Hizbullah â??is not anti-Jewish. I repeat, they are not anti-Jewish.â?�

We are now seeing who the real enemy is.

Oh wait guys (won't name names!)...its from infowars.com. Better not read it. You might get enlightened. We can't have enlightened free thinking people in a fascist country now can we!
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3...nti_jewish.htm
Video on website too!


"[Hizbullah was] a direct result of Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon. The Israelis killed tens of thousands of people in Southern Lebanon during that occupation . . . this [was] part of the civil war. This is 1980. They devastated the south. Hizbullah went in really as a social services organization during the civil war. They are NOT anti-Jewish. I repeat, they are NOT anti-Jewish."
There goes the anti-semite card.

â??There is this great vilification of the Hizbullah people. They are always labeled as terrorists. They have NEVER, despite what Israel says, they have never attacked Israel, they have not attacked the northern border. It is Israel that has sent rockets into southern Lebanon on almost a daily basis and this is documented in daily UN reports of the situation.

I was in Tyre in 2004 and I saw the Israeli rockets coming over and exploding and the local people shrug their shoulders and say this happens daily.

I was in Beirut in July of 2004, and my husband was there last year, and the Israeli jet fighters come over with no provocation from the Lebanese army or air force - which is pretty weak - and they break the sonic boom, itâ??s a reminder to people as to who is boss â?? itâ??s bullying.â?�

nice propaganda posters, albeit somewhat cliche.

on another note, brian williams said in an interview with Jon Stewart, that hizbullah rockets were shitty anyways. He said they'd shoot them off, and the rockets would land somewhere in the lebaneese forrest... not even reaching their target...burning the forrest. Willaims said that there's alot of forrest fires in lebanon now. in a sense, brian williams has somewhat played down the conflict in the middle east.

i think there is something important that all jewish people and jewish sympathisers should know--you do NOT have to be a ZIONIST to support JEWS AND JUDAISM. being anti-zionist is NOT being anti-semantic. I know this because there are plenty of jews who do not supprot israeli occupation. That's what it is--it is an occupation. Learn and understand that.

Zionism is a nice idea in theory--let's give the displaced jews a homeland. in practice, it's not so good. the israeli jews could live perfectly well amongst the palestinians. however, like most provokers of war, they are greedy for power. it's not enough that they have a fucking country to live in--now they want to control the government, now they even rob the palestinians of their rights. fuck the zionists. you aren't real jews. jewish people are welcome in israel, just as long as they don't occupy the country with tanks and weapons.

I will put it in perspective: imagine all the mexicans in mexico invading the states of Texas, California, and all their territory that america robbed from them. Now imagine the mexicans using brute military force, driving through the streets of los angeles with thanks and automatic weapons, killing innocent american children because this territory once belonged to the mexicans. Their motive: the territory once belonged to mexico, so they are re-establishing their homeland. Now, do you think the american people would react kindly to this sort of thing? If mexico tried to occupy american cities, using brute military force, don't you think you as an american would be irate and scared , upset and fearful? This is how the palestinians feel.

what i see in zionism is a contradiction of the Torah--the jewish scriptures. the very basis of zionism has its roots in the religious scriptures, using the excuse that god gave the jews the land of israel for their own benefit and home. they use this excuse as a means to justify their killing of innocent people, of occupying a country using military force. If you read the 10 commandments, however, it states "do not take the name of the lord your god in vein". This doesn't mean, "Don't say god damnit because that takes the name of the lord in vein". Contrary, the commandment is meant to discourage people from using the name of God to justify their personal, selfish desires--which gives them some form of gain. Don't use the name of God to convince people to buy your religious audiocassette lectures, by which you profit from. Don't use the name of god to manipulate people into doing what you want. don't use the name of god to kill people so you can have power over a land that god expelled you out of anyways (as it is said in jewish scriptures).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IanCurtisWishlist

Zionism is a nice idea in theory--let's give the displaced jews a homeland. in practice, it's not so good. the israeli jews could live perfectly well amongst the palestinians. however, like most provokers of war, they are greedy for power. it's not enough that they have a fucking country to live in--now they want to control the government, now they even rob the palestinians of their rights. fuck the zionists. you aren't real jews. jewish people are welcome in israel, just as long as they don't occupy the country with tanks and weapons.

I will put it in perspective: imagine all the mexicans in mexico invading the states of Texas, California, and all their territory that america robbed from them. Now imagine the mexicans using brute military force, driving through the streets of los angeles with thanks and automatic weapons, killing innocent american children because this territory once belonged to the mexicans. Their motive: the territory once belonged to mexico, so they are re-establishing their homeland. Now, do you think the american people would react kindly to this sort of thing? If mexico tried to occupy american cities, using brute military force, don't you think you as an american would be irate and scared , upset and fearful? This is how the palestinians feel.

what i see in zionism is a contradiction of the Torah--the jewish scriptures. the very basis of zionism has its roots in the religious scriptures, using the excuse that god gave the jews the land of israel for their own benefit and home. they use this excuse as a means to justify their killing of innocent people, of occupying a country using military force. If you read the 10 commandments, however, it states "do not take the name of the lord your god in vein". This doesn't mean, "Don't say god damnit because that takes the name of the lord in vein". Contrary, the commandment is meant to discourage people from using the name of God to justify their personal, selfish desires--which gives them some form of gain. Don't use the name of God to convince people to buy your religious audiocassette lectures, by which you profit from. Don't use the name of god to manipulate people into doing what you want. don't use the name of god to kill people so you can have power over a land that god expelled you out of anyways (as it is said in jewish scriptures).

---

very well said, I cant say it any better...U, my friend can see thru....

Huh, they're not anti-Semitic? Ever see the Hezbollah-produced TV show called "Al-Shatat"? I guess not, or you wouldn't make an obviously false statement like that.

The series includes a dramatization of the killing of a Christian child and the use of his blood to make matzah. Of course, no one would think that was anti-Semitic. *laugh*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great Spirit

We are now seeing who the real enemy is.

Oh wait guys (won't name names!)...its from infowars.com. Better not read it. You might get enlightened. We can't have enlightened free thinking people in a fascist country now can we!
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3...nti_jewish.htm
Video on website too!


"[Hizbullah was] a direct result of Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon. The Israelis killed tens of thousands of people in Southern Lebanon during that occupation . . . this [was] part of the civil war. This is 1980. They devastated the south. Hizbullah went in really as a social services organization during the civil war. They are NOT anti-Jewish. I repeat, they are NOT anti-Jewish."
There goes the anti-semite card.

â??There is this great vilification of the Hizbullah people. They are always labeled as terrorists. They have NEVER, despite what Israel says, they have never attacked Israel, they have not attacked the northern border. It is Israel that has sent rockets into southern Lebanon on almost a daily basis and this is documented in daily UN reports of the situation.

I was in Tyre in 2004 and I saw the Israeli rockets coming over and exploding and the local people shrug their shoulders and say this happens daily.

I was in Beirut in July of 2004, and my husband was there last year, and the Israeli jet fighters come over with no provocation from the Lebanese army or air force - which is pretty weak - and they break the sonic boom, itâ??s a reminder to people as to who is boss â?? itâ??s bullying.â?�

---

GS you usually just humor me but this time.............

You are as fucking stupid as...........(come on guys what is he as stupid as?)
dirt..............


Thanks Jam... I ll educate this punk for you



Scenes from the TV series Al-Shatat, the episode about the blood libel of killing a Christian child
for baking Passover matzoth (Al-Manar TV, October 2003)

During the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, when television viewing peaks, an independent Jordanian TV station called Al-Mamnou broadcast an anti-Semitic TV series called Al-Shatat (â??The Exileâ?� or â??The Diasporaâ?�). The series was produced in Syria and first broadcast on Hezbollah's Lebanese Al-Manar satellite channel in October-November 2003 (also during Ramadan) and by Iranian TV in 2004. That created a furor of protests around the world which led to the banning of Al-Manar broadcasts in France and other countries.

The series presents a warped, fallacious, anti-Semitic pseudo-historical survey of the Zionist movement from its beginnings at the turn of the 19 th century to the founding of the State of Israel. It exploits anti-Semitic myths taken whole from of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, including the blood libel, which accuses Jews of kneading the blood of a Christian child into the Passover matzoth. 1

Al-Mamnou 2 managed to broadcast 22 of the original 29 episodes before the Jordanians banned further broadcasting in response to pressure exerted on the government by various Israeli and American organizations (AP, October 30). After the series was taken off the air, the Jordanian embassy in the United States announced that the Jordanian government had been informed that the controversial program Al-Shatat had been aired on a private, independent channel called Al-Mamnou, operated by the Free Media City Company in Jordan which was subject to Jordanian law. 3 According to the announcement, because the series was suspected of propaganda inciting to hatred and violence, its broadcasting stopped as of October 25 (See Appendix). 4

Walid al-Hadidi , Al-Mamnou's chairman, said the show was taken off the air â??for technical rather than political reasons.â?� He refused to comment as to whether the Jordanian government had exerted pressure on him. He noted that the series, which he claimed cost $1.25 million, would return after Ramadan (MEMRI report, October 23, 2005). It would therefore seem that the outrage of this blatantly crude anti-Semitic series has not yet ended.

If making a tv series thats anti your warmongering neighour makes you anti-semetic then Hollywood leads the way not the arabs.
The white man and the jew have been knocking the arabs forever in our films and its sheer hypocrisy to use this Al-Shatat to prove a point.They're doing no more than copy what we've done since discovering cinematography.

Reel Bad Arabs:
How Hollywood Vilifies a People
by Jack G. Shaheen
New York, Olive Branch Press, 2001

Reel Bad Arabs provides an in-depth look at how Hollywood has consistently denigrated Arabs in movies over the last hundred years. Author Jack Shaheen (professor emeritus of mass communications at Southern Illinois University and the world�s foremost authority on media images of Arabs) examines more than 900 feature films and describes the negative portrayal of Arab characters in each. "Reel Arabs," as Shaheen calls the Hollywoodized version of people from the 22 Arab states, are murderers, rapists, terrorists, hijackers, religious fanatics, and greedy oil-millionaires. They are bearded, camel-riding, harem-overseeing, bumbling, swarthy, hateful, crazy, and obnoxious. Almost entirely absent from the big screen are ordinary Arabs�the "man who works ten hours a day, comes home to a loving wife and family, plays soccer with his kids, and prays with family members at his respective mosque or church."

Hollywood�s worst treatment, Shaheen argues, is reserved for Muslim Arabs. "Today�s imagemakers," writes Shaheen, "regularly link the Islamic faith with male supremacy, holy war, and acts of terror, depicting Arab Muslims as hostile alien intruders, and as lecherous, oily sheikhs intent on using nuclear weapons. When mosques are displayed onscreen, the camera inevitably cuts to Arabs praying, and then gunning down civilians."

While the negative stereotyping of Arabs in American movies is nothing new (it began in the early 1900s), the practice took on a new viciousness toward the end of the century. This trend is evidenced by movies such as True Lies (1994), G.I. Jane and Operation Condor (1997), and The Siege (1998). In True Lies, the all-American hero, played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, prevents a group of pyschotic-yet-idiotic Arabs from destroying the United States with nuclear weapons. In G.I. Jane, Demi Moore plays an enlisted Navy woman who has to prove her mettle by killing scores of Arabs. Jackie Chan, in Operation Condor, battles evil Arabs as he attempts to recover a chest of gold hidden by the Nazis at the end of World War II. And in The Siege, heroes Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington outwit a group of Arab Muslims planning to bomb New York City.

Particularly racist depictions of Arabs have been presented by the American film company Cannon, which was co-founded by Israeli producers Yorum Globus (former director of Israel�s Film Industry Department) and Menachem Golan. By the end of the 1990s, Cannon had released twenty-six "hate-and-terminate-the-Arab" movies; three of the most notorious being Hell Squad (1985), The Delta Force (1986), and Killing Streets (1991). In those films, Palestinians were killed by Las Vegas showgirls, U.S. Marines, and U.S. Special Forces, respectively.

What is the consequence of this steady stream of negative portrayals of Arabs and Muslims? According to Shaheen, the movie stereotypes contribute to a climate of Arab-hating�that the substitution of "reel Arabs" for "real Arabs" dehumanizes Arabs and makes them vulnerable to mistreatment. Shaheen draws the parallel between past cinematic abuses of Asians and the ease with which the American people accepted the imprisonment of more than 100,000 Japanese Americans during World War II. He makes a similar case for the prior demonization of African Americans, American Indians, and Jews on the silver screen, and the injustices that have been done to those groups of people. While it is no longer fashionable to discriminate against the aforementioned groups on screen, Shaheen claims, Arabs remain fair game. He draws a connection between unsavory Arab film images and the more than 300 hate crimes committed against Arabs in the direct aftermath of Timothy McVeigh�s bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 (Arabs were initially suspected by law enforcement officials in the incident).

Shaheen makes the following recommendation to Hollywood movie-makers: "The time is long overdue for Hollywood to end its undeclared war on Arabs, and to cease misrepresenting and maligning them. All I ask of filmmakers is to be even-handed, to project Arabs as they do other people�no better, no worse. They should enjoy at the very least relative immunity from prejudicial portrayal."

They dont need help being evil.............

Look up wahhabism...................

Infidel..................................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bong30

They dont need help being evil.............

Look up wahhabism...................

Infidel..................................

---

But if they need an example they can just copy the U.S, Britain and Israel.;)

Being 'against' a neighbor is one thing. Accusing them (with zero proof, mind you) of killing children to use their blood in bread is something else entirely. Of course, all Arabs aren't terrorists. Not even close. But it does seem like the majority of terrorists are Arabs, does it not? Should that fact be ignored?

Those films you mention are located in the 'fiction' department. Al-Shatat is presented as fact, as a documentary. No one really believes that Jackie Chan is out there killing Arabs for Nazi gold. No one believes Arnold Schwarzenegger ever fought Arabs with nuclear weapons. But Al-Shatat, presented as it is, as fact, might convince Arabs that Jews really do kill children to make matzah.

One must also take into account purpose. The purpose of making Operation Condor (or whatever) is to entertain people with an obviously fictional story, in order to make money at the box office or DVD stores. If the bad guys are Arabs, so what? And if they were Jewish, so what again? The movie isn't saying all Arabs are bad, just that the Arabs fighting Jackie are bad. The bad guys have to be *something*. The purpose of Al-Shatat, on the contrary, is obviously to incite hatred between Jews and Christians/Arabs. It portrays ALL Jews as evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamstigator

Being 'against' a neighbor is one thing. Accusing them (with zero proof, mind you) of killing children to use their blood in bread is something else entirely. Of course, all Arabs aren't terrorists. Not even close. But it does seem like the majority of terrorists are Arabs, does it not? Should that fact be ignored?

Those films you mention are located in the 'fiction' department. Al-Shatat is presented as fact, as a documentary. No one really believes that Jackie Chan is out there killing Arabs for Nazi gold. No one believes Arnold Schwarzenegger ever fought Arabs with nuclear weapons. But Al-Shatat, presented as it is, as fact, might convince Arabs that Jews really do kill children to make matzah.

One must also take into account purpose. The purpose of making Operation Condor (or whatever) is to entertain people with an obviously fictional story, in order to make money at the box office or DVD stores. If the bad guys are Arabs, so what? And if they were Jewish, so what again? The movie isn't saying all Arabs are bad, just that the Arabs fighting Jackie are bad. The bad guys have to be *something*. The purpose of Al-Shatat, on the contrary, is obviously to incite hatred between Jews and Christians/Arabs. It portrays ALL Jews as evil.

---

Sorry Jamstigator but your post comes over to me as hypocritical .:(
To me it reads that all the highly anti-arab films churned out by the jewish film company Cannon are completely nonpropogandist and definitely not designed to imbibe the viewer with a feeling that arabs are in any way bad or dangerous. However one series designed to appeal to the arab not the white man is cus it claims the more fanatical of the jewish faith may have rituals as unsavoury as those our media claims the arabs themselves practice.
Something there smells of bullsh1t as the blues bro's would say .:p