The accounts differ depending on who you ask. He makes it sound like it was confusion on the woman’s part, she makes it sound like he explicitly said that he was an eligible Jewish bachelor (judging from the picture I saw of him, it wasn’t because he was so good looking) in an attempt to have sex with her.
So in the first sentence, I would say you are accusing “people” of antisemitism.
In the second sentence, I would say that you accuse Ionizer of anti-semitism.
If you are not accusing “people” and Ionizer of anti-semitism then what are you doing when you imply that some things seem to be acceptable as long as the targets are the “right people”?
Now this doesn’t prove that you ever leveled these sort of veiled accusations at me but…
Because this idiocy already takes up too much of my time. I made that mistake in my first “debate” with you. I ended up spending hours looking up old posts to prove my point to you until I realized how futile it was.
I remember having to correct people maybe 3 or 4 times after which people stopped bringing it up. Maybe that’s the problem. You don’t realize that sometimes repetition is necessary on these message boards because it is really easy to gloss over a post unless you are paying a LOT of attention to what everyone else says. I know that I miss stuff sometimes and when I do people remind me of the facts again. Perhaps you might remember that when you reply with posts saying “I already proved that some time ago so there is no need to mention it again” on page 8 of some thread. Would it kill you to actually state the facts again?
I think the opposite. As much as I dislike the teabaggers I think the teabaggers are a pretty good indicator that we live in a democracy. Why is it that almost everyone (including the Israel apologists) will admit that there is at least some problems with Israel but you cannot seem to bring yourself to admit even that much.
As a critic of Israel, I wouldn’t want to hang my hat on this incidence as the smoking gun. In light of Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law - Wikipedia it is difficult for me to approach this case without a jaundiced eye.
[quote=“Malthus, post:288, topic:547472”]
In this case the guy is appealing the verdict - but not on the basis he didn’t lie. He’s appealing on the basis that the punishment for lying is too harsh.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/weird/2010/07/23/14807736.html
[quote]
He was sentenced to 18 months in jail, but his lawyer, Adnan Aladdin, said that’s too much.
…
Well, that sounds like an admission of actual guilt to me rather than one of those “I’ll plead guilty to get a lighter sentence because I know this kangaroo court is going to convict me whether or not I did it” sort of guilty pleas. I will note two things:
Some people still seem to think the law is being applied with prejudice (but I think its iffy either way).
His lawyer’s name is Aladdin? I don’t think I’ve ever seen that name IRL before.