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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Israeli fascists make a move

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Israeli fascists make a move
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 March 2006 03:30 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Clashes during Israeli campaign

quote:
Israeli Arabs have clashed with members of the right-wing Jewish Herut party in Jaffa after it launched a campaign to encourage them to emigrate.

Scuffles broke out after Herut members handed out leaflets that called on Israeli-Arabs to emigrate to Arab countries in return for compensation.


[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 24 March 2006 01:57 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I really don't like the title of this post- please think of ww2 and the millions who suffered there. One should not knee-jerkingly go around calling people they don't like fascists unless they do adhere in reality to the ideology of Fascism.It's too easy,and it oversimiplifies situations and people, and replaces thinking and effort to understand complex things- like people and contexts.

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 24 March 2006 03:40 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

What's the sanitized word for "people who wish to displace their fellow citizens because they happen to have different ancestors", then? Forced relocationists? Migrationalists?

I like the words filthy racists, myself.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 24 March 2006 03:43 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I beleive he's talking about the Israeli Herut Party, not the Israeli people as a whole.

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 24 March 2006 06:50 PM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can we at least please fix the spelling of "fascists" in the thread title?

[edited to add] And make the verb agree with the noun, which is plural? It should read "Israeli fascists MAKE a move."

I'll go back to ironing and folding my bathroom tissue now.

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: gunnar gunnarson ]


From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 24 March 2006 06:50 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The sad thing is that providing Palestinians with compensation and encouraging them to emigrate to " friendly" Arab states is part of Gush Shalom's platform as well. This" we love you, but get the fuck out" approach to race relations seems to be common to many Israeli organizations across the political spectrum.

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 March 2006 08:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by gunnar gunnarson:
Can we at least please fix the spelling of "fascists" in the thread title?

[edited to add] And make the verb agree with the noun, which is plural? It should read "Israeli fascists MAKE a move."

I'll go back to ironing and folding my bathroom tissue now.

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: gunnar gunnarson ]



Sorry.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 March 2006 08:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyway, I can't stress how much I appreciate the Arab reaction to this. Stun grenades and smashing up cars seems to be the right approach on this one.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 24 March 2006 09:31 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:
I really don't like the title of this post- please think of ww2 and the millions who suffered there.

That's exactly what he's doing.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 27 March 2006 12:55 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Briguy- that would be ethnic cleansing, which ya I agree is more than filthy racism, and is more than just plain disgusting. But as you see below fascims does not necessarily equal eugenics. See this definitin I found in :

quote:
First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state’s benefit. This “total state” is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens. 2
A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma. 3
Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part from the romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Carlyle, and Richard Wagner, is closely linked with fascism’s rejection of reason and intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and “the will.”
The Fascist State
Fascism has found adherents in all countries. Its essentially vague and emotional nature facilitates the development of unique national varieties, whose leaders often deny indignantly that they are fascists at all. In its dictatorial methods and in its use of brutal intimidation of the opposition by the militia and the secret police, fascism does not greatly distinguish itself from other despotic and totalitarian regimes. There are particular similarities with the Communist regime in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. However, unlike Communism, fascism abhors the idea of a classless society and sees desirable order only in a state in which each class has its distinct place and function. Representation by classes (i.e., capital, labor, farmers, and professionals) is substituted for representation by parties, and the corporative state is a part of fascist dogma. 5
Although Mussolini’s and Hitler’s governments tended to interfere considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can be no doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, the capitalist and landowning classes were protected by the fascist system, and many favored it as an obstacle to socialization. On the other hand, the state adopted a paternalistic attitude toward labor, improving its conditions in some respects, reducing unemployment through large-scale public works and armament programs, and controlling its leisure time through organized activities.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. htp://www.bartleby.com/65/fa/fascism.html 2001-05.

So you see while a hierarchily minded theory like fascism and racism go well together, one does not necessarily automatically equal the other.
I don't support any type of fascist in the least btw, I vote NDP.

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Yst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9749

posted 27 March 2006 01:14 AM      Profile for Yst     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I really do think this kind of use of "fascist" is just plain lazy application of a political epithet, and merely for the sake of insult, rather than for the sake of genuinely meaningful and warranted negative characterisation. The character of the actions being discussed here does not seem to me to suggest first and foremost that the individuals involved favour authoritarian government power structures. It would seem to suggest that they favour ethnic cleansing, as has just been expressed above. Which may as well be called what it is, rather than named by way of authoritarian ideology in general, which may or may not associate itself in any way with ethnic cleansing.

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Yst ]


From: State of Genderfuck | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 27 March 2006 01:40 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To return to the discussion topic, I have no idea how the Herut Party think that anyone would react well to " hey, I don't want your kind here, so how about I give you some money so you can go away from what is currently your home." The fact that they did not understand why what they had been doing was just plain wrong is mind blowing- and so obviously not constructive to to making things better.
Also S1mon- could you please elaborate?

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 27 March 2006 02:03 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While looking a little more inot the Herut party and its origins, I found this interesting tie between Fascism and a brach of Zionism on Wikipedia under "National-messianism vs. Jewish nationalism"

quote:
Up to 1933, a number of leaders from the national-messianist wing of Revisionism were inspired by the fascist movement of Benito Mussolini. These leaders, such as Abba Achimeir, were attracted to fascism for its staunch anti-communism and its focus on rebuilding the glory of the past, which national-messianists such as Uri Zvi Greenberg felt had much connection to their view of what the Revisionist movement should be.

Abba Achimeir's ideology was based in Oswald Spengler's monumental study on the decline of the West, but his Zionist orientation caused him to adapt its ultimate conclusions. Achimeir's basic assumption was that liberal bourgeois European culture was degenerate, and deeply eroded from within by an excess of liberalism and individualism. Socialism and communism were portrayed as "overcivilized" ideologies. Fascism on the other hand, like Zionism, was a return to the roots of the national culture and the historical past. According to Achimeir, Italian Fascism was not anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist, whereas communist ideology and praxis were intrinsically so.

He also developed a favorable attitude toward fascist praxis and its psycho-politics, such as the principle of the all powerful leader, the use of propaganda to generate a spirit of heroism and duty to the homeland, and the cultivation of youthful vitality (as manifested in the fascist youth movements). Achimeir joined the Revisionist movement in 1930, but before joining he wrote a regular column entitled "From the Notebook of a Fascist" in the unaffiliated but pro-Revisionist magazine Doar Hayom. He crafted his pro-fascistic views in these columns, and also wrote an article in 1928 titled "On the Arrival of Our Duce" to celebrate Jabotinsky's visit to Palestine, and propose a new direction for the Revisionist movement, more in line with Achimeir's views. (Segev, Tom, The Seventh Million: Israelis and the Holocaust pg 23.)

When Achimeir was on trial in 1932 for having disrupted a public lecture at Hebrew University, his lawyer, Zvi Eliahu Cohen, argued "Were it not for Hitler's anti-Semitism, we would not oppose his ideology. Hitler saved Germany." Tom Segev has remarked, "This was not an unconsidered outburst." An editorial in the Revisionist newspaper Hazit Haam praised Cohen's "brilliant speech." It continued, that "Social Democrats of all stripes believe that Hitler's movement is an empty shell (but) we believe that there is both a shell and a kernel. The anti-Semitic shell is to be discarded, but not the anti-Marxist kernel. The Revisionists would fight the Nazis only to the extent that they were anti-Semites." (Segev, Tom, The Seventh Million: Israelis and the Holocaust pg 23).

In 1933, when Hitler came to power, the newspaper, whose editors were Revisionist Party members, praised Nazism as a German national liberation movement and said that Hitler had saved Germany from Communism. Jabotinsky responded by threatening to have the newspaper's editors expelled if they repeated such "kow-towing" to Hitler. (Schechtman, Fighter and Prophet, p.216.)


Wikipedia I'll admit I'm not an expert, but I've never imagined any links between Zionism and Fascism before.Explains allot...though doesn't mean I'm reversing what I said above.[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 March 2006 02:51 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Yst:
I really do think this kind of use of "fascist" is just plain lazy application of a political epithet, and merely for the sake of insult, rather than for the sake of genuinely meaningful and warranted negative characterisation. The character of the actions being discussed here does not seem to me to suggest first and foremost that the individuals involved favour authoritarian government power structures. It would seem to suggest that they favour ethnic cleansing, as has just been expressed above. Which may as well be called what it is, rather than named by way of authoritarian ideology in general, which may or may not associate itself in any way with ethnic cleansing.

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Yst ]


I was not using the term fascist baed solely on the events descirbed in the article, but the history of the Herud party. I think the fascist is a pretty good descriptor, and these events not unlike KKK marches through black neighborhoods in the US, or Skinhead rallies in Jewish neighborhoods. This was deliberate racialist baiting tactic common among fascist organizations.

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 27 March 2006 03:11 AM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:

Also S1mon- could you please elaborate?

Sure. The bitter irony of Israel is that is it becoming the thing it most hates.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 27 March 2006 08:06 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Out of curiosity , could we apply the term fascist to any of the totalitarian Arab states? How about Hamas?
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 March 2006 08:27 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I suppose you could, there are numerous elements of the Hamas docterine which seem to have a totalitarian nature. However, I think in terms of a strict defintion of the term, as created by Musolini to define a type of Ultra-nationalist modernist totalitarian regieme it is difficult to see how Hamas fits into that political architecture, as it seems to be more of a lose coalition, on the one hand, and on the other more of a throw back to a tradition of religious oligarchical political ideas.

As far as Herud goes the linkages between many of the ultra-nationalist parties in Israel have direct connections to the body of ideas from which the fascists of the early thirties drew their inspiration. So much as to say the Muslim Brotherhood predates Mussolini, and Islam is a whole lot older even than that.

But in the case of Hamas, it is not even clear that it truly concieves of itself as having a cohesive political orthdoxy, accepted by the entire group. For instance Abu Shanab, blown up by an Israeli missile while in the midst of negotatiating a Hudna with his opposite numbers in the PA in 2003 has this to say about the nature of a future state:

quote:
Q: Which ideally would be neither a Jewish nor an Islamic state.

Abu Shanab: No, let's speak about a democratic state, because an Islamic state is compatible with democracy. In this way, we see the Israelis as part of this community, if they want to live as equals. But if they want to maintain apartheid, they will never join this community. This is the critical issue for the Israelis and the Zionist movement, as well as for those in the West who support this state. Now the Israelis see themselves as Westerners in an Eastern area, and they live here as strangers.


MPEC

Now I don't think I agree with Shanab that one can have a truly democratic state that is aligned with any one relgion, such as Islam as Shanab states, but it is clear that he believes having an Islamic state is compatible with democracy.

But anyway, that fella is ded now, so he won't be negotiating any Hudna's now.

Just because someones ideas are wrong does not make them a fascist. Just in the manner that many Zionists are not fascists, as they obviously and truly believe that democracy is compatible with a state founded solely on Judaism, even though they are wrong about this, as Shanab is about Islam and democracy.

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 27 March 2006 11:18 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Out of curiosity , could we apply the term fascist to any of the totalitarian Arab states? How about Hamas?

I keep forgetting that two wrongs make a right. Or perhaps one wrong makes a second wrong excusable? My bad.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 March 2006 11:57 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's near impossible to mention Islamic fundamentalism without either having to simultaneously mention Christian fundamentalism, or being reminded to do so.

So it hardly seems unfair, or unique.

Do two wrongs make a right with regard to fundamentalism? Do you think that's why Xtian fundamentalism is always brought up when Islamic fundamentalism is?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 27 March 2006 12:01 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's near impossible to mention Islamic fundamentalism without either having to simultaneously mention Christian fundamentalism, or being reminded to do so.

I think you've got your order reversed there.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 March 2006 12:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
It's near impossible to mention Islamic fundamentalism without either having to simultaneously mention Christian fundamentalism, or being reminded to do so.

According to you. Such silly simplistic comparative dualism are much more your kind of thing. Is it because you are so fond of that particular brand of sophism in a spray can that you assume everyone else uses it?

I mean Magoo, why not start by defining your terms here. What is "fundamentalist Islam?"

How for instance does the "fundamentalist Islam" of Sufi cleric Sheik Ahmed Yassin, compare to that of the Shia "fundamentalist Islam" of Ayatollah Khomeni, or the Salafist (Whahabist) strain of the "fundamentalist Islam" of Osama bin Laden. I mean to you even have and idea of the differences, or that they are different?

Not to long ago this term was being flung around as if any Muslim who dared object to the Jyyland-Posten's cartoons were "Islamic fundamentalists" instananeously semantically linked by the wildly casual use of this term by yourself and others to Al Queda, the Republic of Iran and Hamas.

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 27 March 2006 12:25 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Out of curiosity , could we apply the term fascist to any of the totalitarian Arab states? How about Hamas?

Sure. If we can apply the term "free democracy" to Israel, then anything is possible.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 27 March 2006 12:26 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
It's near impossible to mention Islamic fundamentalism without either having to simultaneously mention Christian fundamentalism, or being reminded to do so.

Cueball wrote:

According to you. Such silly simplistic comparative dualism are much more your kind of thing. Is it because you are so fond of that particular brand of sophism in a spray can that you assume everyone else uses it?

I mean Magoo, why not start by defining your terms here. What is "fundamentalist Islam?"

How for instance does the "fundamentalist Islam" of Sufi cleric Sheik Ahmed Yassin, compare to that of the Shia "fundamentalist Islam" of Ayatollah Khomeni, or the Salafist (Whahabist) strain of the "fundamentalist Islam" of Osama bin Laden. I mean to you even have and idea of the differences, or that they are different?


You raise a good point Cueball. However, it should be pointed out that when Christian fundamestalism gets criticized on babble, I haven't exactly noticed people rushing forth to parse the differences between Robertson's Pentecostalism, Falwell's Baptist fundamentalism, Rushdoony's Reconstructionism, Byfield's Anglo-Orthodoxy, etc.

quote:
Not to long ago this term was being flung around as if any Muslim who dared object to the Jyyland-Posten's cartoons were "Islamic fundamentalists" instananeously semantically linked by the wildly casual use of this term by yourself and others to Al Queda, the Republic of Iran and Hamas.


True. Then again, if all we knew about some protestant cleric was that he was against homosexuality, I don't think too many babblers would object too strenuosuly if he got tagged with the label fundamentalist(the same label that gets applied to people who gun down gynecologists in front of clinics).

(I think the only exception to this would be conservative Catholics, who don't usually get called fundamentalist, even when they agree with conservative protestants.)

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 March 2006 12:28 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
(shrug).

Start a thread to talk about why those fundamentalists over there seem to want to keep either blowing stuff up or sentencing folks to death, in absentia.

Then see how long it is before someone has to mention that Christians are violent too. I'd give it hours, if that.

And frankly I'm not all that worried about the various differences between one brand of fundamentalism and another. Any fundamentalism seems to bring with it intolerance, a need to control, and the willingness to use violence to that end. At that point it's rather moot whose holy book is which or who started in what century under what leadership.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 27 March 2006 12:38 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Back to the original topic for a sec, here is a link to Lenni Brenner's scholarly book on Zionism's relation to right-wing European totalitarianism.

http://tinyurl.com/qhyox

Suffice to say I have no problems with the heading of this thread.

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 March 2006 12:41 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

And frankly I'm not all that worried about the various differences between one brand of fundamentalism and another. Any fundamentalism seems to bring with it intolerance, a need to control, and the willingness to use violence to that end. At that point it's rather moot whose holy book is which or who started in what century under what leadership.

Great! Well according to your defintion we should change the name of the Canadian Forces to the Canadian Fundamentalist Forces. You are useless.

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 March 2006 12:48 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well according to your defintion we should change the name of the Canadian Forces to the Canadian Fundamentalist Forces.

Ah. So if I say that fundamentalists wear pants, then anyone who wears pants is, "by my definition", a fundamentalist?

You realize that a syllogism is a fallacy, don't you?

quote:
You are useless.

And you, clearly, don't know a syllogism from a hole in the ground. If that's really how you think, may I suggest finishing high school?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 March 2006 12:50 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:

(I think the only exception to this would be conservative Catholics, who don't usually get called fundamentalist, even when they agree with conservative protestants.)

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


Precisely. In fact the we make this distinction, when the theological schism between Shia "fundamentalism" and Sunni fundamentalism (salafism/Whahabism) could easily characterized as similar to the devide between Protestants and Catholics, the kind of literalist dependence on the text of Catholicism sitting in the stead of Shia orthodoxy.

But we make this distinction in Christianity calling it Catholic conservatism. And this wild over-use of the "fundamentalist" appelation creates grave misundestandings of the real politcal terrain with which we must contend when discussing these issues.

Many are so confused by this overgeneralization that they actually do not understand that support for OBL from Iran is about as unlikely as a past tense scenario of the Soviet Union backing Pol Pot.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 27 March 2006 12:59 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
At that point it's rather moot whose holy book is which or who started in what century under what leadership.

Fundamentalism need not be religuious. It need only be uncompromisingly doctrinaire. So, yes, Dick Cheney can be as much a fundamentalist as either Osama or Pat Robertson without ever having read a bible.

It is interesting that while you would criticize others for not arguing, in this case, that "Moslems can be fascist, too", it seems you do want to and yet you have dispayed no particular objection to labelling Moslems fascist but seem to object to the same label being applied to Israelis.

In that sense, you would be guilty of your own charge of hypocrisy, wouldn't you?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mullah Boykin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6051

posted 27 March 2006 01:02 PM      Profile for Mullah Boykin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is it because you are so fond of that particular brand of sophism in a spray can that you assume everyone else uses it?

teehee

You know I think it is a damn shame that nobody can discuss the wrong on the “other side” of the proverbial ‘fence’ without many getting their panties in a twist.
If you want to read about the horrible Arabs you can pop on to any MSM website and burn your eyes all day.
I always found this forum had its sacred cows and its certain members who held them above reproach. I do not think that fascist is such a misuse of terms when discussing bigoted swine like Herut or any other such Israeli racists and apartheid promoters.

The racism in Israel is a shocking aspect of this nation that the Western Media enjoys promoting as the world’s most innocent victim. It is rarely discussed and such revelations are essential to any balanced discussion as to the awful situation of the occupation there and its seemingly eternal repercussions.

Judeofascists, Christofascists, Islamofascists – whatever.
When the behaviour fits the profile and people call a duck a duck perhaps the unflinching supporters of the said duck should forward an argument as to why the name is not applicable instead of yipping about the usage of the descriptive.

Or perhaps folks like “the Hill People” are just misunderstood.
Israeli publications don’t seem to have a problem discussing Israeli racism; they just act like it’s quaint or something.
Like this lil’ gem about Linor Aberjil,(darn, no drooling on my keyboard icon)
Marzel to beauty queen: Don't marry a goy

Calling a duck a duck or a fascist a fascist is not wrong - it’s just not always ‘nice’.

I do not speak for anybody but myself, but people who are always ‘nice’ about everything never really seem to be able to broach topics effectively or facilitate strong responses.
I like it when people here lay it all out and risk the gauntlet of apologists, attack hacks or serial sophists.

The resulting sniping does seem to create some mighty entertaining ego scuffles that derail the threads but until a good ‘in person’ Babble crotch punting contest can be arranged I guess the provocateurs and provoked must have their screechy mud fights.
As Johnny C used to say:
"funny, funny stuff..."

Tempis fugit!


From: worm hole | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 27 March 2006 01:02 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yabbut practising Muslims are automatically members of the Axis of Intolerance. Just ask Magoo, he'll explain it to you.

He'll also happily explain how every single Roman Cathoilic in the world is a bigot. He's the best example of his point that I can think of offhand.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 March 2006 01:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

And you, clearly, don't know a syllogism from a hole in the ground. If that's really how you think, may I suggest finishing high school?


The syllogistic nature of your definition is explicit in its construction. So much so that one wonders why you even bother to identify a difference between Christian "fundamentalists," and Islamic ones. Perhaps my pointing out the deficiencies of your symptomatic, as opposed to casual defintion by expressing its syllogistic nature was too complex.

Let me try again: "Fundamentalism," may be expressed as "intolerance, a need to control, and the willingness to use violence," symptomatically but this results from a literalist (fundamentalist) understanding of the source text of an ideology as the cause of the symptoms. Therefore, as in my example, I underscored the useless nature of symptomatic defintion of fundamentalism as "intolerance, a need to control, and the willingness to use violence" by exposing its syllogistic tendency through an absurdist example highlighting the extreme level intellectual mediocrity you have achieved, whether you are wearing pants or not.

The fact that you cottoned on to the sylogism is remarkable, and I applaud you for it, even though you failed to see that my point was to highlight the sylogistic tendency of any defintion, such as the one you used, which is dependent on symptom, not cause.

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 March 2006 01:04 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is interesting that while you would criticize others for not arguing, in this case, that "Moslems can be fascist, too", it seems you do want to and yet you have dispayed no particular objection to labelling Moslems fascist but seem to object to the same label being applied to Israelis.

Actually, I responded to this little piece of snarkasm:

quote:
I keep forgetting that two wrongs make a right. Or perhaps one wrong makes a second wrong excusable? My bad.

... to point out that indeed, discussion of Islamic fundamentalism is often met with urgent reminders that "Christians are just as bad" or similar. So either two wrongs DO make a right, or else someone's awfully uncomfortable with Islamic fundamentalism being discussed. Otherwise, why the finger pointing?

I'm neither against Israel being labelled fascist, nor Hamas. Sauce for the goose and all that. If mentioning both sides is a good thing, let's do so and not be snarkastic about it. If it's a bad thing, let's never do it.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 27 March 2006 01:58 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's really nice that Cueball opened this thread for the purpose of discussing the semantics around determining the proper word for describing Israeli racist ethnic cleansers and their supporters, but maybe we could take this a little "off-topic" and discuss what should be done about these obvious race baiters and their hate speech march?

Would we allow a neo-Nazi skin head party to go into a black neighbourhood and hand out leaflets calling for blacks to be placed into slavery but compensated with a cash payout? Would we consider, even for a second, that the offer was made in any kind of serious manner, or would we realize instantly that the offer was simply a poorly disguised provocation to which a violent response was expected?

edited to add: or more importantly, would we even spend one second discussing the best word to use to describe such a foul, evil, sick group of racists?

Does this remind anyone of some other recent example of race baiting as practised by a Canadian right wing "magazine"?

Does anyone think that the response of the Arab Israelis, even thought there was some violence, was not justified?

Personally, I think that in this case, with such a blatant example of provoking violence, that a violent response is indeed justified, and the the provokers should be charged to the full extent of the law, and those who were provoked be given a much more minor sentence.

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 March 2006 02:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am sure we can expect some more "banalities," after that post No Yards.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 27 March 2006 02:26 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I still don't understand what Magoo's point was in regard to my point. My main point (reading between the lines) was that Ohara is a dork. I didn't bring any religious group into my very important post, and quite frankly can't understand why Magoo sophistrated Islamofascists into my post. I remain perplexed.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 March 2006 02:28 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps I misunderstood your response to ohara. Seemed as though you were being a little sarcastic. Did I read that wrong?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 March 2006 02:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 27 March 2006 03:00 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Perhaps I misunderstood your response to ohara. Seemed as though you were being a little sarcastic. Did I read that wrong?

Notatall. Snarky and sarcastic. But I'm not the one who thinks two wrongs make a right, so long as the second wrong is committed by the correct people, so I'm allowed to be snarky and sarcastic.

I really only come to the ME forum to snark now anyways. Infrequently, at that. I should probably just leave bad enough alone.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 March 2006 03:08 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's probably not the worst idea for me either.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 March 2006 03:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca