[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Panic In Israel As Hezbollah Expands Attack Strategy, Changes Targets: '2 Million Israelis At Risk' Why Does Kamala Harris Keep Repeating This Quote? - (Karl Marx Origins) Re-Visiting Deagel 2025 Population Forecast: An Accidental Warning? NHS Whistleblower: We Were Instructed to Euthanize Patients to Inflate COVID Death Toll While Hospitals Sat Empty! America Obliterates Half North Vietnam's MiG-21 Fleet In 13 Minutes - Operation Bolo Fully Autistic at 3 but by age 6 he was symptom-free and back to being a normal kid We Are at War, You Got An Enemy, Stop Depending on Your Enemy (Money Laundering) A mass shooting in Birmingham, Alabama’s Five Points South left 4 dead, 25 injured, Brilliant takedown of how lost the Democratic Party is from a former Democrat KY Sheriff Shot Judge because Judge was R*ping his Daughter Arrested by Kamala: A Black Mother's Story Israeli Media Fear Houthis Have Arrived on Israel's Border as Militia Touts Readiness for 'Long War' KAMALA’S AMERICA: Violent Squatters Take Over Massive Mansion in Wealthy Los Angeles Neighborhood Walk/Don't-Walk - In Which States Do Citizens Stroll The Most? U.S. Poverty Myth EXPOSED! New Census Report Is Shocking Capitol Hill August layoffs soared to 15-year high, marking a 193% increase from July. NYPD Faces Uncertain Future Amid New York's Growing Political Crisis Whitney Webb: Foreign Intelligence Affiliated CTI League Poses Major National Security Risk Paul Joseph Watson: What Fresh Hell Is This? Watch: 50 Kids Loot 7-Eleven In Beverly Hills For Candy & Snacks "No Americans": Insider Of Alleged Trafficking Network Reveals How Migrants Ended Up At Charleroi, PA Factory Ford scraps its SUV electric vehicle; the US consumer decides what should be produced, not the Government The Doctor is In the House [Two and a half hours early?] Trump Walks Into Gun Store & The Owner Says This... His Reaction Gets Everyone Talking! Here’s How Explosive—and Short-Lived—Silver Spikes Have Been This Popeyes Fired All the Blacks And Hired ALL Latinos ‘He’s setting us up’: Jewish leaders express alarm at Trump’s blaming Jews if he loses Asia Not Nearly Gay Enough Yet, CNN Laments Undecided Black Voters In Georgia Deliver Brutal Responses on Harris (VIDEO) Biden-Harris Admin Sued For Records On Trans Surgeries On Minors

Israel/Zionism
See other Israel/Zionism Articles

Title: Albert Einstein A Plagiarist?
Source: The Guardian - UK 8-29-03
URL Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,3928978-103681,00.html
Published: Apr 5, 2006
Author: By Rory Carroll in Rome
Post Date: 2006-04-06 00:05:11 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 574
Comments: 122

Einstein's E=mc² 'was Italian's idea'

"De Pretto deserves credit if his contribution can be proven. Even so, it should not detract from Einstein."

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 72.

#1. To: Horse, Zipporah (#0)

Zip, can you fix this to eliminate the side to side scroll?

Horse, have you flagged the insulters? ;)

christine  posted on  2006-04-06   1:45:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

He's talking about me, but I didn't post insults. My posts to him are #3 and #4, here. I do get tired of the simmering anti-semitism here, however, which is why I made the jab. But I made no personal comments about Horse or anyone else, as you can see for yourself.

Incidentally, I also posted #2, but not to Horse, and it wasn't a personal comment either, but rather a criticism of the article's content. In my opinion, the author of the article doesn't know what he's talking about.

For example, it contains the bald assertion: "But light-speed is nearly an indefinite figure." That's just wrong. c = 299,792,458.0000 m/s, exactly. It's defined. It's so easy to measure accurately, and with great precision, that the international metrology community changed the definition of the meter. It's no longer so many wavelengths of a certain krypton transition, it's now how far light goes in a vacuum in 1/299792458 seconds. The two scratches on a platinum bar in Paris is at least two definitions ago, in case you are wondering. The meter is no longer a primary standard; it's now a derived quantity based on the speed of light, which is defined. That makes the statement "But light- speed is nearly an indefinite figure" almost as wrong as any statement could possibly be.

freeedom  posted on  2006-04-06   5:48:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I do get tired of the simmering anti-semitism here, however, which is why I made the jab.

What's your definition of anti-semitism and I'd appreciate it if you'd cite a specific post by anyone here as evidence of "simmering anti-semitism." Is any criticism of zionists, jews, or Israel anti-semitism in your mind? Well, guess what? I'm tired of the label and the accusation that we're anti-semites on this forum because we allow open and free discussion of THE topic.

christine  posted on  2006-04-06   11:59:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Is any criticism of zionists, jews, or Israel anti-semitism in your mind?

I don't know what a "Zionist" is. Criticizing Isreal, e.g. government policy, is fine with me. But criticizing "Jews" - that is a race. Saying that something "is the fault of the Jews" is like saying something is the fault of "the blacks" or "whitey" and is explicitly racist. Not only is the argument unsophisticated, but it is symptomatic of the kind of collectivist thinking that leads to concentration camps, unless it's something that you can demonstrate is inseparable from people with Jewish ancestry. (Which will be difficult.) I have seen many threads here which tempted me to post "It's the Joooooos" but I have resisted till now. I'll post a few of them and ping you.

Incidentally, when you capitalize "the" in the statement "I'm tired of the label and the accusation that we're anti-semites on this forum because we allow open and free discussion of THE topic" it conveys the impression that of all the problems in the world, THE problem is Jooooos, and we can only solve it if we can discuss it. Is that really what you intend to convey, or am I hopefully misunderstanding you?

I happen to think that socialism and radical Islam, both of which are ideologies independent of one's ancestry, are far greater threats to the country and the world, and I can debate why I think these things, based on history and where such ideologies might lead. But if someone is Jewish, you can't debate anything - his parents are Jews, therefore, he's a Jew, and therefore - what? He's the main problem? Please.

freeedom  posted on  2006-04-07   8:35:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Incidentally, when you capitalize "the" in the statement "I'm tired of the label and the accusation that we're anti-semites on this forum because we allow open and free discussion of THE topic" it conveys the impression that of all the problems in the world, THE problem is Jooooos, and we can only solve it if we can discuss it. Is that really what you intend to convey, or am I hopefully misunderstanding you?

I've been around this issue for a few years now, starting with LP, and have learned a few things about it.

First, christine mentioned "THE topic" not "THE problem". That's an important distinction.

Second, as you pointed out, criticism of Israel is reasonable and and fair play. But many people that are pro-jew / act in defense of jews consider criticism of Israel to be a veiled slam on jews, and therefore shouldn't be permitted. Those people taking that stance are wrong and I believe it's reasonable and correct to point that out to them. I believe that false and excessive cries of anti-semitism, such as the prosecution of so-called holocaust deniers in Europe do the jews far more harm than letting people question the number of jewish dead in WWII Europe. Why isn't questioning the number of Ukrainian dead under Stalin also a crime?

Third, jewry is not really a race. It's a religion, or more of a religion than a race. At least that's what one jew told me, in spite of the idea that the original blood jews are decended from Abraham. Racially speaking, arabs are of the same blood line as jews, and in fact, "semite" refers equally to arabs and jews alike. But in terms of religion, anyone converting to judaism is considered a full blood jew, so they seem to consider the faith aspect as the primary defining factor. With that distiction, they really enjoy the same protection as islamic "ragheads", if you follow.

Fourth, one practice among jews which is very arguably discriminatory involves the matter of money. Again, I was told this from a jew and you can verify it anywhere, including the Old Testament. When a jew loans money to another jew, no interest in permitted to be charged. Interest is only permitted when loaned to a non-jew. This is a factual statement, not an anti-semite statement. What does it mean? It means that jews do treat people differently based on their religion, discriminating against non-jews, which runs contrary to modern day political correctness which seems to bind all other political & religious sectors within the USA.

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-04-07   11:24:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

First, christine mentioned "THE topic" not "THE problem". That's an important distinction.

You're right, but I made a logical step from there. This is a political discussion forum, and if Jews are THE topic, and we're not happy about the way things are, I think we can presume that they are THE problem. Am I wrong?

But many people that are pro-jew / act in defense of jews consider criticism of Israel to be a veiled slam on jews, and therefore shouldn't be permitted. Those people taking that stance are wrong and I believe it's reasonable and correct to point that out to them.

I do not number among them.

I believe that false and excessive cries of anti-semitism, such as the prosecution of so-called holocaust deniers in Europe do the jews far more harm than letting people question the number of jewish dead in WWII Europe. Why isn't questioning the number of Ukrainian dead under Stalin also a crime?

I agree, censorship is dangerous, and particularly so when conducted by governments. I agree with you that prosecuting holocaust deniers is dangerous, and I would also object to criminalizing, say, questioning the number of Ukranian dead.

Third, jewry is not really a race. It's a religion, or more of a religion than a race.

You're being excessively pedantic. I doubt that when Horse posts, "The Jews are in control of the press" he means, practicing religious Jews.

Racially speaking, arabs are of the same blood line as jews, and in fact, "semite" refers equally to arabs and jews alike.

I confess to using the term colloquially. But tell me, when Horse posts "The Jews control the press" - does his use of the term "Jew" have any more subtlety or complexity than my informal use of the term "anti-Semitic" does? I don't think so.

But in terms of religion, anyone converting to judaism is considered a full blood jew, so they seem to consider the faith aspect as the primary defining factor. With that distiction, they really enjoy the same protection as islamic "ragheads", if you follow.

Sort of. But once again, I don't think those who own the media outlets are practicing, devout Jews, so I believe you and Horse disagree, even though you are apparently coming to his defense.

Fourth, one practice among jews which is very arguably discriminatory involves the matter of money. Again, I was told this from a jew and you can verify it anywhere, including the Old Testament. When a jew loans money to another jew, no interest in permitted to be charged. Interest is only permitted when loaned to a non-jew. This is a factual statement, not an anti-semite statement.

There are a lot of things that are objectively in the Bible, e.g. stoning adulterers, that are (fortunately) long gone (except in radical Islam). I highly doubt that Jews don't pay margin interest or mortgage interest, even though some brokers and loan officers are undoutedly Jewish. (Or, ~all of them if you actually believed that Jews "control" banks and brokerage houses.)

What does it mean? It means that jews do treat people differently based on their religion, discriminating against non-jews, which runs contrary to modern day political correctness which seems to bind all other political & religious sectors within the USA.

I have no evidence that Jews, today, actually do this. Do you? The fact it's in their holy book doesn't mean it's still practiced. One difference, though, is that another certain holy book says it's ok to kill infidels, and there's plenty of evidence right now that they still want to, plan to, and do so in great numbers. If you want to talk about political correctness.

freeedom  posted on  2006-04-07   13:29:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I agree, censorship is dangerous, and particularly so when conducted by governments. I agree with you that prosecuting holocaust deniers is dangerous, and I would also object to criminalizing, say, questioning the number of Ukranian dead.

Well then, we live in a dangerous world. In many nations the discussion of what you mention above is a crime. IMHO, that thought is coming to America. Why do you believe that the topic of the holocaust has been made illegal?

Jethro Tull  posted on  2006-04-07   13:39:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Why do you believe that the topic of the holocaust has been made illegal?

I don't have a good answer for that. It probably has to do with European guilt over allowing the Holocaust to happen, but it could be something else. (It could also be because The Jooooos control everything, but I reject that argument.)

One thing I'll stand by: there are a lot of foolish, dangerous, or outright insane people in positions of political power everywhere across the globe, and one shouldn't look to the duly enacted laws of any country as paragons of reason, rationality, beneficence, or virtue.

freeedom  posted on  2006-04-07   13:50:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Have you read this? Please do if you haven’t. Its been ripped as anti-Semitic by all the usual suspects. I agree with every word. Neither the scholarship nor the authors can be impeached, so the attack has come from the pro censorship mob. The actual paper from which this critique was taken is some 50 odd pages. Read that also, if you have the time. I believe every word of this paper. Do you? If not, why not?

The Israel Lobby

Jethro Tull  posted on  2006-04-07   15:25:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Ok, so I've browsed the full paper.

I would not characterize the paper as anti-semitic in any sense, nor do I think dissecting 'accusations of anti-semitism' as a political ploy necessarily makes one anti-semitic either.

But nor would I characterize the paper as entirely balanced and truthful. It contains a fair degree of spin, and it largely ignores Israel has a legitimate ancient history and prior possession of its homeland; that the Balfour Declaration originally intended to turn over the British mandate of Palestine (won from the Turks in WWI), but was subsequently partitioned into "Palestine" west of the Jordan and the "Transjordan" (given to Arabs and Palestinians exclusively); and that the area west of the Jordan was further whittled down such that by the time the "zionists" moved in (1948), the Gaza strip and West Bank were not included.

The paper argues that new, better research shows the Zionists were more at fault for whatever befell them than was heretofore acknowledged. I don't know how true the new research is, but I'm not impressed with it's one-sided presentation.

The authors hypocritically ignore that the world seems to expect Israel to negotiate with a terrorist like Arafat (Munich? Entebbe? Achille Lauro?) who wouldn't be tolerated as dog-catcher anywhere else. To ignore the political repurcussions of forcing Israel to negotiate with such regardless of any legitimacy the underlying Palestinans may have, is assinine to put it charitably. But that is what the world expected of Israel, wasn't it. To the Palestinan's detriment, as if the world cared, but again hypocritically expecting Israel to pretend the world cared about the Palestinians.

But that doesn't make it anti-semitic, IMO.

Further, while the paper does footnote its claims with its sources (which I greatly appreciate), I disagree with some of the conclusions or motivation inferred. While Israel does have an effective lobby, that doesn't change the nature of the problems fomented by Soviets, Chinese, Europeans, Arabs, and the US. All have had a hand in manipulating events to the breaking point. Not one country or world body can claim innocence, nor the Israelis. They have been heavy-handed needlessly at times.

Lastly, I think attributing the commonly stated motivations to the various actors is naive in the extreme. Ralph Reed for example doesn't care one wit about genuine biblical prophecy just as Abe Foxman doesn't care one wit about who is really defaming Jews. The neocon's couldn't care less if Israel is safer if they can actually subvert the middleeast governments before China and Russia do. It's about energy costs and the US Dollar, not protecting Israel from Saddam Hussein. They're all protecting their respective political power bases, truth be damned.

But just because they're all grinding their own axes, doesn't mean they are rational or smart about it. Making mistakes or being heavyhanded doesn't mean the problems are simple or all of ones own making.

I personally have no problem with exposing the influence of lobbies, AIPAC or other. I'd like to see them all exposed, all cards on the table. If anyone can make a case for Federal largesse on the merits, let's see it. Our elected officials can no longer be trusted to exercise judgement without our scrutiny, sadly.

Yes, the charge of anti-semite is easy to raise and IMO, the ADL, AIPAC, etc have "cried wolf" way too often. The proof is in the preemptive innoculation by warning in advance of charges of "anti-semitism" for anything these days. But that doesn't mean that hatred of Jews for being Jews doesn't exist, and conspiracy theories blaming Jews for being complicit in something (based on the "proof" that they're Jews) abound.

I'm frankly quite alarmed at the German prosecution of "holocaust deniers" because they choose to argue material evidence and wish to explore the facts and conduct research. If they're falsifying facts then scientific, forensic, or historic peer review is the appropriate venue to deal with that - not legal prosecution.

That said, it also seems evident to me that some of the "revisionists" do in fact seem to have a hatred of, and obsession with, most things Jewish and seem to expect Jews as a race to permit their own extinction, and that is incredibly naive, and further exacerbates the hatred and fear all around.

Extremist claims, whether Abe Foxman's fears of Christians savaging Jews after watching Mel Gibson's "Passion of The Christ" or accusations that Einstein was a plagerist, etc, all belong in the round file.

There are extremeists on all sides. We ought not let them whipsaw us off-center.

Starwind  posted on  2006-04-07   19:49:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

So much here Starwind, where to begin?

Lets go point by point.

You state that “Israel has a legitimate ancient history and prior possession of its homeland.” It is my understanding that the state of Israel was created by the United Nations in the late 1940s. Prior to its creation, it was a Palestinian homeland. Are you using Bible scripture to put forward the idea of “prior possession?”

Jethro Tull  posted on  2006-04-07   20:09:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#73. To: Jethro Tull (#72)

It is my understanding that the state of Israel was created by the United Nations in the late 1940s.

Yes, using land ceded by the British, won from the Ottoman Turks in WWI

Prior to its creation, it was a Palestinian homeland. Are you using Bible scripture to put forward the idea of "prior possession?"

Not entirely, no.

The Ottoman Turks were occupiers. They lost in WWI. The British became the new "occupiers". The British, the "zionists", the Arabs, and ultimately he UN agreed a much smaller portion (west of the Jordan) would be "Israel" and Transjordan would be for the Arabs and "palestinians".

The palestinians didn't want to leave. So they didn't. Israel squeezed in except for the Gaza and West Bank. Egypt and Syria escalated conflict leading upto the 1967 war, Israel preempted, won the war and kept Gaza and the West Bank.

At which point they were occupying roughly the land they had prior to the succesive conquests of Babylonians, Alexander, Seleucids, Ptolemys, and then the Romans followed by the Arabs (around 700 AD).

Starwind  posted on  2006-04-07 20:24:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]