion.)

BabyRider wrote: ETA: It helps if you include a name in your quote, too...saves us from having to go back and see who it is you're quoting. Just a friendly tip! :yh_bigsmi

Done ! Thanks. My bad !

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:09 pm

Richard Bell wrote: Sez me!

Fundamentalist screeds give me the creeps.

Oh, so it's your opinion. I thought maybe you had something to refute it. These types of threads I mostly learn, not post, that's why I asked.

Richard Bell wrote: Done ! Thanks. My bad !
No, thank you! Makes it much easier to follow, is all. At least for us lazies that don't like to go back and see where the quote came from. :yh_bigsmi

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:09 pm

anastrophe wrote: yawn.

islamofascism is a cold, calculated descriptor. it derives from the fascist - that is to say, antithetical to freedom and democracy - tendencies of radical, fundamental islamic rhetoric, which calls for a return to the caliphate, and imposition of shar'ia law upon all. as well as either the conversion or execution of infidels.

i'm sure some do find it an offensive epithet; those who are apologists for religious zealots who have no qualms at killing anyone who is not a muslim (and even other muslims who aren't professed to their particular branch of islam).

apologist. descriptor. antiethetical to freedom and democracy. rhetoric. now there's something you understand.

Find me a dictionary that accepts islamofascist as a legitimate word.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:19 pm

koan wrote:

Find me a dictionary that accepts islamofascist as a legitimate word.

it's a new word. it's not in the dictionary. clearly it exists, and is in use. i've just provided a serviceable definition. others have used it similarly.

you're going to grind this axe until there's nothing left, aren't you?

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:21 pm

For one who so freely throws around the epithet of "anti semetic" you don't take accusations kindly in return.

It is your axe and my grinder is currently in use. You might want to look up the origins of that phrase. I'm no fool.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:25 pm

koan wrote: For one who so freely throws around the epithet of "anti semetic" you don't take accusations kindly in return.

It is your axe and my grinder is currently in use. You might want to look up the origins of that phrase. I'm no fool.

you really want to end that with a straight line dangling like that, just begging for the retort?

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:36 pm

Origin: A man has a grinder. A passerby notices and asks how it works. The owner says let me show you. The passerby happily hands his axe over. The axe is ground the owner gets nothing and the passerby has a much better axe for it.

Moral: Grind your own axe, anastrophe.

You have proven nothing.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:25 pm

Diuretic wrote: I'm starting to read "Christofascist" which I assume is a derogatory epithet being used towards some Christians and in the context I've seen it used, that is, read it, I haven't heard it yet (in person, on radio, on tv for example) it refers primarily to people I would normally - and preferably - call fundamentalist. Fascism for me has a particular meaning but I suppose we see neologisms all the time so the suffix "fascist" applied to whichever person or group anyone happens to dislike at any given time is going to appear more and more.

christofascist would be a perfectly valid term, but your suggestion that it would refer simply to fundamentalists is too broad. those who believe in the imposition of christianity or christian principles by force, and the installation of a christian theocracy on all would be closer to the mark. there are certainly extremists like abortion clinic bombers who would appear to hold to that ideology, after a fashion.

But then it assumes that "Fascist" is a bad thing too and to some extent that can't be the the case as there were a lot of people in Italy in the 1930s and 1940s who regarded the term as something of which to be proud.

keyword: "were". lots of early communists felt communism was the bee's knees as well. that communism tends to dissolve into a more corrupt form of government than even fascism has rather ruined the glamour of the term 'communist' likewise.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:37 pm

Diuretic wrote: My reference to fundamentalists was just my own view. Personally I have no time for any suggestion that a political system and a religious system be mixed. I can see no good coming from any theocratic system.

thus the reason i believe islamofascism is a valid, pointed term describing the potential danger the path suggests, and has demonstrated (see taliban - afghanistan).