If you Prick us, do we not Bleed?!?!?
Yes, gentle reader, believe it or not the Joo has no horns, no tail. We are as human as the rest of you, we bleed, we cry, we laugh, we suffer, we sing and we too can have our hearts shuttered… But… if you look at Jewish history… we were attacked by the greatest empires, they all even held us under their individual yoke for a while and then… they disappeared! Yet… while we Jooz were decimated by the millions, while the hatred of the world at our stubbornness never abated we cried, we prayed, we hoped and died with the word “Jerusalem” on our lips! And so in 1948 of the Current Era - symbolically, Abraham was born in 1948 in the Hebrew calendar - we once again got our own independent Jerusalem.
We will survive the MSM and their hypocrisy, even though the UN’s Human Rights Council will never bring itself to discuss the Jews’ cause. We will survive the IslamoFascists hatred as they will eventually burn up in the pyre of their own poison. Yes, gentle reader, if you prick us we do bleed, if you poison us we do die… but, like the mythical phoenix, we always rise from our ashes and accomplish the impossible! Look at Israel today, a prosperous garden in the desert, a center of science and technology where there was only sand and poverty!!!
You may read the rest on: Freedom’s Cost
I really don’t like your posts. I find them boring, non-challenging, grandstanding and have poor attempts at humor.
So… why waste your time reading them?!?!?!?
This article goes to the nitty gritty of how many people of the Jewish faith think. Its an important article as it gives Jewish friends and foes alike a lot of food for thought.
Strange how people like to spend hours on the net, wasting their time and wasting ours by posting such uninteresting comments. We learn that you don’t like reading this kind of stuff but who cares about your opinion? Obsviously, it’s easier to criticize the form than the real flesh of the post.
"So… why waste your time reading them?!?!?!?"
Because I like to criticize that which deserves to be criticized. There are lots of stuff I don’t have to read, but its nice to make one’s opinion heard and try to prevent more dross from being written.
"We learn that you don’t like reading this kind of stuff but who cares about your opinion?"
See, that allows me to say "Who cares about your opinion about others’ opinions?".
"Obsviously, it’s easier to criticize the form than the real flesh of the post."
There is more flesh in quorn burgers than in Chaim’s writings. I calls as I sees.
utsu,
I find them boring, non-challenging, grandstanding and have poor attempts at humor.
There is absolutely no attempt at humor or even sarcasm in the above post. The one who has shown himself unable to understand, the one who has shown his utter ignorance and foolishness is… you!
Had you known anything at all about Medieval European history you would have perfectly understood his references in the first sentence above. Had you ever bothered to read Shakespeare (or is that too dross… sorry, highbrow for the likes of you?) you would have understood his references in the second paragraph.
Meanwhile, I look forward to your response, so that we may see even further into the mind of a base, trivial, inferior, ignorant fool.
I also look forward to your answer utsu. You do amuse me, but please write your own stuff without any ghostwriters, K?
"There is absolutely no attempt at humor or even sarcasm in the above post. The one who has shown himself unable to understand, the one who has shown his utter ignorance and foolishness is… you!"
Know that I think about it, I guess that is Shylock speaking. You know, the bitter Jew in Venice who tries to express his defiance and hostility towards the culture that reviles him but ends up feeling regretful for obstinately demanding a pound of flesh as rent or something. Haven’t read any Shakespeare. I’m still too young to enjoy reading him.
But that is somehow supposed to make Chaim’s post… Ironic? Multi-layered? All I see is a screed that asks a self-martyrizing, silly question in the title (no one reading that has or is challenging the notion that Jews are humans.), generally knocks down open doors and is about as substantial and well-written as something a 16-year old furry emo would write on Livejournal.
Apparently, since I don’t like it and no one is forcing me to read at gunpoint, I’m supposed to sit idly by while Chaim spreads such silliness on an otherwise serious and interesting website. Um, "no"?
"Meanwhile, I look forward to your response, so that we may see even further into the mind of a base, trivial, inferior, ignorant fool."
There it is. Failing to ascertain a quote when writing my reply does not make me miss the point or some subtle irony. Chaim’s lame post was clear to me, and while I agree with some of it I find it redundant and unfit for this website.
Thank you utsu!
It took you a while but you further regaled us with what you are, please continue kid. Let the world see your
depthshallowness. Please!Frankly no humor, irony and anything remotely funny or sarcastic was implied or intended in the post. Shows how great your understanding and grasp of these is, but I must confess (and make this response even "lamer") I do find YOU funny.
OK, you had your 15 minutes of fame. Happy now, child? Wanna make it 31 minutes?
"Frankly no humor, irony and anything remotely funny or sarcastic was implied or intended in the post."
Which was my point from the beginning - the post was dead-serious and therefore laughable. I didn’t even mention the silly title (it was Brandi who decided I was ignoring it, as if it was important).
"Shows how great your understanding and grasp of these is"
Well, seeing as I read your article, and you didn’t intend to be humorous, funny, ironic or sarcastic I guess I have a grasp of such qualities seeing as I noticed they were absent in your post.
"but I must confess I do find YOU funny"
You are not funny, but saddening. Also, you don’t have to use all Caps and bold at the same time. One is enough to signify emphasis.
"OK, you had your 15 minutes of fame."
The attention-seeker is one to talk.
"Happy now, child? "
I’m 19 and have no reason to see myself as childish of mind nor morals. You and Brandi, on the other hand, seem incredibly confused and petty.
"but please write your own stuff without any ghostwriters, K?"
What the heck do you mean, "ghostwriter"? According to me, a ghostwriter is someone who to varying degrees write for another person who then goes on to put his name on a text he didn’t write in its entirety. All the posts written by "utsu" are, well, written by me. Utsu. A 19-year old Swede doing military service. "Utsu" means things like "hollow", "vain" or "to hit or strike accurately with force". Lovely ambiguous language, Japanese.
No, do explain the usage of the word "ghostwriter". You are a poor writer but you have never shown a tendency to use words that are completely wrong.
Please, continue.
"Please, continue."
No, because you are not willing to communicate, address or raise anything substantial.
So sorry to see you go… Now, now, you just made me spill the akevitt. Not nice of you!
utsu, let’s see if you can tolerate a dose of your own medicine:
I really don’t like your comments. I find them boring, repetitive, dishonest, and freighted with their own self-righteousness and lack of reflexivity to the point of mendacity. You seem completely incapable of granting even the barest common courtesies towards anyone that you disagree with. You represent the very worst in unaccountable and irresponsible anonymous commenters in the blogosphere.
"let’s see if you can tolerate a dose of your own medicine:"
Yes, because even though you obviously say what you really feel, there is just something so contrite about the idea of putting me in my place that it sort of softens that which was probably not a blow in the first place.
"dishonest"
Here, and example would do nicely. Only that adjective seems a bit too vague to really promote any consideration.
"self-righteousness"
Yes, that. I know I’ll appear that way and I guess there is too much of that already. I have no problem with being self-righteous, at least not when I am right.
"You seem completely incapable of granting even the barest common courtesies towards anyone that you disagree with. "
I said I didn’t disagree with Chaim, only his rediculous tone and lack of any food-for-thought, and the only reason I mouth off at christianists etc. is because they believe a religious text should have any effect whatsoever on politics. People who say homosexuals don’t get full civil rights get a full-on assault as well, because no one gets to attack my humanity.
Once again, throw some examples in there if you really are committed to getting at me.
"You represent the very worst in unaccountable and irresponsible anonymous commenters in the blogosphere."
No, I really don’t, but I do believe I have been slipping a bit as of late, even more than Michael. Seeing as you are an adult of seemingly stable vapors, I guess I’ll think of your words in the future. Just don’t expect all of them to find a home.
Actually, I generally find Chaim’s posts extremely one-sided and hence predictable. All his writings are for his cause and HIS cause ONLY and he doesn’t seem to have ANY concern for any other group of people other than his own. Perhaps he should try to show himself as a more multi-dimensional human being rather than somebody who just pounds the same theme over and over again. I actually find single-minded people like him to be more scary than boring.
I actually tend to be pretty hawkish about the Middle East myself and I (in all modesty) believe that I have shown that in a much better and convincing form than the regurgitating automaton Chaim here has been able to.
AND, as somebody who is probably older than all commenters to this post, I don’t see why critiquing such a predictable blogger is suddenly a no-no.
Selin– First of all, there is nothing wrong with criticizing a post. But when the criticism devolves into an attack on the writer of the post, then it becomes less of a constructive way to debate, and simply a form of trolling. Want proof? Just look at this thread–rather than any substantive debate on the issue, everyone has spent all their time bickering with utsu–who displays all the common traits of a troll: unwillingness to engage in meaningful debate; insults; shallow comments; argumentative nature. Your critique of Chaim — "I generally find Chaim’s posts extremely one-sided and hence predictable" — at least has some substance, though I would say sticking to the actual post would be more relevant. For the record, I find nothing wrong with having a cause and sticking to it–that does NOT make someone one dimensional. If Chaim wants to write about Judaism and Israel, that’s fine. If you’re not interested, that’s fine. Don’t read the posts. utsu–I think if you steered away from just insulting Chaim and finding all of Chaim’s posts and insulting them, then you might be regarded as a serious commenter. As it stands, this is the stocking behavior of a troll. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Sorry for the above comment. I had it broken up into paragraphs, but it failed to submit and somehow re-formatted everything. Hope you bear with me!
Thanks.
"rather than any substantive debate on the issue"
There was no substantive issue raised by Chaim. All I had left to go for was the poor, empty tone of it all. I had to criticise that, and I am not regretting it.
"unwillingness to engage in meaningful debate"
I always dealt with the criticism of Chris, Brandi and Chaim. I reject that point of critique.
"insults"
Look at my first post, then look at Brandi’s and Chaim’s first responses. Brandi spewed childish insults, Chaim said I wasn’t writing my own posts.
"shallow comments"
My first one: Yes, depending on whether you are allowed to call out bad prose and grandstandng nowadays without being shallow. The rest of my posts are are no shallow.
"argumentative nature"
Do explain why this is bad. I started off harsh bu honest and not directly ad hominem, and I have addressed complaints honestly as well.
" though I would say sticking to the actual post would be more relevant"
There was nothing to stick to, which is why I decided on an unorthodox response.
"For the record, I find nothing wrong with having a cause and sticking to it–that does NOT make someone one dimensional."
Even if Chaim’s cause is obvious and not wrong to stand by, he really adds nothing new when he writes about developments like the horrid corpses - child-killer trade earlier. It’s just screeds and with that sort of emptiness a cause is not enough. He adds no substance to an event, only infusing it with his own emotions, repeating the obvious. He writes poorly sometimes, poorly to the point where I have to react.
"If you’re not interested, that’s fine. Don’t read the posts."
Israel and Judaism interests me a bit. Even if it didn’t, I will call out writings that add nothing new to an issue or just throw generalizations and large words out there. I am happy that some Jews were happy over the developments in 1948. I am saddened that a mere city could become so important to people because of an old, make-believe text, but I must also be understanding that Jews needed a collective and religion was the glue. I understand their need of a sanctuary - perhaps people haven never needed and deserved a sanctuary that much in human history.
I am terribly saddened that we got so disgusted at our own passivity that we actively endorsed a half-assed solution to wash away the bad memories ASAP.
But to try and act up as if Jews are depicted as demonic spawn, to just assume that the shibboleth that is MSM is on the side of Israel’s enemies (HAH!) and just rant away - that has to get called out.
"I think if you steered away from just insulting Chaim and finding all of Chaim’s posts and insulting them"
Oh yes, I sniff them out in the course of my vendetta. Ehehe, no. I don’t insult Chaim either. I always start on his writings and when he utterly fails to respond in a coherent, serious manner and throws insults and childish provocation my way, I call him petty and confused. Boo-hoo.
"As it stands, this is the stocking behavior of a troll."
No. I am very confrontational, and have probably been proven wrong more than I have proven wrong. I am too far from perfect to be satisfied. But I did not post my respose to troll, I posted it because it was so astoundingly poor in style and lacking in content that I had to react. I did not try to be a troll, and the responses of others do not mean I was trolling either.
This thread represents perfectly political discourse in todays day and age. Nowhere does it discuss the topic Chaim presented. Focusing instead on prose and predictability and disgarding substance. It’s no wonder people are fawning over Mr. Obama. As long as it sounds good, no matter how duplicitous or feable, then it must be ok.
No one spoke to the article. Particularly not utsu who seems more focused on personal attacks, which are always the last bastian of the closed minded and foolish.
Chaim was making a wonderful point about the resilience and the HUMANITY of the Jews… it would have been a good topic for mature discussion.
Alas, they seem to let anyone have a computer these days.
"It’s no wonder people are fawning over Mr. Obama. "
You mean the guy that is doing hard work assuring people he knows what he is doing about Iraq and has more clarification on issues and solutions than McCain (compare their websites - Obama conveys his arguments through writing and focusses on pathos in speeches).
"Particularly not utsu who seems more focused on personal attacks"
I have to reject this childish notion that I took to personal attacks because I disagreed with the posting of a completely inane and inflated article. I reject this criticism and refuse to address the notion that I began with personal attacks.
"Chaim was making a wonderful point about the resilience and the HUMANITY of the Jews… it would have been a good topic for mature discussion."
Which pretty much no one will contend. There can be no discussion about the humanity of Jews. Nor can there be any discussion about the fact that they are resilient. The point is wonderful, and blunted by the abysmal writing and lack of substance. The article raised nothing in particular and was juvenile and assumptuous in tone.
"Alas, they seem to let anyone have a computer these days."
Well, since you claimed I am inferior I have no choice but to render everything you say in the future utterly moot. Apologize or be ignored.
So let me get this straight: Chaim is beyond criticism because all his posts are for HIS cause OR for putting down Muslims in general? Has he written a single thing that focuses on anything constructive regarding the Middle Eastern conflict?
All his posts are about the same bad things that Islamic extremists are doing around the world. Yes, pounding on the same types of events as well as selectively focusing on Islamic extremist news coverage does show all Muslims as terrorist sympathizers, and this is generally done on purpose to defame Muslims around the world.
I realize that the post above is not the relevant one for me to express my concerns about Chaim’s coverage in general, but I’m told that there’s free speech. That means if I feel that there’s something unfair that also affects me personally or portrays me as a terrorist sympathizer because of my background, I will speak out about it.
E.D. Kain, I’ve got news for you: I am free to criticize a blogger OR his posts in general, and you are free to provide pro-bono attorney services in the form of defensive posts. If editors on this site feel differently or if they feel bloggers are beyond general criticism, they may choose to suppress my freedom of speech. In that case I’ll stop reading this site altogether.
But until then, I get to choose what I read or what I comment on.
Barbara, forgive me for trying to express my free opinion. I’m sorry that it doesn’t fit your elitist approach that everyone can have a computer these days.
And all those Muslims who own computers and express their right to free speech? Objecting to coverage that’s filled with buzzwords like Islamo-fascism, Islamic extremism, or Islamic terror? Strange times, indeed.
Important note to people above:
I have clarified my critique of Chaim in my commentary to his most recent post. Please refer to my comment of his most recent post if you feel unsure and unclear.
Thanks.
Selin,
In this infidel part of the world, everyone, Muslims included have full freedom of speech unlike infidels in the Muslim world. The point the others were making and which seems to totally escaped you, is that you are doing nothing for your cause by attacking Chaim personally rather than his facts. How do you effectively counteract his words? By presenting irrefutable facts of your own (easy to prove, known ones, rather than imaginary ones!). To attack an individual (as opposed to his words, as words) whom I’d venture to say you never met, shows the intellectual paucity of the attacker’s arguments.
By the way and for the record, the fact remains that while A SMALL MINORITY OF MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS, the majority of terrorist are Muslim. The fact remains that protest against these individuals from within the Muslim community is non existent or feeble at best! Thus, criticism of Muslims is the byproduct of their actions and inactions. The facts speak for themselves
In case you are interested, I’ve been following his blog almost since its inception two years ago and believe it or not, on many an occasion he had some very nice words to say about Muslims. He deals with a variety of subjects although Israel and Judaism are his main interests, with terrorism around the world following closely behind.
To you all, I want to summarize what is going on here and you can correct me where you feel necessary:
Chaim is writing about his cause, shallow or not, one sided or not, but he is writing about his cause.
Utsu is critizing Chaim’s way of writing or its lack of substance (and to me he is not attacking the writer in person but expressing his observations about the writer’s style - if he had any attacks beyond tolerance I am pretty sure Claudia would step in).
Chaim is of course very naturally defending himself.
Selin is also expressing her observations about Chaim’s approach to issues and topics (and again to me it is in a tolerable fashion) and indicating her concerns about the approach to Muslims in general all around the world.
Brandi is then coming to defend Chaim saying that the observations Selin and Utsu are making in relation to Chaim’s way of writing may have been misled since she is following Chaim’s posts on this site from the very beginning.
I do not understand what is wrong in all of this. Chaim is using his right for freedom of speech and others are also using their rights of free speech. As long as all these stay in a tolerable level, the debate going on here even becomes interesting.
What I think about Chaim’s writings as a Muslim and as a Turk are irrelevant here because I may not agree with every point what a writer is making here. If I do not have the write to criticize though , then it means something else. I do not think that the criticizms coming from Selin and Utsu are personal attacks, they are criticizms to the way Chaim is writing. Obviously to some, he needs to improve his writing skills. If we are just allowed to criticize the substance but not the writing skills here (when people are not making scholarly researches but just making a point for their cause in their articles), then to me there is no freedom of speech. As long as all these are in tolerable fashion, where is the harm?
Brandi by the way stepping in and saying that she followed Chaim from the beginning and this article in isolation is not a reference point for Chaim, is the nice and enjoyable part of a constructive debate. You share and you learn.
I do not think that we moved away from the cause a bit by the way since, if Chaim needs these types of criticizms to make his/her writings read, then we are still talking about the cause.
I didn’t like Chaim’s previous post, as it seemed to hint at Anti-Islamic thinking rather than Anti-IslamoFascism.
However, this one is not bad, it is simply an attack against hatred. Something Muslims as well as Jews experience on a daily basis (as well as some of them doing it onto others).
And Chaim, please ignore utsu… he’s the Poligazette Resident UltraLiberal Troll. If only we could give him that title. His comments are usually without evidence, ranging from conspiracies to baseless accusations, as well as propaganda.