Indy Media Watch

Editing and removing posts from the UK site is now so commonplace it hardly rates a mention. Most activist gave up on the Indymedia UK months ago.

The site's now run by a little group of fruitcakes and jew haters.
 

"Sam Wilson" is in fact one of the aliases of Raul/IMC monitoring Team/Indymedia GB/ex IMCer and now Adrian from Swansea. Hurrah - I liked this one so much I adopted it.

As for David Gehrig "carrying water for the zionist menace", that isn't actually in dispute. Its something explicitly acknowledged including her:
http://mail.indymedia.org/imc-us-process/2004-March/000472.html

As for the summary of the email exchange, its somewhat duplicitous, like the author himself.
 

I thought that deleting posts was the normal policy at Indymedia sites. I was very surprised knowing that in some they hide the posts. In Argentina Indymedia there is someone who deletes anything he doesn't like.

Nobody takes it seriously anymore
 

Of course gehrig will assert that he's totally correct. He says its anti-semitic so it has to to be.

And the average poster here will accept that without question.

Because this sleazey little backwater is the one that can lay claim to "a one-way ticket to irrelevance" with absolute justification.

If indymedia was as irrelevant as claimed, it would be sad to have a blog about it.

Ho hum
 

"And I spent a mere 2500 words on UCIMC arguing a rock-solid case for exactly that."

Yes, and therefore anyone who doesn't agree with you must be wrong.

I understand your proposition perfectly - Gehrig is right and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong.

Thats what you accused Nixon of.

And there can be no worthwhile debate or discussion when someone is that sure of themselves.

I don't share your politics, nor your vision of an indymedia that is an employer, property owning and commission taking entity.

In your 2003 article you say :"You have to deal with arguments on a case by case basis" and now you show us how much you mean this by being prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.

I do not accept your AUTHORITY regardless of whether you are from "global HQ" or not.

I'm all for IMC UK making up its own mind after a full and frank examination of the concepts and facts.

No way are you the right person to be our adviser on the issue of anti-semitism - you're too arrogant, too caught up in your own mission and too biased to be of any use whatsoever.
 

Question to the regal anonymouse: have you really read both of David Gehrig's essays on antisemitism? Your arguements seem as though meant to merely defy and don't make real sense.
 

"don't make real sense"

But of course not:

http://maritimes.indymedia.org/uploads/2006/12/indymedia_leftist_ideology_3.png

Get it before it's gone! ;)
 

"And I did indeed deal with the blatantly antisemitic post you're now defending on a "case by case" basis."

The same sentence repeated in several paragraphs "nailed it to the wall"?

So, starting with the Forbes source. Is the claim false?

If so, you haven't evidenced that in the article. You've just said that its anti-semitic to say it.

Nows your chance to tell us how petras got it wrong. That it simply isn't true.....

Where do the organisations in COPMAJO get their funding from?

Are there "Jewish funded PACs?"

Did they fund The election camapigns to the tune of 60% (Dem) and 35% (Rep)?

And finally, is it tryue that 99.5% of American Jews are zionists? Did that figure come from you gehrig?
 

Ohmss:

"Actually, that was from nessie, the terrorist fellating, (and terrorist funded) editor of SF."

not according to this:


Nessie believes that anyone who thinks Israel has any right at all to exist is automatically a "racist." When told that this makes 99.5% of American Jews "racists," nessie blamed the 99.5% of American Jews for being racist.

http://tinyurl.com/uwrhe

Nessie was told.

Rightist mental cripples can't even try and bait someone without falling completely on their acne-cratered faces.
 

Whenever I see the ohmss tag I just know that I'm in for a brilliantly insightful intervention.

:)
 

"brilliantly insightful intervention"

And don't you forget it either!
 

"still, the burden of disproving it should be on the Jews, right? "

nope, it should be on those who have a problem with the article and/or those who demand political censorship on ideological grounds.

If Petras is evoking anti-semitic stereotypes with lies, then these lies should be laid bare.

But merely seeking to silence all examination of an allegedly powerful lobby by screaming anti-semitism, without disputing the facts, could be an unacceptable act of the very political censorship that you so often decry, no?

You haven't yet explained the origin of the claim that 99.5% of American Jews are zionists. You've repeated it often enough in posts.

It seems a dangerously high figure - as it conflates Jewishness and Zionism, making it clear that only an insignificant number of Jews are opposed to an ideology which serves to dehumanise and seeks to destroy the Palestinians.

You remember them?

The ones you left out of this formulation:

"Here's what I'd argue. Through most of history, your identity was tied to your land. You knew you were a Pole because you lived in Poland, or that you were Deutsch because you lived in Deutschland, or whatever. If your nation was conquered, then in a few generations your culture faded into history. Which is why you don't run into Babylonians anymore."

How about if you knew you were a Palestinian because you lived in Palestine?

There are certainly prominent Israelis who want the Palestinians to go the way of the Babylonians. Some of them have been in the Israeli cabinet. There are also enough zionist keyboard warriors who deny the very existence of the Palestinians, and who advoacate ethnic cleansing.

Ever heard this one?

Q:Whats the difference between the Israeli right and the Israeli left?

A:The Right want all Palestinians to be put on busses and driven to Jordan.

The left want those busses to be air-conditioned.

David IF I SAY THAT AN ARTICLE IS ANTI-SEMITIC YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT MY AUTHORITY AND REMOVE IT WITHOUT QUESTION Gehrig, when I lived in Apartheid South Afica I often heard the line that "you can only understand what happens here if you live here" said to overseas critics od apartheid.

Turned out that the critics understood perfectly what was going on, whilst the indigenous whites, with the overt political censorship they were subjected to, did not.

Now you would struggle to find a white South African who admits to supporting Apartheid.

"Yesterday the major Zionist organizations told us who we may or may not criticize in the Middle East, today they tell us who we may criticize in the United States, tomorrow they will tell us to bend our heads and submit to their lies and deceptions in order to engage in new wars of conquest at the service of a morally repugnant colonial regime."

Thats a claim from Petras. You appear to be intent on proving it.
 

And where did I claim to be representing Indymedia uk?

UCIMC seems to be absolutely unable to do anything except resort to ad homs at this stage.

UCIMC also seems to be very keen on censoring any examination of a lobby that cheerlead the US adminsitration into a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

You will no doubt recall the article in question has been hidden by - wait for it - Indymedia UK.

D'oh
 

" perhaps the Palestinians have had a hand in determining their present status"

In the same way that a Rolex wearer had a hand in their own mugging.....

"it has completely destroyed its moral ground "

Is that moral as in the "most moral army in the world"?
 

It seems fair enough to smear UCIMC with your viewpoint - you've consistently attacked UK IMC in your criticisms of me. Now both IMCs will get google hits asserting all sorts of things about them.

You've attached yourself to a reformist liberal IMC and then proceeded to attack any IMC that reflects a view contrary to yours.

You've consistently attacked UK IMC:

"it's the sort of blasphemy that one is not allowed to utter on UK Indymedia"

"See, this is where the UK Indymedia blindness kicks in."

" In UK Indymedia, antisemitic rhetoric is presumed true as long as it comes in the right guises."

"After all, just because it's the ravings of an antisemite, well, still, the burden of disproving it should be on the Jews, right? Just like Petras' article.

At least that's how UK Indymedia apparently sees it."

" And one of the consequences of UK Indymedia's defense of antisemitism is that it has completely destroyed its moral ground when it comes to the issue of antisemitism."

and thats just from this thread. You've taken your experience of an individual and attacked the group that you identify them with. At the same time you've condemned the act of equating all Jews with a stereotype.

Do you see the hypocrisy of your own actions Mr. Gehrig?

No, you don't.
 

"And your concluding argument in your post seems to be that I shouldn't conclude that all of UK Indymedia is as clueless when it comes to antisemitism as you are. Is that what you really meant to imply?"

No. It implied that you're a bigot. And that its amazing hypocrisy to spend your life combatting bigotry of one particular brand whilst displaying bigotry yourself. It brings your sensitivity on the subject into serious disrepute.
 

"I attack them for resonating with the classical tropes of antisemitism"

And is there any way that a powerful lobby can be discussed without resonating with the classical tropes of anti-semitism?

Forbes is either mainly accurate or mainly wrong.

Richard Cohen is either correct about the levels of funding, or he is not.

Petras is either consciously or unconsciously trying to provoke hatred against Jews, or he is not.

The line from you is that everything is irrelevant because it discusses a powerful lobby that closely identifies itself with Jews, and the anti-semitic trope is that there is a secret cabal of Jews who rule the world.

Which isn't the same thing.

The last commentator on your follow up says:

""(b) Zionist organizations, through their uncountable wealth, run the world's media, financial institutions, and political parties (and thereby governments) as part of a secret global hegemony designed to further their own interests at the expense of the world at large."

Anti-Semitism defiitely does exist among some on the left but I think that your oversimplify it a bit. Mearsheimer and Wash (who are not are not really on the left) are probably not antiSemitic but their arguments can sound like "b" in that it talks about US foreign policy being influenced by proIsrael lobbies. Looking through their work I think one could argue it has a slightly antiSemitic tone but does leave open the question about how one can talk about groups like AIPAC and JINSA in a critical fashion without sounding like one is talking about a "Jewish" conspiracy. As someone who is Jewish I think the difference between complaints about the power or AIPAC that are based on traditional antiSemitic conspiracies and criticism based on political disagreement are somewhat clear but thats mainly because within the Jewish community such arguments are akin to arguing about the politics of the NAACP within the African American community. From the outside its hard for the arguments not to sound biggoted but when many of the current (and future) wars around the world center around Israel (Lebanon, Iraq and Iran) you cant expect nonJews to not talk about the influence of proIsrael NGOs...."

Is there, in your knowledge, an examination of the power of organisations such as AIPAC which suceeds in not resonating with the classical trope. If not, is it possible that one could be written?

Or is discussion of the issue forbidden?

So far, your argument is for censorship.

If I've got you wrong, you have an opportunity to clarify.
 

Looks as if the relationship between the neocon/christian/zionist alliance is at last being fucked up by the will of the people.

What does it take for them to cave in?

A Democratic victory in both houses.

Sad but partially true.
 

Discuss :)
 

"So far, your argument is for censorship."

Really? Seems to me that your posts stay up and your side represented in all media outlets. Censorship because folks don’t buy your conclusion? Well, I apologize for the intelligence most American’s seem to posses in this matter. Perhaps you should work harder for a state controlled solution to this clear “moral discrepancy” Sam.
 

"I hate cons...dirty neocons"

Wow, what a deep and well stated theory. Are there any other aspects of life that you wish to shed your wisdom on?
 

As we have said many times in many discussions with the passing troll like yourself, criticism of Israel is not inherently anti-Semitic. What is anti-Semitic is the way Israel and its government are singled out for condemnation for doing what every other nation on this world does; present its case to friendly nations.

And as much as you would like to think, and like to argue that it is the “Israel lobby” that controls American policy and the hearts of a massive majority of American hearts, it has nothing to do with AIPAC, but because rational individuals understand Israel is the lone liberal democracy sounded by nations and organizations that wish to DESTROY IT. I know this will seem like a trivial point to you, but it is at the heart of a rational individual’s support for Israel, and why we will continue to poke holes in Indymedia’s bias against them.

I know this will fall on deaf ears, so I will go enjoy the West Wing and let you sink into your circular fallacy.
 

Are you a Neo-con Roland Dodds?
 

One State One Solution Roland?
 

You people cant face the truth.
Accept it and be happy for now.

Our Day Will Come :)
 

Somehow the following puking sputs by 'Sam Wilson' have gone uncommented:

"It [the claim that 99.5% of American Jews are zionists] seems a dangerously high figure - as it conflates Jewishness and Zionism, making it clear that only an insignificant number of Jews are opposed to an ideology which serves to dehumanise and seeks to destroy the Palestinians."

LMFAO... this clown and liar may as well "knight" himself as the British version of 'nessie' who insists Zionism is the Jewish version of Nazism.

What follows doesn't even merit a single comment:

" " perhaps the Palestinians have had a hand in determining their present status"

In the same way that a Rolex wearer had a hand in their own mugging....."

""it has completely destroyed its moral ground "

Is that moral as in the "most moral army in the world"?"
 

>What is anti-Semitic is the way Israel and its government are singled out for condemnation for doing what every other nation on this world does


What other government occupies the West Bank and Gaza?
 

"What other government occupies the West Bank and Gaza?"

Define "occupies". Define "justice".

Be specific. Give examples.
 

What other government occupies the West Bank and Gaza?

That's a logical fallacy. Only one government occupies the so-called West Bank and Gaza. It is the Hamas Palestinian government.
 

Sybil the terrorist fellator's scorecard, so far:

sf-imcista
so predictable
bunk logic
heard it before
not real name
a bunch of complete fools
still waiting
see what I mean?
keeping track
non racist
not surprised
still wondering
since you asked