You keep saying “an anonymous source” when the original article cited not only a municipal official, but a spokesman in Libyan Prime Minister Zeidan’s office who confirmed that Levy was asked by the municipality not to come on the visit, and a source reportedly close to Levy who supplied additional confirmation. Now, you can critique the use of multiple anonymous sources, but that’s another matter.
Uh-huh.
If you don’t want to be regarded as promulgating a conspiracy to explain the appearance of this story, avoiding statements like "It seems to me the misunderstandings are of a deliberate nature. and “some persons seek misunderstandings” is advisable.
Et alors, vive les sluts.
Perhaps this is a language issue: when someone says “an Anglophone Jewish conspiracy” it generally does not (at least for sane people) imply all Anglophones and all Jews are part of the conspiracy, only that a conspiracy exists and that the conspirators are Anglophones and Jews.
So pointing out that your hypothetical conspiracy invloves specific factions - right wing parties and the like - does not contradict the notion that it is an “Anglo Jewish conspiracy”.
Point being, that no matter how one charaterizes it, the story’s origin has nothing whatsoever to do with Anglophone Jews or some “very specific fraction” thereof.
It is not “uhuh” - but I did make a mistake. I had forgotten or I had missed the Independent article had said rue89 as the source, this is why I was saying above it was me who found rue89 as the source, as I thought this was true because I had missed this in the Independent article. I am sorry for this error. At least my statements are logical within the case of my error. The various many crazy blogs led further to an impression.
It was not, and I did not say it was. I made a mistake in thinking when I googled that there were other sources, which I already apologised for very superior person.
As for your experience, you may keep your posturing. All tendancies political have their extremists. The extreme zionists are those who advocate the explusion of palestinians from the Territories. This is not a controverial idea, that there is extremism.
How many of the sources citing the story in the OP fit into your definition of “extreme zionism” by advocating expulsion of the Palestinians, and what is your evidence for such an assertion?
Ah, so then the Jews you saw promoting this story promote expelling the Palestinians from the territories?
I have to say I’m quite surprised because I can’t think of any major Jewish figures in the US and few in Israel who endorse this. I don’t think even Dov Hikind supports that nor does Avigidor Lieberman and if they’re not extreme Zionists I don’t know who is.
Perhaps you could help us out by linking to some Jewish sources promoting this story who advocate expelling the Palestinians from the territories.
Dude, don’t bother with these people. You made your point and it was clear. It’s obviously a right-wing scare story and you did a great job of pointing that out. They’re picking apart your posts because they realize that it is obviously a right-wing scare story, that’s it’s uncorroborated bullshit, and that the only thing left to do is to attack your clumsy handling of the language.
I’d be embarrassed to give any credence to a blog post turned news story that has less than 10 whole cites on the entire internet.
It’s a news story from the French news source Rue89 picked up in The Independant. So far, not one bit of evidence has been presented that Rue89 is a “right-wing” blog.
The story may indeed be bullshit.
However, the assertion that the story was planted as a “right wing scare story” requires something by way of proof. Do you have any, besides it being “obvious”?
Or is this like Ramira’s assertion that it was all part of some right wing Jewish Anglophone conspiracy - something that you ‘just know’ to be true, regardless of proof?
I don’t think that Ramira thought that there was a conspiracy. My understanding is that she found that the information and BHL’s comments about it were published mostly in right wing blogs/papers who have a tendency to add fuel to the fire for whatever reason (I this case…“see…as soon as they’re liberated, those pieces of shit began to display their true vile colors as we had predicted”) and that it was reported in this foreign informations sources in a biaised way (in particular by quoting selectively BHL’s response).
At least, that’s how I interpret Ramira’s statements.
I don’t know if it’s true, I didn’t look up to see who published what.
As for what BHL is saying :
He states that the main information is false, especially since there was no planned travel to begin with
2)The original title of rue89’s article had antisemitic undertones in his opinion. But I have no clue about what kind of publication rue89 is, let alone what BHL thinks of it or what it thinks of BHL, so I don’t know what he is insinuating exactly, if anything. He might simply be stating that they should have thought twice about their choice of words, for all I know.
He thinks he has ample evidences that he still has the support of all those now important people that he met and worked with in Libya back then during the civil wars.
Nevertheless, he can’t help but wonder : are all those demonstrations of friendship just empty words, with no weight given the faction struggle in Libya? (for instance, would his “friend” the prime minister readily leave him out in the cold to satisfy some extremist municipal counciliors, in this case?). Especially since, thinking twice, there are some evidences supporting this hypothesis.
5)Even if true, though, he believes it’s only another reason to keep the “good fight”.
