I got my first hate mail tonight. Is this common?

I checked my email tonight and got a response from a dKos participant.  His main thrust was the he wanted to meet me at YKos and "look into the face of evil."

Below the fold is the email and my response and a second response.

I will never hide my email here as it is part of the honesty that makes dKos special.  Does anyone have any thoughts on this?  Are controversial positions here fair game?  Is the I/P discussion particularly prone to hate mail?

This is clearly an Israeli/Palestinian issue/context, but I don't see my self as the face of evil, but equally clearly, someone else does, and I would ask the community is this normal behavior here.

[e-mail]
Subject: Re: Israel response from dailykos
Date: January 8, 2007 3:09:13 AM EST
To:   Fivemonth@xxxxxx

I'm sorry for your loss.  Truly I  am.

Your sister was not a "zionist pig" or anything of the sort.

But you have to remember that 10 times your loss is being visited on the other side, by Israel (in it's current right wing incarnation).  Ten times, pal.  Think about it...

And not only in that, but in Lebanon huge devastation was visited on a civilian population that was only acquiescent to an Israel created entity, Hezbollah.  Much in the same way that we have been acquiescent in Bush's killing of Iraqis by the thousands.

Please try to see both sides.  Again, I mourn your loss.  TRULY.  My sister' maid of honor's sister was killed by Israeli bombs in Beirut.  Does this mean anything to you?  Hope so.

But remember that for your loss, there are ten Palestinian mothers that are enduring the same situation.

I am sorry that you think me evil.  But I am not.  I look for reconciliation and relief from oppression, wherever it may be, and whatever its cause.

If you want to meet at YKos, please let's do.

You clearly have my email address.

----

Original message...

On Dec 30, 2006, at 1:38 AM, Fivemonth@xxxxxx wrote:

You have islamic jihad militants aiming rockets at petro chemical facilities in israel that could kill 100,000 israelis.

Exactly how many american civilians have died from iraq war in u.s.  Zero how is that disproportionality.

How many japanese did we kill after pearl harbor?  Millions compared to 3,000.

By the way Iran is the superpower in the region not israel.  Iranian agents were just caught in iraq.  They are the ones arming the shiites in iraq to commit ethnic cleansing of the sunnis, arming hezbollah.

Hezbollah blew up jewish center in argentina.

Iran through hezbollah and islamic jihad has hit israeli universities, passover dinners, buses, nightclubs everything imaginable in israel.

I lost my sister in a suicide bombing in israel.  My mother had nails from the bomb that went through her skull.

The next day islamic jihad in syria called her a  zionist pig.  They were americans visiting israel.  Syria applauded the bombing.

I hope you come to the chicago dailykos convention.  I will be there to protest and see the faces of the obscene posts on this blog.

I want to see evil close up.

And just to attempt to clarify, I sent another email saying:

No one in your family is a "zionist pig."  As much as I shrug off that you call me evil, you should shrug off that label.

Neither apply.

Again, sorry for your loss.

L

My reason for posting this is mainly a question about being open and honest in a discussion, not whether I am right or wrong in the I/P discussion.  This email was unexpected, though not totally unexpected given the circumstances in the region.

I hope something positive can come of this.

----

UPDATE:  Appreciate you all.  A lot of unexpected information was offered and discussed.  I learned a lot, particularly that I could, and should have handled this better.  Thanks.

•  It happens, and yeah, I/P pushes looney buttons

  on both sides.  From what I've seen, however, (and the very few bits of hate mail I've got) the Israeli side is much quicker to pre-judge and extrapolate from a position taken on DailyKos in a rational exchange to judgement of individual morals and values to label people as evil, anti-semitic or Israel-bashers.  They are really adept haters.

  by LondonYank on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 02:33:02 AM PDT

  •  Don't let it stress you

    Your replies were models of restraint and compassion.  Your correspondent is trying the chill public conversation by attacking anyone who takes a rational position supporting an alternate viewpoint.

    Don't be silent about your views in future or you let them win.

    by LondonYank on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 02:34:32 AM PDT

    •  I try to see both sides as I was an ardent

      supporter of Israel in my college days.

      Still, death is death and dead is dead, and I was taken aback by this email.

      Still, I think I should go to YKos and be "the face" for this guy or others that believe the same.

      Thanks.

      by Terra Mystica on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 02:43:11 AM PDT

      •  Well, I've never gotten any "hate mail".

        So, I was going to say it is not par for dk; but then I read LY's comment, so maybe it is.  What you did was fine and disarming.  Good job.  However, I wouldn't continue to engage.  If they can't say it in public, then they shouldn't e-mail it to you. The exception to this would be personal information being exchanged by request. My opinion is that it isn't common, and my advice is to walk away.

        by dkmich on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:12:15 AM PDT

        •  Thanks. My first instinct is to go to YKos and

          offer personal condolences and see wheere i goes from there.

          There is pain there and within the context of the I/P discussion, maybe some modest understanding could take place.

          It's a  thought anyway.

          by Terra Mystica on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:22:21 AM PDT

          •  I suspect you will get a much, much different

            reaction if you meet this person face-to-face.  People change radically when they interact with people remotely through a computer.  This is a very depersonalizing medium, and it is much easier for me to call you a lying, evil piece of shit here than it would be for me to look into your eyes and say the same thing.

            I also doubt that the person who wrote that email wants to actually engage you in person.  My impression is that many people who write things like that are too timid to personally confront their opponents.  Again, they substitute rancor towards an anonymous, unseeable  opponent for actual meaningful dialog, because it helps reinforce their own position and their own self of self-righteousness.

            by I on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:47:01 AM PDT

            •  Or grief... nt

              by Terra Mystica on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:54:34 AM PDT

          •  Seriously, I think you owe it to the board

            to alert those responsible for planning Yearlykos, as well as a site admin.

            If that person is so unhinged, you're not the only person they could make things difficult for.

            by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 08:06:04 AM PDT

            •  If it was more than once, I would. But something

              I said set this guy off.  It probably/may just have been an expression of grief.  I, personally, don't want to suggest anyone be "sanctioned" for an expression of grief, whatever form it may take.

              Heck, I really don't even know if a non-registered reader can access my profile, so I don't know if this is a community issue.

              If you or some of the more experienced people here believe that is warranted, especially if this is unusual, the bulk of the information is here.  But please don't do it just on this basis.

              Sincerely appreciate your counsel.  To be honest, I did not at all expect this level of discussion or heat on this.  Ten comments at best, mostly about get over it.

              Again, thanks.

              by Terra Mystica on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:05:10 PM PDT

        •  It is.

          On this subject alone.

          by Demena on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:29:23 AM PDT

      •  I watched a program on Link TV last year

        It was about a Jew and a Palestine man who came together to discuss their Issues.  The Jew took the man around and showed him his home and City.  Then the man from Palestine showed him his city and land.  The Palestinian man talked of his trials and the Jew also.  The Jewish man was a little upset by the bombed out buildings in Palestine and the poverty but he still stood by his views.  At the end of the program they are sitting on the beach at dusk talking and they  vow to meet again to keep up the communication between them.  If they can communicate without hate, we should too.

        by Owllwoman on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:43:31 AM PDT

      •   That Person

        is too much of a pussy to actually go to yearly kos to meet you.  Do any of the 101 fighting keyboardists actually enlist to support their war?  No, they are too cowardly.  Your new "friend" has the same cowardice, different issue.

        by jerseycorn on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:00:29 AM PDT

    •  Brilliant advice. n/t

      by AllisonInSeattle on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 12:07:41 PM PDT

  •  funny

    i see it the other way around.

    by Turkana on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 02:42:31 AM PDT

    •  Other way around?

      Was I antagonising the emailer?

      by Terra Mystica on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 02:45:04 AM PDT

      •  no no no

        not about you- about who is quicker to jump the gun. as i say below, i think what happened to you was very lame.

        by Turkana on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 02:47:31 AM PDT

  •  This is not a concern comment, but have things

    like his been hashed out at YKos before?

    I can only imaging that with the broad opinions here, some strong feelings have been represented when the community meets up.

    Appreciate your comments.

    by Terra Mystica on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 02:53:02 AM PDT

    •  YearlyKos is a love fest of netroots celebration

      and I can't think of a single antagonistic incident from what I saw there.

      I wouldn't let this influence you.  You'll come back from YearlyKos feeling like you are part of something very special and worthwhile.  This joker probably won't even show as it's clearly meant to intimidate rather than be a realistic threat.

      by LondonYank on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:06:30 AM PDT

      •  I already feel that I am some small part of

        something special and worthwhile, particularly given the interaction with you all.  

        If YKos could amplify that, woof!

        by Terra Mystica on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:25:25 AM PDT

      •  The wingers were upset and more than

        a little jealous of the fact that YKos brought so many elected officials together.

        One look at Power "tools," and Red State should bear this out.

        The degree of our success is in direct proportion to the outrage and insults hurled by the wankosphere at us.  I call this the "Timbuk3 Theory", in honor of fellow kossack and former Yahoo board buddy timbuk3 who was among the first that I remember talking about how success of pro people viewpoints and issues were measurable on a scale by looking at con outrage at the same issues.

        The less con outrage beyond yuks and put downs, the less successful the issue was.  The louder the screeching and vitriol including hate mail or as Bartcop calls it, "Monkey Mail" the more successful our position is.

        This may be changing, but hate mail is a sure fire indicator that someone is paying attention to what YOU are saying.

        Give no personal info though!  AND, get an account with a sharp spam filter and easy to delete bulk folder.  There is no substitute for that.  

        by boilerman10 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:38:35 AM PDT

      •  The first one was, yes. BUT this diary is a wake-

        wake-up call, that sooner or later (this coming year?) there will be protestors there. People who hate all things liberal.

        Look at how persistent the abortion clinic protesters have been. Decades of showing up, over and over and over, in attempts to put fear into the clinic providers.

        Last year, no one in the wing-nut-o-sphere really knew YK was going to happen. This year is different.

        by AllisonInSeattle on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 12:06:27 PM PDT

    •  This comment strikes me as naive

      Do you really think that this was a first? That someone would start a negative campaign against another poster here a) in private email  b) on the DK board itself?

      I mean, people who write on the Internet about their opinions get LOTS of hate mail. Newspapers get hate mail, editorial writers get hate mail, news anchors get hate mail. Both postal and email. If you read the comments on blogs, you see that some of them are... hate mail to the blog author.

      Many editorialists from time to time do a spot about their hate mail -- publishing some of it.

      I'm just finding it hard to believe that you wouldn't have been aware that this could happen, and in fact, does happen.

      by AllisonInSeattle on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 12:04:02 PM PDT

  •  Well, when

    you celebrate the death of Israeli kids, you might have your view skewed in that direction.

    by Red Sox on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:14:24 AM PDT

  •  Gee, helpful.

    They are really adept haters.

    Thanks for doing your part to heal the dialogue. But you got a lot of recommends for your post bashing people you disagree with, so I'm sure we'll see much more of this stuff before we see less of it.

    by brittain33 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:28:08 AM PDT

    •  Although

      I have to hope a lot of people recommended on the basis of your subject line and weren't endorsing the crap soiling the end of your post.

      by brittain33 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:31:39 AM PDT

    •  Isn't it a shame how some people

      just seem to need somebody on "the other side" to hate?  It's this mentality that causes me to carefully avoid every single I/P diary at DailyKos.  It's too bad, because I know painfully little about this important issue, and this blog could be a good place for me to learn about it.  But the amount of partisan name-calling is way higher than the amount of information in these diaries, so it winds up just being a waste of time.

      But I guess everybody needs somebody to hate.  Me?  I hate Visigoths, and if I ever see one in my neighborhood, rest assured I will kill him on the spot.

      by I on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:32:49 AM PDT

      •  There are some classes of people who deserve hate

        1. The New York Yankees

        2. The Los Angeles Lakers

        3. The Miami Dolphins

        4. The Montreal Canadiens

        But that's about it. Maybe their fans.

        by Red Sox on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:42:58 AM PDT

        •  Oh, shit. Now it's on.

          I have no love for any of the teams you listed, but I gotta say ... the Red Sox lately are no better than the Yankees.  I can just hear Theo's phone conversations now: "Mediocre middle reliever?  Give him $89 million!"

          This discussion has the potential to be way worse than any I/P flamefest has ever been, so before you get too pissed, know that my team is the Pirates.  I know, it's pathetic.  But I'm so pathetic that for you to argue with me would make you even more pathetic.  ;p

          by I on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:49:12 AM PDT

          •  In the context of baseball at large

            you've got a good point. But in the context of playing in the same division as the Yankees, the Sox have to spend disproportionately to the rest of baseball.

            by Red Sox on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 08:02:41 AM PDT

        •  Who was it that paid $50+ Million for

          the right to negotiate with a Scott Boras client?

          by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:50:20 AM PDT

          •  Bite your tongue

            Daisuke Matsuzaka is the second coming of Roger Clemens.

            by Red Sox on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 08:01:35 AM PDT

            •  You mean he'll win his only WS with the Yankees?

              And that he'll be cast-off by the Red Sox only to win another 5 Cy Young awards?

              by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 08:04:04 AM PDT

              •  I hate you

                

                by Red Sox on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 08:08:46 AM PDT

                •  I hate A-Rod, and haven't been cheering for the

                  Yanks since they got him.

                  However, I may root for them this year now that they've managed to unload Sheff and the Big Eunuch.

                  by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 08:10:47 AM PDT

•  Just asking... nt

  by Terra Mystica on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 02:36:59 AM PDT

  •  i've neither seen nor received such mail

    i'm sorry you did. very lame.

    by Turkana on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 02:43:05 AM PDT

    •  It was a little bizarre for me as well.

      Me being me, I would like to meet him and talk.

      by Terra Mystica on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 02:57:53 AM PDT

      •  make certain

        it's somewhere very public. could just be someone who flew off the handle, but it could be someone genuinely unhinged. best to be safe.

        by Turkana on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:00:26 AM PDT

      •  Why? What do you care what s/he thinks?

        This is what makes America great.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.  

        by dkmich on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:13:29 AM PDT

        •  On this particular issue, I do care. nt

          by Terra Mystica on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:02:14 AM PDT

      •  Do NOT meet with this person

        Oh my goodness.

        Do not meet with this person.

        Don't give them any further information about yourself, including your name.

        And don't email them back. You're not going to change their mind with a few emails, so that's a pointless exercise.

        by AllisonInSeattle on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 11:45:39 AM PDT

  •  I'm sorry you got that

    Really, the only solution is to not link your e-mail to your Kos account if you're going to engage in controversial and emotional discussions. Either that, or learn to ignore e-mails like that which don't engage you as an individual. People send e-mails like that to vent their frustrations because discussions really make them angry. But think about how easy it is to send an e-mail like that, and you'll realize how inconsequential they really are.

    by brittain33 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:30:41 AM PDT

    •  I'm not concerned with any outcome, but I was

      asking if this is common here.

      I have gotten many emails from people here, just not any of this variety.

      As you know, and as I put in my poll, this issue may just be the one that engenders this.  I will attempt to take that into account in the future.  FWIW.

      by Terra Mystica on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:50:58 AM PDT

  •  I have gotten hate mail

    from about 3 people that were pro-Israel. I also got a Islamic prayer. My email is no longer on-line.

    by mattes on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 12:46:18 PM PDT

    •  Me too.

      It's a complicated thing.  My email is available, which I don't mind, and I don't think I've made intemperate comments here, but I've felt a little uneasy just once -- about a week ago.  If I were to sign up now, I'd probably not reveal as much about myself.  Oh well.  Live and learn.  

      by kellogg on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 01:38:31 PM PDT

      •  If I ever make it to Kossack Convention,,,

        I wonder if I will "out" myself.

        by mattes on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:25:06 PM PDT

•  Beware nutjobs

  They're not always benign.  

  by Persiflage on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 02:43:47 AM PDT

  •  at least

    s/he has the email address, in case it gets worse.

    by Turkana on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 02:46:01 AM PDT

•  Sorry to hear of your problem

  It does seem to be that those who support what they believe is an Israeli position appear to be getting more and more desperate on here. It would seem that there has been a sea change in atitudes over the last year. Whether that is a result of Palestine, Lebanon or the involvement of pro-Israelis in the neocon movement and what appears to be an agenda that is in the interests of the Right in Israel rather than the USA, it remains to be seen. There are I note one or two recent additions (and one longer standing) who appear to be fixated on this issue to the exclusion of others.

  One suggestion I do have is about how you lay out your email address. Spammers of all sorts are known to trawl sites like these with automatic searches. Replacing the "@" with " at " and "." with " dot " will confuse this.

  If anything, I am a far greater irritant to them than you as I take a fairly even handed position except I tend to adversely comment on them more when they come out with what is obviously myth or propaganda, then to challenge them to prove or provide alternative evidence. I have not yet received one of their invectives by email. Presumably this is because I have shown them I will not be intimidated by accusations of anti-semitism that are designed only to stiffle debate.

  by londonbear on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 02:58:08 AM PDT

  •  Yes and you have more specifics at hand than I

    do on the subject.

    This was just out of the blue and bizzare.  I thought that holding yourself out there to continue conversations was a good thing.  And it is.

    Thanks for your insight.

    by Terra Mystica on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:11:09 AM PDT

  •  I think I occupy a similar position

    but I have received a small amount of abusive email.  

    by Demena on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:32:04 AM PDT

  •  That's classic

    I take a fairly even handed position except I tend to adversely comment on them more when they come out with what is obviously myth or propaganda

    I don't know what's funnier:

    1. That you honestly believe that, or

    2. That the guy who charges Israel with pursuing an "ethnic bomb" that only targets those with Palestinian genetics is actually willing to suggest he counters "myth or propaganda."

    by Red Sox on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:20:37 AM PDT

    •  Thanks for keeping tabs on these people

      It's at the point where I see "London" in a username on an I/P thread and I scroll right past. Not worth it. It's funny to see that he reads being ignored as a sign that people think he won't be intimidated into giving up his clear, unbiased views of I/P or whatever. I remember when I thought I was heroic for arguing with white supremacists on the Internet ages ago, before I realized we were a bunch of bored people dicking around for an audience of maybe 5 people.

      I've been to bear bars on Old Compton St. and seen the guys in their leather. It's weird to think that any one of the guys there might be posting to Daily Kos about Israel.

      by brittain33 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:40:54 AM PDT

      •  For those of us in a

        slightly sheltered heterosexual existence, could you clarify what a "bear bar" is? Is it big, hairy guys?

        by Red Sox on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:14:10 AM PDT

        •  OK

          So which one of you wrote the abusive email?

          by londonbear on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:19:29 AM PDT

          •  I actually think

            that using e-mail to abuse people is pure chickenshit, ideological differences or otherwise.

            by Red Sox on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:28:32 AM PDT

        •  That's it

          Although in London, the crowd was different, just because Brits don't tend to be as big as Americans. There were a lot of slender guys with beards and leather suspenders.

          Andrew Sullivan's written a lot about the bear phenomenon, mostly because he became one about five years ago and likes to promote whatever stage of life he's in at the moment.

          by brittain33 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:47:13 AM PDT

          •  Learn something new

            every day, though when I woke up, I didn't quite expect this to be on my educational agenda. ;-)

            by Red Sox on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:52:28 AM PDT

            •  Goodness

              Well, the one troll rating "for homophobia" seems to have singlehandedly stripped me of TU status, even though I'm racking up the mojo on other, non-I/P threads today. Weird. I suppose I'll wait it out or jump on the open thread to bash Joe Lieberman/Dennis Hastert/Tony Snow in the first comment to get it back.

              by brittain33 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:54:43 AM PDT

              •  Ok

                It's back! Thank you.

                by brittain33 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:53:59 AM PDT

      •  Troll rating

        for homophobia

        by londonbear on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:30:21 AM PDT

        •  If so, then remove it

          Because I'm a gay man who has plenty of bear friends himself and have the follicles and shoulders to qualify as one if I put on 20 more pounds, and wrote that sentence sincerely. I don't go out to bars thinking about what the person I'm meeting thinks about Israeli policy, until now.

          Seriously, how many homophobes do you think have ever been to a bear bar?

          by brittain33 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:45:31 AM PDT

        •  Huh? Is "bear" homophobic?

          Then I guess I know a few more self-hating gays than I thought I did.

          by I on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:35:53 AM PDT

          •  it certainly is not homophobic.

            It's a term often used within the community,  and frankly it is usually used with pride, like here, for example.

            The TR should be removed.

            by Dion on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:52:20 AM PDT

            •  I have mixed feelings

              Because I slammed him pretty hard in the rest of the comment, it's weird to get TR'd on something that I'm blameless for.

              by brittain33 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:54:58 AM PDT

              •  You weren't TR'd for the homophobia.

                It was for the criticism.

                by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 08:07:02 AM PDT

    •  Since you know

      The charge was made by others and relates to a joint program run with the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Most of the revelations came out before the internet was extensive and the Wiki entry refers to a drug rather than a biological agent. Whichever way, the claim was based in fact rather than the fictions that the Israelis play on that they do not have nuclear weapons.

      Ad hominem attacks deserve troll rating, especially as you have hijacked this diary to make it. On the other hand it does illustrate exactly what Judeofascists get up to.

      In case you do not like that description, look up "fascist" in the OED. Since you are so keen on the correct use of "anti-semitism", two can play at the dictionary game.

      by londonbear on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:20:47 AM PDT

      •  I see

        The charge was made by others and relates to a joint program run with the Apartheid regime in South Africa.

        People make batshit charges all the time. That you endorse such lunacy is not mitigated by the fact that someone else said it first.

        Ad hominem attacks deserve troll rating, especially as you have hijacked this diary to make it. On the other hand it does illustrate exactly what Judeofascists get up to.

        In case you do not like that description, look up "fascist" in the OED. Since you are so keen on the correct use of "anti-semitism", two can play at the dictionary game.

        So because I use the proper definition of anti-Semitism, you choose to qualify fascism based on the religious background of the person to whom you're replying. Ignoring that hate that motivates your comment, that's just stupid logic.

        Oh, and the definition doesn't really help your case.

        by Red Sox on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:28:12 AM PDT

      •  Judeofascists? No, you don't have

        a problem with Jews or anything.

        And you don't have any evidence--because you take any rumor or myth that reflects poorly upon Israel and trumpet it as the truth.

        by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:40:42 AM PDT

  •  That's rich from someone who has spread

    more antisemitic lies  than anyone here, including:

    1.  Darfur activism is an International Zionist plot. (Hilariously, you hinted that SHERGALD might be part of that plot.  You also claimed that I/P was an example of genocide, but that Darfur wasn't).

    2.  Jews really did kill Christian children, and now use their influence to prevent that fact from being published. (You quoted a one of the most notorious anti-semites on the Internet, Israel Shamir, in doing so).

    3. Israelis are modern day Nazis who have tried to develop a genetic weapon to commit genocide against Palestinians. (Where you not only lied about having proof, but alleged that Israel had its own version of the "Final Solution."

    If there is a voice more toxic and dishonest than yours when it comes to I/P issues, I haven't seen it.

    by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:11:15 AM PDT

    •  I invite readers

      of your trash to go to the link as read it in its entirety however I will quote one piece.

      The rest of the piece is mostly devoted to a critique of how Israel uses the accusation of "blood libel" to silence criticism of its actions against Palestinians, while not being averse to making similar accusations about them.

      Now while I am open to being informed that Shamir has his own motives for making these statements, I hope they will go beyond the "self hating Jew" line and be evidence based. What we have though are two instances of topics that are so sensitive to Jews that they invoke the wrath of the US State Department or where contrary evidence appears to be suppressed. These surely are prima face demands to curtail freedom of speech because of religious sensitivities which are supported in the west.

      As I said, I am not afraid of your libels, bring it on. What of course you FAIL to quote is my diary in which I clearly stated that Israel is not, despite accusations, guilty of Genocide within the meaning of the Treaty and that it should not be used loosely.

      by londonbear on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:27:52 AM PDT

      •  More bullshit from you:

         AJWS (0+ / 4-)

        Trollrated by:
           Ahianne, Bouwerie Boy, Democritus, Joelarama

        What have the AJWS done to press the Israeli government to recognise the Lemba of Zimbabwe as Jews and to rescue them from the hands of Mugabe in the same way that they did for the Ethiopean Jews?

        Answer - nothing because Darfur is a neat diversion from the genocide that Israel is committing in Gaza and the West Bank.

        Kneejerk reactions do not come from knees.

        by londonbear on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 12:02:45 PM PST

        Yeah, you're sooooo even-handed.

        By the way, you found the Israel Shamir article at a white supremacist site that denies the Holocaust.  Good to see where you get your reading material about all things Jewish.

        by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:32:37 AM PDT

        •  I don't expect you to respond to this post,

          now that you've been exposed as a liar.

          by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:37:27 AM PDT

          •  Well

            Since that was exactly the time I was researching the usage, I make no apologies for using it incorrectly. Besides, you should know that anti-semites enjoy Jew-baiting.

            by londonbear on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 08:27:32 AM PDT

            •  Except that you went after someone

              in the exact same diary for using the term incorrectly.

              by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 08:35:06 AM PDT

    •  No

      You spread lies about other users.

      by londonbear on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:29:16 AM PDT

      •  You deny accusing Israel of genocide?

         AJWS (0+ / 4-)

        Trollrated by:
           Ahianne, Bouwerie Boy, Democritus, Joelarama

        What have the AJWS done to press the Israeli government to recognise the Lemba of Zimbabwe as Jews and to rescue them from the hands of Mugabe in the same way that they did for the Ethiopean Jews?

        Answer - nothing because Darfur is a neat diversion from the genocide that Israel is committing in Gaza and the West Bank.

        Kneejerk reactions do not come from knees.

        by londonbear on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 12:02:45 PM PST

        You deny citing works from anti-semites hosted on racist websites?

        In an interesting article of this, Israel Shamir explains how this falsehood might be the result of a (deliberate?) cultural misunderstand by the Christians, as claimed in a book by Professor Israel Yuval of Hebrew University in Jerusalem:

        You deny making inflammatory accusations without any modicum of proof?

        While it is certainly the case that the policies of the current Prime Minister of Israel is only for a final solution cosisting of building an immensely tall ghetto wall around Palestinian bhantustans, others have certainly explored means of limiting the Palestinian population using biological weapons to restrict reproduction. This was a joint effort with the aparteheid regime in South Africa's scientists (who are also believed to have co-operated in the test of the Israeli atomic bomb  in the ocean south-east of the coast of Africa) The "genetic bomb" was only abandoned after it was realised it could not be made specific enough to target only selected groups.

        Please.  

        by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:36:05 AM PDT

        •  Well

          Since I linked to references that you might not like, I did justify those claims. I will stand by the Sunday Times which first revealed the joint Israel/South Africa program. Which other parts of the post do you deny as facts?? Do you deny the Lemba their self-identity as Jews? Do you deny that along with many other tribes and ethnic groups they are the victims of Mugabe's regime? Do you deny that apart from the South African Jewish organisations, nobody has taken up their right of return to Israel?

          Maybe you would like to point me to any Israeli government official who has even acknowledged their predicament. Are you also denying that the Ethiopean Jews suffer racial discrimination within Israel? Do you deny that Israel has nuclear bombs and is also likely to have other forms of WMD as is asserted by many peace groups?

          Perhaps you can point to where I state that any of this is genocide rather than double standards. I note by the way that the vociferous pro-Israeli posters who made so much play about Darfur when Israel was scattering cluster bombs on Lebanon are now remarkable by their silence. Maybe I was right in my caution to look at the motives of those who used Darfur as a diversion from what was going on in I/P and Lebanon.

          Neither can you find me anything other than consistent in stating that I consider the "two state  solution" to be an inevitable medium term solution to enable dialogue and trust building before an inevitable union and that that would take many decades. You do not like that because you are wedded to the idea of a monotheistic state with a few "minority" Arabs tolerated to avoid accusations of ethnic cleansing. Perhaps you would like to define what you consider to be the borders of Israel under international law.

          by londonbear on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:53:22 AM PDT

          •  Genocide

            Since at the time I was using genocide in the loose term in common parlance, I should emphasise that I subsequently looked up the precise definition as so much fuss was being made about the UN Secretary General's special envoy refusing to call Darfur a genocide as he was using the strict definition.

            I supported him in that stance although I now feel the conditions are such that the definition of Genocide within the terms of the Treaty can be applied to both Darfur and the use of cluster weapons by the Israelis in southern Lebanon.

            by londonbear on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 08:00:18 AM PDT

          •  You should quite while you're behind.

            Perhaps you can point to where I state that any of this is genocide rather than double standards.

            Why, I'll see you that and show you using your own hypocritical double-standards!

            AJWS (0+ / 4-)

            Trollrated by:
              Ahianne, Bouwerie Boy, Democritus, Joelarama

            What have the AJWS done to press the Israeli government to recognise the Lemba of Zimbabwe as Jews and to rescue them from the hands of Mugabe in the same way that they did for the Ethiopean Jews?

            Answer - nothing because Darfur is a neat diversion from the genocide that Israel is committing in Gaza and the West Bank.

            Kneejerk reactions do not come from knees.

            by londonbear on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 12:02:45 PM PST

            In the EXACT SAME THREAD:

            The AJWS campaign is (0+ / 3-)

            Trollrated by:
               Geekesque, word is bond, blueness

            I may accept that this diary is not a diversion however if it is not, why not mention the other 11 organisations involved but only the AJWS? Both Jes and Muslims have long and honorable records of hospitality and charitable working towards stangers. That is not surprising in view of the traditions they both share.

            I find the hijacking of those concerns for the sake of political expediency one of the most despicable aspects of the Sharon/Olmert governments. If you cannot see that the UN did not acknowledge that the situation Darfur did not meet the strict criteria of Genocide and then use the word loosely in your diary, I will come back at you.

            I might add that the characterization of the Darfur conflict as a Muslim/Christian clash is playing into the hands for the neo-cons who only concern are the oil reserves under the region. q

            Kneejerk reactions do not come from knees.

            by londonbear on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 12:40:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            So, you're a hypocrite and a liar, x2.

            by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 08:00:58 AM PDT

          •  By your truthiness standards, Saddam had WMD's

            in 2002--because a major newspaper reported it!

            Maybe Curveball was their source.

            by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 08:02:37 AM PDT

            •  And by the level of regard you have

              for Human Rights and International Law, I think that it might be appropriate to ask you the same question that Berlusconi did of the German MEP

              by londonbear on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 08:30:26 AM PDT

              •  Do you have a cite to prove that I have no

                regard for human rights?

                by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 09:02:38 AM PDT

                •  Discussion is pointless with you

                  Until you stop distorting what people write. Did I say you have no regard for human rights?

                  by londonbear on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 09:43:12 AM PDT

                  •  No, you just implied it.

                    Note, however, that I back up my claims with your own words.

                    Including your link (with approval) to a noxious piece of hate speech written by a notorious bigot hosted on a site aligned with Combat 18 and the BNP.

                    by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 09:59:40 AM PDT

                    •  Which bit are you referring to

                      I think I generally acknowledge obviously biased sites I link to and only use them if they provide information I believe to be true but not available elsewhere when I searched the net. Much pre even 2000 that was available in written or reliable documentary form is not available on the net. In the case of the SA Truth and Reconcilliation process which I think you refer to, the particular scientist against who the allegations are strongest refused to testify before the committee.

                      Co-operation on a number of military projects between Israeli and the Apartheid regimes is not contraversial surely? In its obituary of PW Botha the Jerusalem Post quotes a former Israeli ambassador to South Africa:

                      How could you do this to us after our alliance?'" Liel quoted from the top secret memo. "You must understand that South Africa under P.W. Botha was one of the closest friends Israel had. We had a military alliance with them. We helped them build and modernize their army, and they gave us tons of cash for that, as well as other benefits.

                      The same piece goes on to reference the claims of nuclear co-operation but of course makes it a "foreign sources report that" comment in line with the Israeli pretense of not admitting and not denying the existence of their nuclear stockpiles:

                      In 1977, Botha, then foreign minister, visited Israel to discuss South African issues with prime minister Menachem Begin and foreign minister Moshe Dayan. According to foreign press reports, it is suspected that Botha signed a pact with Israel that included the transfer of military technology and the manufacture of at least six atom bombs.

                      http://www.jpost.com/...

                      by londonbear on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 11:02:40 AM PDT

                      •  The racist site was the Israel Shamir

                        polemic, which was hosted on a far-right hate site.

                        I know that the Israelis and the South Africans had an unseemly alliance.  That's hardly proof that the Israelis were working on an ethnobomb, which doesn't make sense when one considers that many, many Israelis are genetically identical to Arabs.

                        by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 11:19:31 AM PDT

                        •  I made exactly that point

                          The project was abandoned when the scientists on the project realised that there was no way of differentiating white South Africans from the other racial groups as there was no unique feature of DNA they were able to identify. That time was, you remember the era when it was believed science would provide neat solutions. Reagan's Star Wars ideas came out of the same mind set.

                          As far as the piece on Israel Shamir goes, my quotes in that post come from his interpretation of a book by Israely Yuval of the Hebrew University entitled Two Nations in Thy Womb, or Perceptions of Jews and Christians, (Tel Aviv, Am Oved 2000). It was an examination of the Blood Libel and explaining the background. The claim made on the site was that the book was only available in Hebrew. If this is incorrect or the gist of the two quotes have been distorted, I would be grateful for the correction. I acknowledged the problems with this source both overtly by putting a strong "health warning" and by the inclusion of such words as "Shamir goes on to assert"

                          The irony of this is that the post was intended to show that there are topics so sensitive towards Jewish people that they are considered beyond the pale to repeat. That was in the context of the accusations about Muslims wishing to suppress free speech in objecting to the cartoons showing the Prophet Mohammed. I also quoted Colin Powell in his reaction to a TV show that dramatised, in part, the Protocols. You may have missed this part I wrote:

                          The "Protocols" were a forgery from around 1900 which purported to reveal a world-wide Jewish conspiracy for domination. (Stange how "they want to take over the world" is a recurrent theme to accuse those who are "other"). The Nazis used the Protocols as part of their excuse for organised anti-semitism which led to the Holocaust. Jews are rightly sensitive about its further dissemination and it is banned in some countries

                          Is that an endorsement of the Protocols or is it a historical statement of the forgery and the use it was put to. The last sentence makes the point of the post; they are so offensive that they are banned, in the same way that Muslims found the cartoons so offensive that they called for them to be banned.

                          My last paragraph of that post reiterated the contraversial nature of the site and asked for a reasoned response:

                          Now while I am open to being informed that Shamir has his own motives for making these statements, I hope they will go beyond the "self hating Jew" line and be evidence based. What we have though are two instances of topics that are so sensitive to Jews that they invoke the wrath of the US State Department or where contrary evidence appears to be suppressed. These surely are prima face demands to curtail freedom of speech because of religious sensitivities which are supported in the west.

                          It is therefore quite ironic that you should distort the meaning and intent of the post by using very similar tactics to that Shamir claims were used against Yuval's book. You illustrate my point perfectly. Quoting from an "outcast" even if the contents are accurate is not to be tolerated. On this basis any critique of a racist statement would be disallowed as you would have to quote the statement in order to refute the claims.

                          by londonbear on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 12:13:30 PM PDT

                          •  The point is that using a racist article by

                            a racist author hosted on a racist website does nothing to advance the discourse on racism.

                            ANYTHING that Shamir (a Swedish Neo-Nazi named Joran Jermas) has to say on Jews or anti-semitism is per se illegitimate and completely untrustworthy.  

                            Would you cite David Duke or Nick Griffin to support a point about blacks complaining about racism?  

                            And I don't use those names accidentally.  Jermas/Shamir has stated that:

                            For as long as Richard Perle sits in the Pentagon, Elie Wiesel brandishes his Nobel Prize, Mort Zuckerman owns the USA Today, Gusinsky bosses over Russian TV, Soros commands multi-billions of funds and Dershowitz teaches at Harvard, we need the voices of Duke, Sobran, Raimondo, Buchanan, Mahler, Griffin and of other anti-bourgeois nationalists."

                            Note that Justin Raimondo has stated unequivocally that Shamir is a bigot and that he doesn't feel he belongs with the other moral lepers on the list.

                            Yuval's book has since been translated into English.  

                            by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 12:38:00 PM PDT

                            •  Thanks

                              And is the description of Yuval's book  and its arguments accurate?

                              by londonbear on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:54:27 PM PDT

                              •  I haven't read the book. However, any

                                interpretation given by Jermas is certainly distorted and misleading.

                                by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 09:41:20 PM PDT

                              •  Though, if the contention is merely that some

                                Jews killed themselves and their families rather than being forcibly converted by Crusaders during 1096, that fact is rather openly discussed and is common knowledge.  

                                It's hard to tell from Jermas's work where Yuval's scholarship ends and Jermas's mythmaking begins.

                                by Geekesque on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 10:16:39 PM PDT

•  YOU DONE FUCKED UP

  Emails are private. Did you ask their permission before publishing this? No?

  So you took a private email and published it without permission?

  If I took something off-line to email, and then that person turned around and published it online, I would be mighty pissed.

  You may not be evil, but you do need to bone up on your net-ethics (cause this diary just ain't right).

  by opendna on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:14:58 AM PDT

  •  Along those lines,

    if the person really is unhinged, this diary certainly won't help the situation.  But it damn sure might escalate it.

    by cowgirl on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:21:17 AM PDT

    •  It looks like the person is reasonable

      the thread got too hot and personal, so they took it off-line... like they're supposed to do.

      Then the diarist comes along later, having cooled down themselves and forgotten all the inflamatory things they wrote, reads the email and posts it to a diary.

      Dispicable.

      by opendna on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:27:06 AM PDT

      •  I odn't consdier this type of email

        which borders on a threat to be taking it offlist.  That is scary.

        What this diarist is doing is asking whether this sort of email is common from Kossacks (not that the writer of the hate mail is a Kossack; they plan to protest at YearlytKos, not attend).   That is a valid question.  It might have been better to post only the most appalling phrases here, rather than the whole email.  But having been through somethign similar, I can understnad the fear this engenders.

        by irishwitch on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 12:22:07 PM PDT

        •  Heh. I guess I should have written

          'Congratulations on your first piece of hate mail. May your success warrant many more.'

          ;^)

          by opendna on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 01:17:58 PM PDT

          •  You've obviously never been afraid

            because of threatening mail. For your sake, I hope you never find out what it's like.

            by irishwitch on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:40:01 PM PDT

  •  Publishing Fivemonth@xxxxxx is f*cking up?

    Terra Mystica published his/her own email. How hard would it have been to click her id and see for yourself?

    by greatwhitebuffalo on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:28:14 AM PDT

    •  Not the address, silly.

      The content of the email.

      by opendna on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:35:58 AM PDT

      •  Content's fair game.

        Of course, the person in question can speak up if they care so greatly about it.

        Or have they already?

        by cskendrick on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 03:50:23 AM PDT

        •  Have you ever heard 'take it off-line'?

          I'm really disappointed to see so many people don't see what a gross violation confidentiality this is. I wonder if these are the same people who get outraged if some 'leader' of our movement is attacked with contents of a private email.

          As for your implication that I am the author of those emails, I'm a little hurt, Kendrick. You should know me well enough to recognize that those emails don't come anywhere near my standards for vitrol. They don't even contain the formulaic references to cannibalisim and sexual peversion.

          by opendna on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 12:06:29 PM PDT

          •  you miss the point entirely

            "take it off line" means stop wasting our bandwith for your personal squabbles. It has nothing to do with secrecy or privacy.    Clearly you are more articulate that the hatemail author, but either radically inexperienced, or insincere in your complaints, which seem stunningly misguided for someone who can string two sentences together.

            by Snarcalita on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 10:29:36 PM PDT

          •  The threats should be kept confidential?

            Kind of like the abused spouse or partner? They should respect the privacy of the abuser?

            Well...I suppose the FBI could sort it out.

            Totally on the QT, of course.

            by cskendrick on