babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Antisemitism within Hamas

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Antisemitism within Hamas
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 23 June 2003 11:09 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know this is difficult for some but I think it is important to cofront antisemitism within groups like Hamas. While I reject the nazi analogy that soem Israelis use outright, the message is indeed disturbing.Hamas and antisemitism
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 23 June 2003 11:20 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That Hamas members are antisemetic can hardly be surprising. The Jewish state has targetted their leadership and promised to wipe them out (i.e. kill all of them). And they hate Jews and and they use old, discredited antisemetic material to promote their hatred.

On the other hand, many Israelis have similar hatred of Palestinians. My point isn't to suggest that one balances the other. My point is that the hate will continue unabated on both sides until the war ends. And then it will be a long and uphill battle to undo the years of animosity and hate and rebuild relationships.

Discussing it now in the context of suicide missions and missile attacks seem fruitless.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 June 2003 11:31 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, I wonder why you would think it would be "difficult for some" to accept that there is antisemitism within Hamas. I doubt there are too many people on babble who think that it's a hearts and flowers organization, or that there is no one within the organization who stereotypes all Jews based on the ones who have hurt their people.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 23 June 2003 11:34 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, I'd read the David Aaronovitch article in this weekend's Observer. It is a careful historical analysis and Aaronivitch draws many distinctions between the history of antisemitism in Christian Europe and the recent development of hatred of Jews in the Arabo-Muslim world (I hesitate to call Arabs anti-semites, though I know the term was coined to mean hatred of Jews).

It is a very tragic story. Bizarrely, a lot of the weirder racist libels against the Jews would also apply to Arabs and/or Muslims, especially the hate stories around ritual slaughter and circumcision.

On the other hand, the Guardian/Observer has also produced in-depth reports on Jewish and Muslim authorities in Britain joining together to fight attempts to ban halal/kosher slaughter methods.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 23 June 2003 11:38 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
That Hamas members are antisemetic can hardly be surprising. The Jewish state has targetted their leadership and promised to wipe them out (i.e. kill all of them). And they hate Jews and and they use old, discredited antisemetic material to promote their hatred.

On the other hand, many Israelis have similar hatred of Palestinians. My point isn't to suggest that one balances the other. My point is that the hate will continue unabated on both sides until the war ends. And then it will be a long and uphill battle to undo the years of animosity and hate and rebuild relationships.

Discussing it now in the context of suicide missions and missile attacks seem fruitless.


Wing, Article 32 has been in the Hamas Charter well before the present hostilities as has some of the other
antisemitic canards.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 23 June 2003 12:43 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe it has something to do with that little matter of ethnic cleansing in 1948?
From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 23 June 2003 01:29 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I know this is difficult for some but I think it is important to cofront antisemitism within groups like Hamas.

Why would it be difficult?


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 23 June 2003 02:49 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:
Maybe it has something to do with that little matter of ethnic cleansing in 1948?
There was no "ethnic cleansing". there were some tragic and sad actions undertaken by the Israelis but to call it ethnic cleansing is off base.

However you believe that 1948 itself was reason enough for this kind of vile antisemitism?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 23 June 2003 02:52 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, I disagree. I don't think the term "ethnic cleansing" refers only to genocide or massacres. It also refers to populations (here, the Palestinians) being pushed off their land.

And no, one inexcusable act does not excuse another, of course not.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 23 June 2003 02:56 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I repeat, why do you think it would be difficult or surprising for anyone here to hear that Hamas is anti-Semitic?
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 23 June 2003 03:08 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There have been some here who have defended the actions of Hamas and other trrorist groups. Quite simple really.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 23 June 2003 03:12 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lagatta:
[QB]Sorry, I disagree. I don't think the term "ethnic cleansing" refers only to genocide or massacres. It also refers to populations (here, the Palestinians) being pushed off their land.

Lagatta would ethnic cleansing then also refer to the Jews who were forced to leave Arab lands; the Natives forced off their ancestral lands in North and South America; the aboriginies forced from their homes in Austrailia, the sudeten Germans froced from their homes in the Ukraine? Im just tring to get a handle on your exact understanding of ethnic cleansing.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 23 June 2003 03:20 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, of course all of the examples you mention are examples of ethnic cleansing.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 23 June 2003 03:26 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Lagatta would ethnic cleansing then also refer to the Jews who were forced to leave Arab lands; the Natives forced off their ancestral lands in North and South America; the aboriginies forced from their homes in Austrailia, the sudeten Germans froced from their homes in the Ukraine? Im just tring to get a handle on your exact understanding of ethnic cleansing.

I can't speak for Lagatta, but that sounds about right. Now you're getting the picture. It seems like a pretty simple concept: if one ethnic group uses violent force or the threat of violence to remove another ethnic group from their homes for the purpose of taking over the area, that pretty much makes it ethnic cleansing. Although I don't like the term myself. It is a weasely euphemism for genocide, used when people are a bit uncomfortable about telling truth that may hit too close to home. For example, many would argue up and down that what happened to the native populations of the Americas wasn't genocide, but merely an accident, or a few bad apples, or good intentions gone bad, or whatever rationalizations they can come up with, because otherwise they'd have to confront the fact that our comfy lives are built upon the mass graves.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 June 2003 03:29 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The expression "ethnic cleansing" was invented only recently, during the first stages of the break-up of former Yugoslavia and the civil war in Bosnia. It referred broadly and first of all to attempts to transfer populations of people by ethnicity. Many were murdered, massacred, of course, but that wasn't a necessary condition.

The term is a vile euphemism, of course (that appalling use of "cleansing"!) -- but genocide wouldn't be a precise equivalent.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 23 June 2003 03:53 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There was no "ethnic cleansing". there were some tragic and sad actions undertaken by the Israelis...

They're called "massacres" Mish.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 23 June 2003 04:19 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was going to respond with a quick "Well, duh! We knew that racism existed within Hamas." That seems insufficient, somehow. From that article, antisemitism is taught in schools, in mosques, and elsewhere in Palestinian society. It is pitiable, but inevitable, that a population will feel irrational hatred towards another group when the government of that other group is acting as an oppressor. People need to ask what needs to be done to heal the damage, to remove the racist influences. I wish I had the power to make the hatred stop between two peoples who hate each other so much, after so much bloodshed. I wish there were a quick solution. But the sad truth is that there is no quick solution to hatred which has stewed for decades, even after acheiving peace and the emergence of tolerant leadership. The wounds take a long time to heal.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 23 June 2003 05:28 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
There was no "ethnic cleansing". there were some tragic and sad actions undertaken by the Israelis but to call it ethnic cleansing is off base.

However you believe that 1948 itself was reason enough for this kind of vile antisemitism?



No, but I think it might go a long way toward explaining why this kind of idea might take root in certain sectors of Palestinian society.

Second, on your first point, there is ample evidence provided by studies of Haganah policy and activity during the 1948 war to conclude that deliberate actions were taken to drive out as many Arabs as possible from the area given to Israel under the Partition agreement.

This evidence can be found in a number of official histories published only in Israel as well as mainstream historical chronicles published in Israel and translated into English, etc.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 23 June 2003 05:31 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Lagatta would ethnic cleansing then also refer to the Jews who were forced to leave Arab lands;

The theory of a 'population transfer' doesn't wash. It's a post hoc justification for brutal policies carried out by the Haganah and Jewish terrorist organisations like Irgun and LEHI during the 1948 war. Two wrongs don't make a right.

quote:
the Natives forced off their ancestral lands in North and South America; the aboriginies forced from their homes in Austrailia, the sudeten Germans froced from their homes in the Ukraine? Im just tring to get a handle on your exact understanding of ethnic cleansing.[/QB]


All of these would qualify. Just like the Israeli cleansing of Arabs in Palestine qualifies.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 June 2003 07:43 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Standard disclaimer: I have not defended the actions of Hamas.

That having been said, it is logical to conclude that grinding an entire people may make some individuals within that group believe the worst about their oppressor.

I don't know what some aboriginals think about white people, although I'd be willing to bet some of them might well have some bizarre ideas about what we do behind closed doors, if I may be permitted to slightly mangle my analogy.

I'm going to steal Sarcasmobri's magic wand and zap away all prejudice in the Middle East.

*BZAPfizz*

Darn. Didn't work. So much for dreaming.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 23 June 2003 10:59 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I do not defend the actions of Hamas, nor do I intend to.

However, to me this looks a lot like the standard colonial justification for mistreating people: "Oh, it's okay because we're better than they are." "Oh, we can't treat them as equals because look, they're actually barbarians."

The Guardian article is careful to point this out, that there is a context for the anti-Semitism; that even though these sentiments are never acceptable, they did not come out of nowhere and many believe there are ways to mitigate their effect.

Can someone brush me up on the history of Hamas? I seem to remember reading that they got Israeli government support for several years.

[ 23 June 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 24 June 2003 01:21 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
da dada daaaa daaaa da dada daaaa daaaa da dada daaaa da da dadada........

*ahem* sorry.

.....carry on.....

[ 24 June 2003: Message edited by: TommyPaineatWork ]


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ray Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4178

posted 24 June 2003 08:58 AM      Profile for Ray Peterson   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I found this :

WND

quote:
# "The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agree upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem."
– Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph Sept. 6, 1948.

From: Hinkley Hills | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 24 June 2003 09:02 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting. The opposing side:

quote:
Most Americans know nothing about the way in which Israel was created. They do not know that Britain turned Palestine over to the UN for resolution because it could not continue its governance in light of the rising tensions that existed between Zionists and Palestinians. In 1947 the UN General Assembly resolved by a two-thirds vote to endorse the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state (Resolution No. 181). The Palestinians did not accept that resolution, yet the partition went forward even though the General Assembly had no legal authority to divide a country especially through the process of endorsing a Resolution. The proposed partition called for 55% of the Palestinian area to be given to the Israelis, yet they comprised slightly more than 30% of the population and owned only 6% of the land. The Jewish population was composed mostly of foreign-born immigrants, only one-third of whom had acquired Palestinian citizenship. In addition, the territory allocated to the Jews comprised the coastal plain from Akka to Ashdod and other fertile lands. The Palestinians were left with mainly mountainous areas and arid regions.

From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 24 June 2003 11:49 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Swell source there Ray:

quote:
"Joseph Farah has written a thought-provoking recipe for reclaiming America’s heritage of liberty and self-governance. I don’t agree with all the solutions proposed here, but Farah definitely nails the problems.” -- Rush Limbaugh

“Joseph Farah and I share a fierce passion for protecting children and a belief that without the Ten Commandments there would be no U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights. Every American who shares our convictions should read this book.” -- Dr. Laura C. Schlessinger, Author of "The Ten Commandments"



From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ray Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4178

posted 24 June 2003 11:50 AM      Profile for Ray Peterson   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not sure if I'm right about this, but when they are talking about palestine back then, did that include Jordan also ? Al, nothing to say about the contents, just find something you can attack. At least Smith read it and offered an alternative view.

[ 24 June 2003: Message edited by: Ray Peterson ]

[ 24 June 2003: Message edited by: Ray Peterson ]


From: Hinkley Hills | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 24 June 2003 11:52 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, Trans-Jordan was another British Mandated area that was torn from historical Syria by the Allied powers at the end of The 1914-18 War.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 24 June 2003 12:08 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There's just one problem. There's not the slightest historical evidence to suggest Arabs were expelled in significant numbers – certainly not by Jews.


Joseph Farah starts his article with a lie. What other comment needs to be tendered? Anyone who would seriously offer that Palestinians never lived in what is now Israel, or were not expelled by force and threat, are one of three things: poor historians, semantic revisionists, or lying scumbags.

[ 24 June 2003: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ray Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4178

posted 24 June 2003 12:43 PM      Profile for Ray Peterson   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sarcasmo, I just did a search. I didn't say I agree with him, just offering another view. What about the quotes he has ?
From: Hinkley Hills | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 24 June 2003 12:48 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't say (or think) that you were the liar here, Ray. That honour falls on Joseph Farah. I didn't read the whole article, because as I said before, it is predicated on a falsehood. I kinda stopped at that point, as I have no interest in what Farah expounds beyond the original falsehood.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 24 June 2003 12:57 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There were enough inconsitencies with known facts in the article to cast doubt on the rest of the content. A quick glance through the website sealed the deal.

By the way, Ray, what prompted your question about Jordan? I heard an interview with a settler leader on CBC radio last week in which the he said that Jordan was a Palestinian state. This is not a novel assertion, of course, as it's been thrown about by far-right Zionists since at least 1967.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 24 June 2003 01:50 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

On April 9 the irregular forces of the Irgun, led by Israel’s future prime minister Menachem Begin, slaughtered nearly all the residents of the nearly defenseless village. Many survivors of the first assault, all civilians, were marched into the village square, lined up against a wall, and shot. A Red Cross representative arrived while the violence was still in progress; he found 254 dead, including 145 women, 35 of whom were pregnant.

A few of the Arabs of Deir Yassin were still alive. The Balls write, “The other surviving women and children were stripped, and with their hands above their heads, paraded in three open trucks up and down King George V Avenue in Jewish Jerusalem, where spectators spat on them and stoned them.”

This had the desired effect. As word of the massacre spread, hundreds of Arabs fled the land. They have never been allowed to return to their homes. Their houses were destroyed and their property distributed to Jews.


“Accept my congratulations on this splendid act of conquest. Convey my regards to all the commanders and soldiers. We shake your hands. We are all proud of the excellent leadership and the fighting spirit in this great attack. We stand to attention in memory of the slain. We lovingly shake the hands of the wounded. Tell the soldiers: you have made history with your attack and your victory. Continue thus until victory. As in Deir Yassin, so everywhere, we will attack and smite the enemy. God, God, Thou hast chosen us for conquest.”


I suggest doing a google search on "Plan Dalet."


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ray Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4178

posted 24 June 2003 02:11 PM      Profile for Ray Peterson   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
By the way, Ray, what prompted your question about Jordan?

I can't remember where the hell I read it, but it said that Jordan was part of the British Mandated palestine region and that was supposed to be the arab state and Israel was the jewish state.


From: Hinkley Hills | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 24 June 2003 02:28 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The 1947 UN partition plan suggested a division of Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states. I've seen demographic statistics on how incredibly unfair the partition was to the Arabs, which helps to explain their hostility to the idea.

Trans-Jordan wasn't involved.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ray Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4178

posted 24 June 2003 03:05 PM      Profile for Ray Peterson   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Al, I found this :
quote:
“The partition plan gave the Jews most of the land, and all of the cultivable area.”
FACT

The partition plan took on a checkerboard appearance largely because Jewish towns and villages were spread throughout Palestine. This did not complicate the plan as much as the fact that the high living standards in Jewish cities and towns had attracted large Arab populations, which insured that any partition would result in a Jewish state that included a substantial Arab population. Recognizing the need to allow for additional Jewish settlement, the majority proposal allotted the Jews land in the northern part of the country, Galilee, and the large, arid Negev desert in the south. The remainder was to form the Arab state.

These boundaries were based solely on demographics. The borders of the Jewish State were arranged with no consideration of security; hence, the new state's frontiers were virtually indefensible. Overall, the Jewish State was to be comprised of roughly 5,500 square miles and the population was to be 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs. The Arab State was to be 4,500 square miles with a population of 804,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.3a Though the Jews were allotted more total land, the majority of that land was in the desert.

Further complicating the situation was the UN majority's insistence that Jerusalem remain apart from both states and be administered as an international zone. This arrangement left more than 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem isolated from their country and circumscribed by the Arab state.

Critics claim the UN gave the Jews fertile land while the Arabs were allotted hilly, arid land. This is untrue. Approximately 60 percent of the Jewish state was to be the arid desert in the Negev.

The Arabs constituted a majority of the population in Palestine as a whole — 1.2 million Arabs versus 600,000 Jews. The Jews never had a chance of reaching a majority in the country given the restrictive immigration policy of the British. By contrast, the Arabs were free to come — and thousands did — to take advantage of the rapid development stimulated by Zionist settlement. Still, the Jews were a majority in the area allotted to them by the resolution and in Jerusalem.

In addition to roughly 600,000 Jews, 350,000 Arabs resided in the Jewish state created by partition. Approximately 92,000 Arabs lived in Tiberias, Safed, Haifa and Bet Shean, and another 40,000 were Bedouins, most of whom were living in the desert. The remainder of the Arab population was spread throughout the Jewish state and occupied most of the agricultural land.5

According to British statistics, more than 70% of the land in what would become Israel was not owned by Arab farmers, it belonged to the mandatory government. Those lands reverted to Israeli control after the departure of the British. Nearly 9% of the land was owned by Jews and about 3% by `Arabs who became citizens of Israel. That means only about 18% belonged to Arabs who left the country before and after the Arab invasion of Israel.6


here's the link : for Al

I wanna know what you think. Just trying to get different views.


From: Hinkley Hills | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 24 June 2003 03:13 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
British statistics and ideas of "Arab ownership" are extremely suspect, btw. This suspectness of it is what leads Israel to claim that many Arabs don't own the land that they are farming, due to the lack of official title deeds (even though the Arabs have been there for centuries).
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 24 June 2003 03:17 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, this article explains exactly your infactuation with this Hamas thing. Hamas is a tool for you to advocate or even justify Israels point of view. It's like the chicken and the egg analogy. Hamas plays right into the hands of Israeli sobotage of peace.

The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 24 June 2003 03:40 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm suspicious of anything from a Larouche site - the Queen controlling drug-dealing and all - but it has been long known to students of the Middle East that Western powers have backed Islamic fundamentalist movements. So did the regimes in many Arab and/or Muslim countries, to counter the left and Arab nationalism.

I remember that one of the suicide bombings a few months ago targeted a left-wing, pro-peace kibbutz. Friends of friends were killed . In a similar vein, an Israeli friend of mine talked about a Palestinian fellow promoting peace and non-violent resistance who was killed by the IDF - wish I could remember his name and the particulars.

The most poisonous thing to do with any conflict is to turn it into a holy war.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 24 June 2003 03:53 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moderates from both sides tend to be targets in this sort of colonial struggle.

Remember Algeria?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 June 2003 04:53 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Patriot, please , in the future, use sources other than LaRouche. IMHO he is a fascist and his works belong in the same garbage can as any white supremacist garbage you can find on the net. Thanks for your anticipated understanding.

BTW if you need more proof on Larouche the very best expose was written by investigative journalist, Dennis King ; Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. It is published by Doubleday.

[ 24 June 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 24 June 2003 05:06 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The question is, are Larouche's claims true or not...

A number of commentators - Alain Badiou and Slavoj Zizek, for example - have noted the strange partnership of radical antisemites and aggressive Zionists in two ways. 1) To mystify the Holocaust - both don't want it spoken about. 2) Using each other as foils for political polemics, effectively sidelining both moderate opinion and radical political alternatives to the status-quo.

There is a tradition of sidelining the Left in Israel by using the war as an excuse. As Nahum Goldmann put it so succinctly:

quote:
On the day when peace comes, the leftist movement will undoubtedly be very strong in Israel, and it will be anti-Orthodox. A great cultural battle will then break out which, like Ben Gurion, I want to avoid at this moment: as long as war prevails, that kind of internal struggle would be terribly dangerous. But after the hostilities the first thing to do will be to separate religion and state. Today we confine ourselves to telling the leftists: "Don't make a fuss on this question, you will be obstructing our defence policy, which requires national unity" -- and the leftists, being good patriots, give way. But after the peace they will resume the debate.

In effect, the right and the religious segment of Israeli society carry a vested political and social interest in maintaining the conflict with the Arabs in some fashion or other. The line of this thinking can be seen in the policies of both Labour and Likud (and their predecessors). This position is recognisable in much of the policy of the Shamir and Begin governments. This compact can further be seen in the inner workings of Sharon's right-wing coalition: much like the U.S.' southern 'Moral Majority' religious parties such as the NRP and Shas can effectively pull the entire spectrum even further to the right by forcing Likud and others to accomodate their policy. Moreover, many powerful players within Likud (former Generals and such) have staked their entire lives and careers in the continuation of the conflict.

[ 24 June 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 June 2003 05:10 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:
The question is, are Larouche's claims true or not...

A number of commentators - Alain Badiou and Slavoj Zizek, for example - have noted the strange partnership of radical antisemites and aggressive Zionists in two ways. 1) To mystify the Holocaust - both don't want it spoken about. 2) Using each other as foils for political polemics, effectively sidelining both moderate opinion and radical political alternatives to the status-quo.


No, the point is would you use websites of the KKK or the National Stormfront or the Heritage Front or Paul Fromm to prove your point? I am just asking that we do not give credibility to fascists on this board.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 24 June 2003 05:21 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm no supporter of Larouche, but that doesn't mean he can't ever be right about anything. Hitler said "my hair is black and my skin is white", I'm not going to disagree with him just because he's filth.

Just remember that your facist government in Israel can take Hamas out in hours, and end the suffering!


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 24 June 2003 05:21 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:

No, the point is would you use websites of the KKK or the National Stormfront or the Heritage Front or Paul Fromm to prove your point? I am just asking that we do not give credibility to fascists on this board.


No, and I don't think that fascists deserve to be 'given credibility'. What you can't seem to distinguish between is the 'credibility of PEOPLE' and the 'credibility (re:Truth) of ARGUMENTS'. So while Lyndon Larouche has said and done much that I abhor and oppose, dismissing an argument based on this is fallacy. The argument itself needs to be addressed head-on. Why don't YOU show where Larouche goes wrong in THIS instance.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

This is how fascists need to be countered - by going at them head-on, and taking their arguments out by the legs. They don't gain power by only lying or misrecognising facts - rather, they seize on certain facts and colour them and arrange them into an overall narrative hinging on certain tenets. Simply dismissing them is akin to ignoring them - and they love nothing more than to be called quacks; they live and breathe that sense of the uncanny: "He's crazy, but he just might be right!" It simply justifies their position - it allows them to argue that the current coordinates of the political and social situation are a lie because they don't account for their view. They can cast themselves as underdogs simply bringing 'realism' and 'common sense' (two mainstays of the rightest revolution in North America, actually). Moreover, dismissing these guys without argument is to miss a unique oppurtunity to study the formal consistency of much of what they say and the policy of the proto-fascists currently occupying the White House and other institutions. Take the issue of White Supremacism - while we can dismiss the National Front for it's lunacy - and rightly so - if we don't look harder, we won't see that a more subtle form of the same doctrine underpins the imperial and colonial aspirations of Western states in the Third World. In the case of Israel, much of early Zionist thought was part and parcel with Western imperialist attitudes toward Arabs and Muslims in general. They just didn't count.

If nothing else, we need to pay MORE attention to all the elements of fascist argumentation to see where and how it crops up in multifarious places in our society. If we are to envision a politics based on reason, intellect, and compassion, then we need to practice what we preach and approach these fellows on that level.

Or, to put it another way - some things can only grow in the dark....

[ 24 June 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 June 2003 12:47 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No, and I don't think that fascists deserve to be 'given credibility'. What you can't seem to distinguish between is the 'credibility of PEOPLE' and the 'credibility (re:Truth) of ARGUMENTS'. So while Lyndon Larouche has said and done much that I abhor and oppose, dismissing an argument based on this is fallacy. The argument itself needs to be addressed head-on. Why don't YOU show where Larouche goes wrong in THIS instance.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.


Maybe Im not making myself clear. Unlike you, I don't give a shit about LaRouche and what he may say ABOUT ANYTHING.

I refuse to give him any credibility by engaging anything he has to say.

To me it would be tantamount to arguing that Hitler provided jobs for Germany during the depression so let's discuss the issue of how the depression effected Germany. There are many other sources to quote that are worthy of discussing the issue without invoking Hitler.

So if you want to discuss this don't use fascists and racsists as your resource. I simply will not engage.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ray Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4178

posted 25 June 2003 09:05 AM      Profile for Ray Peterson   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hold on. I posted a link to something and it was dismissed. Not even bothered with. But a guy like Larouche is quoted and it's something some of you feel is legitimate debate. I don't get it.
From: Hinkley Hills | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 25 June 2003 09:31 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't feel that it's legitimate debate, if that helps. I dismissed your link, Ray, but not entirely based on the author...I dismissed it based on the opening statement (which contained a rewrite of history...and stated the conclusions of the article before starting any discussion).

Larouche I dismiss because I don't like it when I need to shower after reading an opinion piece. I don't need none of his shit to stick to me, thank you.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 June 2003 09:51 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, believe it or not, I'm going to go with Mishei on this. If Larouche has anything legitimate to say, you can find someone worthwhile (i.e. not a fascist) who says it too. Let's not debate the arguments of people like Larouche.

[ 25 June 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ray Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4178

posted 25 June 2003 10:18 AM      Profile for Ray Peterson   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Alright, that seems to make sense. What Smith says is right. I'm sure you can find someone else other then larouche to use in a debate.
From: Hinkley Hills | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 25 June 2003 10:38 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok, then what makes the facist G. W Bush any better than the facist Larouche. What if Bush said it, does Bush have better credibility than Larouche? Not in my books, they are worse than each other. Mishei, you will give crediblity to anyone who tells your point of view, however if it's not your point of view, you dismiss it as uncredible. I simply posted the article to discuss the issue. Not because Larouche wrote it. I heard of the story some time ago, and did a search on it and that's the link I picked.
From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 25 June 2003 10:47 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm with Courage. I have no particular love for Larouche, but I'm firmly in the camp that separates what is said from who says it and whatever else they say. As I am in the camp that separates causation from justification. Mishei is not in either of these camps, and from his perspective, it is very convenient for him to be there, is it not?
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 25 June 2003 11:06 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Like Smith, I agree with Mishei about this. It is bad form to quote a "nutcase" fascist like Larouche, although what he is saying may be the truth because even a stopped watch is accurate twice a day.

This came up a lot in the question of using historical materials (on Hitler and on military history) written by the notorious Holocaust-denier David Irving. In general historians refuse to quote him, though he may well have written other valid things, due to the enormity of his "negationist" fraud. If I recall, Pierre Vidal-Naquet - who is extremely critical of Zionism and Israeli policy and one of the initial signatories of the French NIMN petition "En tant que Juifs" - was very adamant about this.

There are MANY respectable historical and contemporary sources proving the complicity of governments with the rise of fundamentalist Islamic groups. Not only the Israeli state, but also complicity by Western powers and by states in the Arab and/or Muslim world, all of these favoured the development of fundamentalism as a means of countering the left and Nasserite Arab nationalism. Algeria is a clear example.

Remember, the reactionary nature of Hamas's social programme does not just involve attacking "Jews", rather than Israeli oppression, or pressuring Palestinian Christians, but perhaps more fundamentally still, oppressing women. In that, all fundamentalists are brothers.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 25 June 2003 11:08 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I heard of the story some time ago, and did a search on it and that's the link I picked.

Just pick a different link, then. Problem solved.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 June 2003 11:14 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ok, then what makes the facist G. W Bush any better than the facist Larouche. What if Bush said it, does Bush have better credibility than Larouche?

Well, it's not a question of absolutes. I wouldn't seek to discredit Noam Chomsky's writings on Israel based on the Faurisson affair, for example, because that for me is not conclusive evidence of Chomsky's bad intentions. And I wouldn't trust George Bush on anything, but that's a moot point, as George Bush doesn't write on this subject.

But when someone has openly affiliated himself with fascist organizations, I personally think it's best to give him a miss in favour of writers who haven't. I can certainly see Mandos' and others' points, but I personally would prefer that we get our information and arguments from other sources.

[ 25 June 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 June 2003 11:24 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And another thread gets sidetracked!

This is an important topic - how about starting a new thread about whether a person's ideas can be separated from their reputation or their political affiliations?

As for solving the problem in this thread, Mishei, if you don't want to debate an article whose author you find repugnant, don't debate it. It's just that easy. And those of you who do want to talk about it, can talk about it, but don't expect Mishei or Smith or lagatta to join in. Would that be so difficult?

There's no need to tell people what articles they can and can't post. If you don't like it, tell them you're not responding and why, and leave it at that. There's no need to demand that people not post the article at all.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 25 June 2003 11:28 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Chomsky and Faurisson is a very different matter. Chomsky never supported Faurisson or claimed that the latter was telling the truth. Chomsky has a strong left-libertarian position and believes in utter freedom of speech, even by fascists. Chomsky and Vidal-Naquet, who have close but not identical views on Palestine/Israel, were in strong disagreement about this. Different traditions.

Mishei was quite correctly taken to task for quoting Daniel Pipes, when the extent of the latter's racist views about "swarthy" Middle-Eastern people and the alleged "smells" of their cooking were revealed. (Don't know how Pipes could stand Israel, where the majority of folks are Sephardic with olive skin and yummy, fragrant Mediterranean food ).

As for Bush, I have rarely seen any babbler quote him as a credible spokesperson. He is so incoherent that his own side prefers to use more eloquent and intelligent speakers such as Colin Powell or Toady Blair.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 June 2003 11:31 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's true. He was. But here's the thing - unless the actual article posted has anything anti-semitic in it, I'm not going to stop people from posting it. If the article itself has racist stuff in it and it's being advanced not as an example of racism, but as a valid viewpoint, then I could be more sympathetic.

However, I fully support everyone's right not to engage in a debate over an article they don't like. I don't support their right to tell people not to post it though, unless the article itself is explicitly racist.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 25 June 2003 11:51 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe I should rephrase that I picked the article. That's the one I found.

Michelle, I did not derail the thread by posting that article. This thread is about Hamas and anti-semitism. It should also be about the Likud and their anti-arabism (which are infact semites too). Mishei chosses to discredit rather than discuss a very relevant point of view related directly to this thread. I disagree with you that he should run away from it if he's chooses to do so.

As mentioned earlier "Even a stopped clock, is right twice a day" then it's fair to say...
"Mishei will eventually need to check the time"


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 June 2003 12:01 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, I really didn't intend to derail the thread, so here, back to Hamas.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 25 June 2003 12:22 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hezbollah terrorism in Lebanon
I really don't agree with that sentence.

Hamas is resisting occupation, and occupation is terrorism too. Atleast that's what we're lead to believe.

[ 25 June 2003: Message edited by: Blind_Patriot ]


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 25 June 2003 12:25 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Maybe Im not making myself clear. Unlike you, I don't give a shit about LaRouche and what he may say ABOUT ANYTHING.

Your mouth (fingers?) say one thing, but your heart says another....

quote:
I refuse to give him any credibility by engaging anything he has to say.

My point is that you give him credibility by NOT engaging him and showing him to be as bad as you say with sound argumentation. Otherwise, you leave the door open to he and his supporters taking the position of "See, they can't even engage us rationally, they can only smear us and walk away." This is power for fascist movements - they only grow in the dark.

quote:
To me it would be tantamount to arguing that Hitler provided jobs for Germany during the depression so let's discuss the issue of how the depression effected Germany.

The only pertinent question is: were the jobs created or not? Then, the question of 'HOW' can be brought up, and there is no problem. The problem with many antisemitic apologias for Nazism is that they mention the creation of jobs and in the same breath use this as a justification of ALL Nazi behaviour - including the practice of slave labour. There is quite simply nothing odious about making the simple factual statement: The Nazi party created many jobs for many Germans during 1933. But that this social mobility was underpinned by the creation of an imprisoned underclass - the Jews.

quote:
There are many other sources to quote that are worthy of discussing the issue without invoking Hitler.

How do you discuss 1930's Germany without discussing Hitler, exactly?

quote:
So if you want to discuss this don't use fascists and racsists as your resource. I simply will not engage.[/qb]

Is Sharon off limits, then? How about some of the Hamas guys? The Israeli NRP - Rabbi Ginzburg, Ovidia Josef? Are all these of limits? How does one discuss racists without using racists as sources?

[ 25 June 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 June 2003 12:29 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Courage, please. Could you start a new thread if you want to continue this? I'm tired of ME forum threads derailed by metadiscussions.

Thanks, Smith. Just so you know, just because my post came right after yours doesn't mean I was talking to you specifically.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 25 June 2003 12:30 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To keep this an even playing field... I would think so.
From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 25 June 2003 12:38 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Courage, please. Could you start a new thread if you want to continue this? I'm tired of ME forum threads derailed by metadiscussions.

Thanks, Smith. Just so you know, just because my post came right after yours doesn't mean I was talking to you specifically.


I think it is quite pertinent to the original argument, actually. The point that I am driving at is about the strategy of dealing with racist and fascist argumentation within society. This is strictly on topic with the question of how to deal with Hamas, or Sharon or any other racist/fascist group. My point about 'dragging them out into the light' and hitting them head on with sound arguments applies in other situations too.

The 'metadiscussion' as you call it is no such thing really - the topic at hand was 'antisemitism within Hamas' - and how to deal with it. The strategy I am beginning to flesh out can be used in Palestinian society, or in Israeli society where it is also desperately needed.
My eyes haven't wavered from the topic.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 June 2003 12:40 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My point is that you give him credibility by NOT engaging him and showing him to be as bad as you say with sound argumentation. Otherwise, you leave the door open to he and his supporters taking the position of "See, they can't even engage us rationally, they can only smear us and walk away." This is power for fascist movements - they only grow in the dark.


Funny this is exactly the argument made by people like Ernst Zundel when jewish leaders and schollars refuse to debate him.

quote:
How do you discuss 1930's Germany without discussing Hitler, exactly?


Courage you are being disingenuous. If you want to discuss rascists and racism well then of course racists can be used as examples.

However when people like LaRouche are used to bolster legitimate discussions on politics/social policy etc then you indeed give them undeserved credibility


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 25 June 2003 12:44 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Although MY opinion might not be credible according to some, however I must agree with courage.

So I guess Israel's root support for the whole Hamas stategy blew up in their face. But it just goes to show that Israel does a very good job at derailing peace, whether it be with the "anti-semitic" Hamas or the infamous terrorist group know as the IDF.


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 25 June 2003 12:48 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Funny this is exactly the argument made by people like Ernst Zundel when jewish leaders and schollars refuse to debate him.

Courage you are being disingenuous. If you want to discuss rascists and racism well then of course racists can be used as examples.

However when people like LaRouche are used to bolster legitimate discussions on politics/social policy etc then you indeed give them undeserved credibility


Run Forest... Run !

C'mon Mishei, Let's not dicuss Larouche article. Not that we did anyway. Let's discuss the one that Smith posted.


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 25 June 2003 12:51 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Funny this is exactly the argument made by people like Ernst Zundel when jewish leaders and schollars refuse to debate him.

Exactly - they (and you) feed him by thinking you aren't feeding him. I'd rather keep my enemies close and feed them so I can put some poison in with the food than let them walk away well-fed nontheless...


quote:
However when people like LaRouche are used to bolster legitimate discussions on politics/social policy etc then you indeed give them undeserved credibility

I disagree. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day. Hitler's opinions on Jews, for example, bear no weight on his opinions about, say, strawberry jam. Each opinion has to be taken AS IS, and dealth with in its own context, its own meaning, its own discourse. Otherwise we seep into essentialism - which is part and parcel of the racist fascist argument. In short, we end up mirroring the exact form of argument used by antisemites, for example. Rather than saying things like - Hitler thought this and this about jam, and he was right or wrong based on some merits or others. We say 'Hitlers opinions were ALL wrong, because he is Evil'....

That my friend, is irrational essentialism. Just like saying, 'Jews opinions are ALL wrong, because they are Jews/Evil'...

To fight racism/fascism we need to look at how these movements take a certain amount of 'truth' and turn it for their purposes. We need to look at the formal aspects of racist/fascist arguments. Larouche's article is the triple-decker sundae in this regard - not only does he bring up the interesting issue of radical fascism existing on BOTH sides of the Israeli/Palestinian divide, but it gives us an oppurtunity to scrutinise Larouche himself - is his argument sound - where and when does he veer off into fascist/racist territory (i.e. how does he take 'facts' and weave them into a narrative?)

Courage you are being disingenuous. If you want to discuss rascists and racism well then of course racists can be used as examples.

However when people like LaRouche are used to bolster legitimate discussions on politics/social policy etc then you indeed give them undeserved credibility[/QUOTE]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 June 2003 12:55 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, Courage, I guess I can accept that point. Maybe I was a bit quick on the draw there.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 June 2003 12:59 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Courage, the consensus of opinion seems to be to stay away from LaRouche. And their opinions are not a matter of right or wrong but of engaging them as resources for opinion. It is unecessary especially when there are many more crdible non-fascist, non-racist opinion out there.

[ 25 June 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 June 2003 01:01 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No. There is no consensus. Far from it. You would like there to be, but there isn't. If you don't like it, don't read it and don't engage him if he posts it. But don't tell him not to post it unless you can demonstrate that, within the posted article itself, not vague accusations against the writer or his past writings or whatever, there is racism.

[ 25 June 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 June 2003 01:22 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Geez, Mish, your minority opinion has become our consensus now? Why not debate the message rather than the messenger? What is there about the article in question that you find objectionable?

[BTW, I've never heard of Larouche before this thread]

quote:
Hezbollah terrorism in Lebanon
Like Blind Patriot, I also have a problem with this characterization. Hezbollah grew directly out of the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. It was no more terrorist than were the Russian partisans of WWII, who were, incidentally, also called "terrorists" by the invaders.

[ 25 June 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 June 2003 01:38 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
No. There is no consensus. Far from it. You would like there to be, but there isn't. If you don't like it, don't read it and don't engage him if he posts it. But don't tell him not to post it unless you can demonstrate that, within the posted article itself, not vague accusations against the writer or his past writings or whatever, there is racism.

[ 25 June 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


Michelle this must be your day for jumping the gun. I

never told Courage not to post. Never. I felt there was consensus..I may be wrong but I never told him not to post. I wish you wouldn't have suggested I did such a thing.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 25 June 2003 01:46 PM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No. There is no consensus. Far from it. You would like there to be, but there isn't. If you don't like it, don't read it and don't engage him if he posts it. But don't tell him not to post it unless you can demonstrate that, within the posted article itself, not vague accusations against the writer or his past writings or whatever, there is racism.

OK. No vague accusations then. Larouche is an anti-Semite. He has actively cultivated ties with groups like the Aryan Nations Network and the Liberty Lobby. He believes that only about 1.5 million Jews died (not by gas) in the Holocaust. His "global conspiracy" is populated almost entirely by Jews. This has long been established by great progressive activists and writers like Chip Berlet.

It's bullshit to insist on finding racism only within the article published. Why not link to David Duke's articles then -- since there's no overt racism in his attacks on Israel either?

It doesn't surprise me that Blind Patriot, who's already on record as a genocide denier regarding Saddam's attacks on the Kurds (only 5000 Kurds died, right, BP?), should find common cause with an anti-Semitic genocide denier like Larouche.

If Michelle's right that there is "no consensus" about staying away from Larouche, this is absolutely pitiful. Predictable, perhaps. But pitiful.

And as for this:

quote:
Like Blind Patriot, I also have a problem with this characterization. Hezbollah grew directly out of the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. It was no more terrorist than were the Russian partisans of WWII, who were, incidentally, also called "terrorists" by the invaders.

Is Hezbollah now a terrorist organization, then? After all, as I'm sure you'll agree, Israel does not occupy a single square inch of Lebanon. Just ask the UN.

[ 25 June 2003: Message edited by: Whazzup? ]


From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 25 June 2003 01:48 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK, now we really are in metadiscussionland.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 25 June 2003 01:50 PM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
OK, now we really are in metadiscussionland.

Right, Mandos. Your comments have no foundation at all in "metadiscussionland." Only those who disagree with you.


From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 June 2003 01:53 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's obvious there is no consensus on this issue, but can we agree to disagree and discuss Hamas instead?

I think it's idiotic to consider these elements in Middle Eastern politics without considering where they come from. I think that was Blind_Patriot's point as well. And as I've said, I think it's a very typical colonialist argument being made here. I don't think it is at all surprising that Hamas is racist, but I doubt you'd find a lot of Hamas fans on this board anyway. I see this as another attempt to deprive the Palestinian cause of its legitimacy by pointing out that there are undesirable elements within Palestinian society. Coming as it does on the heels of the "Israel's Gay Pride" thread, I see this as an attempt to contrast "us" with "them" and to imply that "we" are right in oppressing "them" because "we" are better than "they" are.

This may not be the stated or even the conscious point of the thread, but to tell you the truth, I don't see much point in discussing antisemitism within Hamas per se. Hamas is a fundamentalist religious organization; fundamentalist religion is by definition intolerant of other religious groups. Out of context, there's not much point in discussing it.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 25 June 2003 01:57 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
[QB]Courage, the consensus of opinion seems to be to stay away from LaRouche.

I don't particularly care.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 June 2003 01:57 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
True. The consensus of opinion was to stay away from Pipes, too. We're entitled to our opinions.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 25 June 2003 02:08 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is not merely to stay away from Pipes. I recognize that Pipes can occasionally be correct. The only consensus there is that if Mishei et al. are concerned about not quoting racists whether they are right or wrong, they should likewise also not quote Pipes or else they would be hypocrites.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 June 2003 02:09 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is Hezbollah now a terrorist organization, then?

You tell me. Is Hezbollah NOW engaged in any violence?

I just heard on the news that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah have agreed to a ceasefire.

The IDF is fuelling the attack helicopters as we speak....


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 25 June 2003 02:11 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Smith:
It's obvious there is no consensus on this issue, but can we agree to disagree and discuss Hamas instead?

I think it's idiotic to consider these elements in Middle Eastern politics without considering where they come from. I think that was Blind_Patriot's point as well. And as I've said, I think it's a very typical colonialist argument being made here. I don't think it is at all surprising that Hamas is racist, but I doubt you'd find a lot of Hamas fans on this board anyway. I see this as another attempt to deprive the Palestinian cause of its legitimacy by pointing out that there are undesirable elements within Palestinian society. Coming as it does on the heels of the "Israel's Gay Pride" thread, I see this as an attempt to contrast "us" with "them" and to imply that "we" are right in oppressing "them" because "we" are better than "they" are.

This may not be the stated or even the conscious point of the thread, but to tell you the truth, I don't see much point in discussing antisemitism within Hamas per se. Hamas is a fundamentalist religious organization; fundamentalist religion is by definition intolerant of other religious groups. Out of context, there's not much point in discussing it.


Well put. I was trying to get at something like this in one of my repostes to Mishei - the idea that there is a series of 'family resemblences' between many instances of racist and fascist thinking. Denying that LaRouche is legitimate and arguing that he should be ignored amounts to a kind of repression of fact that the shape and form of his arguments is actually quite common in many corners. Arguments that we usually deride as 'White Supremacism' and/or antisemitism generally, share formal and specific argumentative affinities with the colonialist/imperialist narrative of the West in the Third World. Appropos of Hamas - we see that their racism/fascism is part of a situation which is coloured with this thinking on BOTH sides. Many of the discourses about Arabs and Muslims employed by Israelis, aggressive Zionists, etc. are of a kind with these racist arguments.

The extremity of Hamas' position is possible - indeed of a piece (this is even more ironic when we consider Israeli state funding to Hamas) - with the extremity of the aggressive Zionist position which has dominated Israeli state policy toward the Palestinians for nearly a century. One cannot be delinked from the other. Hamas is the bastard-child of aggressive Zionism: born of the attempt to sideline secular Palestinian Arab nationalism and its claim to self-determination in its PLO form.

In that way, I agree with Smith. I think that the manner in which the discussion of Hamas' extremism is often broached is disingenious, because it utterly decontextualises their position, and is used in a politically charged way: "See what barbarians we are dealing with? Now you see why we have to be the way we are?" In short, if we discuss Hamas' antisemitism outside of the context of the conflict in which it arose, we risk legitimating the colonial mentality sustaining the occupation, sustaining the discrimination within Israel, and so on.

We need to be equal oppurtunity anti-fascists...

[ 25 June 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 25 June 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 25 June 2003 02:23 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Stay away from this, stay away from THAT."

So much taboo. Intriguing in its own right - but that truly is another thread....


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 25 June 2003 02:31 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
on record as a genocide denier regarding Saddam's attacks on the Kurds (only 5000 Kurds died, right, BP?),
Giving a number of dead is a far cry from denial, which I have never done. What I do know is that the U.S. was encouraging Saddam and Supporting him finacially and in material in the genocide. 1 dead... 5000 dead... 1.5 million... or 6 million, IT'S ALL GENOCIDE AND IT's ALL WRONG. Sorry wazzup, but that was totally irrelevant and uncalled for.

I never knew anything about Larouche and I didn't pay attention to the author of the article. However now that Mishei has brought to light who this guy is, I'm curious to find out more about this so called facist. Thanks Mishei! I'll see if my Jewish friends know about him. So, what about Smith's article?


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 25 June 2003 02:31 PM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
It is not merely to stay away from Pipes. I recognize that Pipes can occasionally be correct. The only consensus there is that if Mishei et al. are concerned about not quoting racists whether they are right or wrong, they should likewise also not quote Pipes or else they would be hypocrites.

My belief that Larouche is racist stems from his long-standing and well-established association with White Supremacists and Holocaust deniers.

From what I can tell, your belief that Pipes is racist stems from his construction of the concept of Islamism to define away and delegitimize Muslim political aspirations. Whatever.

I'm reassured to hear that you "have no particular love for Larouche," in your sonorous denunciation of his overt racism.

quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
You tell me. Is Hezbollah NOW engaged in any violence?

Since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon? Um, are you asking me that seriously?


From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 25 June 2003 02:58 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was going to link to some of Mr. Pipes more enlightened speeches (informing you the poor equalizer why he is a racist) when something far more important came up. Google is down! Google is down! Sound the alarms! Google is down!
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 25 June 2003 03:02 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is not merely to stay away from Pipes. I recognize that Pipes can occasionally be correct. The only consensus there is that if Mishei et al. are concerned about not quoting racists whether they are right or wrong, they should likewise also not quote Pipes or else they would be hypocrites.

Exactly.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 25 June 2003 03:06 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sarcasmobri, Let me Help you show how racist Pipes is:

click here

P.S. Yahoo still works! However I wonder if it's a credible search engine?

[ 25 June 2003: Message edited by: Blind_Patriot ]


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 25 June 2003 03:13 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, Your Worship pointed me to alltheweb.com, which led me to this fine anthology on the speech of Daniel Pipes:

Brown-skinned people seem to get Mr. Pipes down


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 25 June 2003 03:16 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your Worship... Huh?
From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 25 June 2003 03:22 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry. That joke is so inside that only two people in the universe will understand it. Still, I do like to cater to a small audience.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 June 2003 03:35 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pardon me, Whaz, I stand corrected.From today's Beirut "Daily Star":
quote:
Foreign diplomatic sources in Beirut drew attention Tuesday to the intensified Israeli violations of Lebanese airpsace in recent weeks, describing them as provocative and calling for moves to end them “before the situation escalates.”
The sources said that while it was true the violations were not actual attacks, Hizbullah’s anti-aircraft gunners have directed their fire at the intruding planes and any shrapnel falling onto the Israeli side of the border could lead to additonal tensions and, possibly, hostilities.

I'll agree that shooting antiaircraft guns at invaders is an "act of violence"


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 25 June 2003 03:49 PM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sarcasmobri, Let me Help you show how racist Pipes is:

I'm stunned, BP. You're suddenly able to operate a search engine? How's your googling of "Lyndon Larouche" doing?

Pipes has responded to all of these allegations. Pipes is sloppy, badly informed, rigidly ideological, and sometimes crude. I don't believe he's racist.


From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 25 June 2003 03:53 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, what we have established is that Hamas is anti-semetic and pipes is fear mongering the American people with anti-islamism and fuelling the stance of American Zionist groups. Oh Ya... Larouche is uncredible. And we can't forget that Mishei only likes to talk about anti-semitism.
From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 25 June 2003 03:58 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Pipes is sloppy, badly informed, rigidly ideological, and sometimes crude. I don't believe he's racist.
Beleiving Pipes is not a racist is like believing Zundel isin't either. However I think that you have clear stated you rasist natures. Apologising is the politically correct thing to do. I could apologise for something, it doesn't change the fact that it was already said.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 25 June 2003 03:59 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
(CAIR)
He does not limit this claim to Arab Muslims alone. Pipes wrote that "Iranians and Pakistanis, to take two groups of non-Arabs, are at least as widely conspiracy-minded and as anti-Semitic as, say, Tunisians and Kuwaitis." (Commentary, 9/1/99)

(Pipes) Happens to be so, unfortunately. All I am doing is pointing out a truth.

(CAIR) Of African-American Muslims, Pipes wrote: "...black converts tend to hold vehemently anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic attitudes." (Commentary, 6/1/2000)

(Pipes) Some proof is needed? Louis Farrakhan, perhaps the leading antisemite in the United States, has called Judaism a "gutter religion" (The New York Times, June 29, 1984) and described Adolf Hitler as a "very great man" (radio broadcast, March 11, 1984). In an infamous speech at Kean College in November 1993, Farrakhan's deputy spewed out a mind-boggling series of statements about Jews. The Nation of Islam sells the Protocols of the Elders of Zion at its events. And the organization has even done original "scholarship" of its own, putting together a volume in 1991 called The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews that purports to show that Jews were primarily responsible for the enslavement of blacks and their transport to America. And so on and on.


Pipes certainly likes to paint with a broad brush, doesn't he?


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 25 June 2003 04:14 PM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Blind_Patriot:
Beleiving Pipes is not a racist is like believing Zundel isin't either. However I think that you have clear stated you rasist natures.

Zundel's Holocaust revisionism is racism. That's why I don't think Larouche (or Zundel) should be cited in support of a position. Fortunately, I didn't do that, BP -- you did. Let me know if I've ever cited a racist (or even a boob like Pipes) to back up an argument.

quote:
I'll agree that shooting antiaircraft guns at invaders is an "act of violence"

Al-Q, you clearly have no clue about what Hizbollah has been doing for the past three years.

[ 25 June 2003: Message edited by: Whazzup? ]


From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 June 2003 04:35 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, I didn't say you told Courage not to post. I said that you told people not to post articles by Larouche, which you most clearly did, claiming that there was consensus on the thread that we not post articles by him. Which is laughable considering that you posted it right in the middle of a big debate about whether or not the article should be posted. Maybe in your world "consensus" means just you and the people who agree with you, but I think what most people think of when they hear the word "consensus" is that everyone involved agrees. Which is clearly not the case in this thread.

quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Patriot, please , in the future, use sources other than LaRouche.

quote:
So if you want to discuss this don't use fascists and racsists as your resource.

Whazzup?, I understand your point. I haven't been familiar with Larouche, and I think everyone on this thread has agreed, even the person who first posted it, that the guy is questionable. But the debate has become a question about whether or not, if someone writes something that makes sense, you should disregard it because something else he wrote in the past doesn't make sense.

In fact, I tend towards the position of disregarding work by racists, and holding people's political choices up to scrutiny when considering their viewpoint. For instance, I didn't enjoy studying Heidegger (a Nazi member) in my philosophy courses. But people disagree with me about that, and so we studied his philosophy. And to say that he had nothing to contribute to philosophy because his worldview was also anti-Semitic - well, what can I say? We can debate it for ages. It's an old, old debate, and certainly nothing new on babble.

And you know what? Now that we're in the heat of this debate, I actually DON'T think it has anything to do with the thread topic. Maybe on some far-reaching edge it connects.

But then again, this thread was started with such a non-debate anyhow - I mean, I think everyone pretty much agrees that there is anti-Semitism present in Hamas. This whole thread started out as an exercise in stating the obvious, so there's really not much sense getting "back on topic" since there's really not too much to discuss.

So continue with your debate. But don't act like I'm suddenly condoning white supremacist materials on babble just because I haven't censored material by certain authors who have been racist in the past but have not written anything racist in what is currently being discussed. Give me a break.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 25 June 2003 04:38 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
you did
Where?

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 25 June 2003 04:54 PM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But the debate has become a question about whether or not, if someone writes something that makes sense, you should disregard it because something else he wrote in the past doesn't make sense.

OK, I'll continue the debate, then.

I think you've framed the controversy too abstractly, Michelle. Heidegger's philosophy likely had some connection with his embrace of Nazism. But the connection is at least controversial -- and certainly Hannah Arendt was no Nazi.

My point is that what Larouche "wrote in the past" can't be disentangled from his view of Israel today. Isn't that obvious? When a man writes about conspiracies of Jewish bankers, do you really believe this is irrelevant to his views of Israel? As I said before, David Duke makes almost identical arguments. Is he fair game?


From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 June 2003 06:47 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, LaRouche is more than questionable he is a dangerous fascist.

I have already posted the quintisential book that exposes him for what he is. I can't believe that you would underplay such a dangerous demagogue. Before posting such weak descriptions you should get information. Read Dennis King and then I doubt very much you would suggest that LaRouche is anything other than a dangerous and malignant fascist of the worst kind.

IMHO, anyone who uses him as a resource for anything other than to demonstrate the evil of fascist pigs after knowing full well who he is and what he is about is more than questionable!!!!


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 June 2003 07:36 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Al-Q, you clearly have no clue about what Hizbollah has been doing for the past three years.

Stop being so coy. Why don't you explain to those of us with no clue?

Ed. There was an article in the Daily Star a few weeks back that noted how Hezbollah is wondering about its raison d'être now htat Lebanon has been liberated. Supporting schools, a TV station and a health system isn't enough to justify having a military wing.

Maybe they could invade northern Israel and set up a security zone.

[ 25 June 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 June 2003 09:30 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

I just heard on the news that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah have agreed to a ceasefire.

The IDF is fuelling the attack helicopters as we speak....


Unlike many others, I quite like to say "I told you so."

CBC radio said a few minutes ago that "no sooner had the agreement been signed" than Israeli helicopter gunships attacked Gaza. Supposedly they were after "Hamas leaders."
Two innocent bystanders were killed.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 June 2003 10:07 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll let you have the last word.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca