babble: If Yassin and Rantisi, why not Bush and Sharon?

FAQ | Forum Home

»	babble » right brain babble » humanities & science » If Yassin and Rantisi, why not Bush and Sharon?

Email this thread to someone!

Author

Topic: If Yassin and Rantisi, why not Bush and Sharon?

MikeFromKingston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5727

posted 17 May 2004 11:18 AM

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/52/articles/neocon_continues.html

Every time the Israeli government carries out an “extrajudicial killing”, the world outside of the US expresses its outrage. The White House calls Israeli assassinations unfortunate but stresses that Israel has the right to defend itself. And why not? The US has assassination targets of its own to worry about. But if Yassin and Rantisi are fair game, does the same apply to Bush and Sharon?

From: The Eather of Cyberbia | Registered: May 2004 | IP: Logged

praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 17 May 2004 12:20 PM

An interesting premise, but it would sound better coming out of a medium other than adbusters.

From: x | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged

Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 17 May 2004 12:26 PM

Haven't you heard? Critiquing advertising and marketing is, like, so last year. Now "Adbusters" has become "PerceivedNeoConBusters"! That's right, NeoCons, Kalle Lasn has your number, especially if you're a Jew! You can run but you can't hide! Also, would you like to buy some running shoes?

From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002 | IP: Logged

MikeFromKingston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5727

posted 17 May 2004 02:08 PM

quote:
Originally posted by praenomen3:
An interesting premise, but it would sound better coming out of a medium other than adbusters.

======

well, as the old chestnut goes; even a broken clock is right twice a day.
So, if it was the WSJ or The New Republic saying this, how would it change the message?

Are Sharon and Bush legit targets if Arafat(I imagine his days are numbered) and Yassin are?

From: The Eather of Cyberbia | Registered: May 2004 | IP: Logged

Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 17 May 2004 02:46 PM

Who said Arafat or Yassin were "legitimate" targets? Certainly they were or are targets, and so, I'm sure are Sharon and Bush, should someone get the chance, but when did any of them become "legitimate"?

From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002 | IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 May 2004 02:55 PM

I think that the reference is to the distinction that seems to be made just about everywhere in the West, anyway, between "innocent civilians" and the military. I can think of times when Bush has made that distinction; it certainly gets made often on this board, when it is claimed that suicide bombers are infinitely more heinous than anybody's soldiers.

Most heads of government and/or state are commanders in chief of their militaries. Bush is, eg -- is Sharon?

From: gone | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

MikeFromKingston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5727

posted 17 May 2004 03:21 PM

quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Most heads of government and/or state are commanders in chief of their militaries. Bush is, eg -- is Sharon?

Good Question. I THINk so, but Israeli Government is a bit of an odd duck,structurally, so I can't say for sure.

From: The Eather of Cyberbia | Registered: May 2004 | IP: Logged

praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 17 May 2004 08:11 PM

quote:
Originally posted by MikeFromKingston:
======
well, as the old chestnut goes; even a broken clock is right twice a day.
So, if it was the WSJ or The New Republic saying this, how would it change the message?

Are Sharon and Bush legit targets if Arafat(I imagine his days are numbered) and Yassin are?

If I read that piece in WSJ or TNR, I would think it was interesting. As it was, I read it in adbusters and thought "Lasn's off his meds again and is riding his 'Jewish Conspiracy' hobbyhorse." It doesn't change the message, but everyone here would agree that adbusters no longer has any credibility on this issue, and it taints the delivery of the message. Say you saw two critiques of Zionism, one from Noam Chomsky an other one from Ernst Zundel. Which one would you take seriously?

From: x | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time

Hop To: