--- In JustPeaceUK@yahoogroups.com, Brighton Unemployed Workers Ct
<brightonunemployedcentre2000@y...> wrote:
>
> Mary,
>
> Stephen Marks posts, in relation to Shamir's views, a series of
very simple questions. They ask if you accept that Shamir openly
allies himself with neo-Nazis and white supremacists and whether you
share his views on these matters. Your attempt to obfuscate by
referring to an article on ritual defamation convinces noone, least
yourself.

Mary: Why should I be obligated to join in on the smear campaign?
Read my previous post if you don't see that I find smear campaigns
counterproductive. just LOOK how much energy it seeps up here. I am
convinced that there are indeed attempts made at ritutal defamation
both against Shamir, and oftentimes on this board, against myself,
Paul, Gilad, Chris Ledbetter, hell, far too many people for my
taste. We are often told here that if someone reads Shamir (and
admit it folks, if you have that much of an opinion on him, you must
be reading him. Or at least getting his mailings, which he seems to
send out to anyone who has ever written to him), they are doing it
because of their deep inner antisemitic feelings. They shouldn't
even bother to negate that, because it is just so obvious that that
is the driving force.... What a load of crap. But if it makes you
all more comfortable, go with that analysis.


It isn't defamation to ask someone like you, who is normally
verbose, to answer a series of simple questions. The only
conclusion that most people will draw from your failure to answer
the questions is that you do indeed share Shamir's anti-Semitic and
racist beliefs.

Mary: There! What amazing logic!! Do you actually believe and stand
by what you have written? If I refuse to answer questions which I
believe are attempts to make me conform to a smear campaign, when I
refuse to do so upon principle, I am therefore "indeed" anti Semitic
(logic has it then that since Shamir "is", I must so be as well). I
would hate to have you working on my labour case, as you seem to not
really contemplate that a person who simply does not respond does
not acquiesce. (My father was a union Steward, so I am well aware of
tricks that the bosses use to turn one worker against another, and
seems you are quite adept).
>
> If the latter is correct, and you have made no attempt to deny it,
then there is no question of you being defamed, ritually or
otherwise, since what Stephen and others are saying is clearly
true. Truth is, in case you are unaware, an absolute defence to
accusations of libel or defamation.

Mary: NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!

>
> I note that Gilad Atzmon's defence of Shamir takes pride of place
on his web site. The absurdity posted below demonstrates the fact
that Shamir and his acolytes are dedicated conspiracy theorists. It
is of course but a short step from that to the world Jewish
conspiracy.

Mary: Well, you too seem to be ace at it: you have just determined
that my refusal to play this game has outed me as the anti semite
you suspect I am.... If that isn't some intricate mental game, what
else in the world could be.
>
> I note, more as a matter of utter hilarity than anything else,
that I, Roland and others are operating as 'undercover Zionist
agents'. Gosh. I t hink in that case it's about time I got paid.

Mary: join the club. The other day Stephen Marks said I was one!
I've been insulted in every way you can imagine, shan't list them
all because it's not that intersting, but that was the one that was
missing. Secret handshake time.

Could you direct me to the nearest office for Zionist agents so I
can fill out my expense form? But no, it's not just amusing because
anyone who knows Roland or myself or the others so described, will
know that we are anti-Zionist politically and always have been. The
only people who could possibly hold that those of us who have spent
a lifetime being denounced by the Zionists are actually Zionists
ourselves, are those who also hold that to be a Jew is to be a
Zionist, viz. that to be a Zionist is an inherent part of one's
biological and racial makeup.
>
> I also note that Gilad Atzmon in the piece I have highlighted
below on Shamir's web site, comes close to adopting a Holocaust
Revisionist stance, viz. that 'As it seems, without engaging
ourselves with the many questions concerning the validity of the
widely accepted Holocaust narrative,...'

Mary: Not a holocaust revisionist. If you read it carefully, you
will see that it is countering the narrative, that the Americans
were the good guys, are always the good guys and that the Holocaust
is used to cover up American and British war crimes such as
Hiroshima, Vietnam, Dresden, Iraq. I myself wrote a similar piece a
week or so prior to that, so, I must say that we are in agreement on
it. If you need more fuel to feed your image of me, read the article
Reflections on Holocaust Remembrance Day written in January on my
site. http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/
mary
>
> So once again, are you capable Mary of answering the simple
questions posed or are you going to continue to put up smokescreens?
>
> Tony Greenstein
>