Certainly sounds racially motivated to me.
Let's say we accept, for a moment, that not all Jews are Zionists, that "criticism of Israel" isn't motivated by anti-semitism. Let's even pretend for a second that stealing civilians' credit card numbers is a valid form of criticism against a state or government. Let's forget that Saudi schoolbooks call Jews the "children of apes and pigs." Why not. Even so, why would buying something from a "Judaism web site" make someone a Zionist (or even an Israeli, for that matter)? For all we know some of those people could have been the next Noam Chomsky or (insert other groveling apologist here).
And what do you think they're hoping people will do with this list of Jewish names? Why the fuck is it acceptable to be making lists of Jewish names anyway? If that's not racist, I don't know what is. We'd be better off if that had never existed; but at least it proves plainly that nothing about this hack qualifies as a legitimate political statement.
I never said the release was warranted, fair, right or anything close to that. In fact, I did not even manifest an opinion about it. I only pointed out your message was not up to our standards (http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and that it was full of telling misconceptions.
Having said that, I wouldn't go to Saudi Arabia for a million dollars. It's not racist to point out the shortcomings of a national culture. Name one piece of technology used in this attack that was invented or even built in Saudi Arabia. Name one program that was written there. If you can't, it's not my fault. And clearly they're not so oppressed by Israel and the West that they can't afford to buy nice things, or build their own industries if they choose to. I know Lebanese guys who've moved back to Beirut to do startups. Look at Qatar and Dubai. They're too busy branching out and moving beyond an oil economy to be envious of middle-class Israelis.
It's also not racist to point out the lack of character involved in attacking civilians in another country, allegedly in protest of a foreign government, while you yourself live in a phony, sham-theocratic dictatorship.
If anything, I think it's people like yourself with your "good intentions" of pointing out who-must-be-a-racist, without deigning to criticize the giant racist elephant in the room, who are mostly responsible for the continuation of problems in the ME. To quote a famous Christian, first take the plank out of your own eye.
Fuck off, Mr. Wannabe Censor. Progress requires unfettered conversation of all types, not just the ones of which you approve.
"... noduerme's deeply rude, ignorant, arrogant an[d] plain racist post."
It was none of those things. What he said is basically correct, and it reminded me of 2005's Syriana, in which there was a conversation between Matt Damon as Bryan Woodman, an energy analyst, and Alexander Siddig as Prince Nasir Al-Subaai, successor to the Emir.
NASIR: An ancestor of mine owned this bird's [falcon's] ancestor before Christ was born. Six more North Field blocks will be available for development. We would like to offer your firm the right to represent them.
WOODMAN: If I were your economic advisor I'd tell you it's not the dumbest thing you've ever done, but it'll probably be the dumbest thing you do today. Probably. But why would you need an economic advisor? Twenty years ago you had the highest GNP in the world and now you're tied with Paraguay. Your second biggest export is second-hand goods. Followed by dates on which you lose five cents a pound. You want to know what the business world thinks of you. They think a hundred years ago you were chopping each other's heads off in the desert and that's exactly where you'll be in another hundred. So, yes, on behalf of my firm, I accept your money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriana
I included the first sentence, about the falcon, because it shows that Nasir is proud of his people having been around for a long time, but that apparent plus is effectively countered by Woodman's observation about their primitive nature, and how the oil money is really the only thing keeping them from regressing. Sure, the film is fictional, but there is a lot of truth to be found in it.
I'm not one who wants to impose restraint on others. I merely suggest a little bit of tact makes dialog possible. Or, more important, that its lack may make dialog impossible.
> Progress requires unfettered conversation of all types, not just the ones of which you approve.
It also requires the conversation itself, which may be rendered unproductive by the kind of comment made upstream.
> it reminded me of 2005's Syriana, in which there was a conversation between Matt Damon as Bryan Woodman, an energy analyst, and Alexander Siddig as Prince Nasir Al-Subaai
Is all your knowledge in Middle East affairs derived from a movie?
