Disturbing Facebook Antisemitism Of The Day
Aussie Dave | Sep 19, 2012 | 8 comments
The following has been posted on Facebook by the appropriately-named Naeem Butt, who is apparently a “pro palestinian” activist.
click to enlarge
But he’s just anti-Zionist, right?
Update: It looks like Butt has now removed the offending post.
About the Author
An Australian immigrant to Israel, Aussie Dave has been blogging since early 2003.Filed Under: Aussie Dave
Sounds like a ‘premium’ alternet contributor. The ones they pay for.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/anti-israel-rally-follow-up-to-weekends-demonstration/story-fn59niix-1226477623933
Note that Jeff Halper is tagged
so is K’oK of Mavi Marmara fame…
Truly disgusting!
Can you promote this petition to stop hate of facebook?
http://www.change.org/petitions/facebook-must-stop-allowing-hate-speech
I think allowing it, as repulsive as it is, is better. Firstly, it exposes these low-lives for what they are. Secondly, just like that film, it’s not against the law, and shows that we can rise above these cretins, not behave like violent animals.
“…and shows that we can rise above these cretins,…”
I find this mindset (in general, not talking about this particular case) highly illogical. Imagine an army commander who said, “We’re going to fight the enemy with swords and horses. I know they have guns and tanks, but we mustn’t stoop to their level.” How long do you think that commander would stay in his post? In any war of survival, playing as dirty as your enemy is the only way you could have a chance of victory.
The argumentation with regard to the Mofilm has set this point in sharp relief. Making it about values instead of survival means you get hoisted on your petard sooner or later. When the idea of building a mosque on Ground Zero came out, the Muslims and their Marxist allies deflected the uproar by claiming First Amendment rights—the free speech argument. When American patriots then countered saying, “Yes, it is the Muslims’ right to build a mosque on Ground Zero, but it isn’t right; it rubs salt in the wound,” the response was, “People didn’t care about hurting the Muslims’ feelings with the Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons.” One’s own ideals used as a weapon by the enemy.
Had it all been formulated in terms of national and cultural survivalism, this false but nice-sounding appeal to fairness and to the West’s lofty ideals could never have gotten off the dock. A new single standard would have been available as an effective response: “Why do we forbid a mosque on Ground Zero? Because mosques are the barracks [pace Erdogan] of Islamic imperialism. Why do we permit unflattering cartoons of Mohammed? For essentially the same reason: Because we do not cave in to the demands of Islamic imperialism.” Problem solved by never letting it arise in the first place.