Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Sat 26 Aug 2006, 20:51:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '
')Did you read one f'g thing I posted in my original post, PMS? Read the Naomi Klein link, please. It explains that corporations were itching to get in there and profit and the greatest problem created in Iraq was the privatizing and subsequent firing of millions of Iraqis from their jobs. The best thing they could have done was off Sadam, remove senior command and deputize the military, leaving most of them intact. Why de-Bathify Iraq. Completely utterly silly.
What did you post? nothing, a link to a Harper's magazine talking about various financial matters, rather irrelevant now. Then you said you'd post a reply in the next day or two. The business of America is business - shocking! Corporations want to get in there and sell toothpaste - shocking! The World Bank wants old debts paid - shocking! A Milton Friedman "capitalist paradise" - shocking! Could you possibly be any more self-righteous? You want something shocking, since you bring up Nazis? How about reading about the Palestinian National Hero Amin al-Husayni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni Palestinian Arabs love this guy, but it turns out he's a genocidal liar - shocking!
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby threadbear » Sat 26 Aug 2006, 23:06:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '
')Did you read one f'g thing I posted in my original post, PMS? Read the Naomi Klein link, please. It explains that corporations were itching to get in there and profit and the greatest problem created in Iraq was the privatizing and subsequent firing of millions of Iraqis from their jobs. The best thing they could have done was off Sadam, remove senior command and deputize the military, leaving most of them intact. Why de-Bathify Iraq. Completely utterly silly.
What did you post? nothing, a link to a Harper's magazine talking about various financial matters, rather irrelevant now. Then you said you'd post a reply in the next day or two. The business of America is business - shocking! Corporations want to get in there and sell toothpaste - shocking! The World Bank wants old debts paid - shocking! A Milton Friedman "capitalist paradise" - shocking! Could you possibly be any more self-righteous? You want something shocking, since you bring up Nazis? How about reading about the Palestinian National Hero Amin al-Husayni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni Palestinian Arabs love this guy, but it turns out he's a genocidal liar - shocking!



You can do better than a lame attempt at humiliation, PMS. Come on, counter with something substantial. This article lays waste the idea that the US can claim any kind of moral high ground,on any level, in this country. It wasn't a series of unfortunate mistakes. It was evil perpetrated at the highest levels--a simple act of bullying and economic piracy, supported by a morally flabby republican constwituency.

Palestine is a different and much more complex issue. I agree with you that Israel has the right to exist and I would hope that if it were ever really threatened, Canada would send in troops to help protect the citizens.

I wasn't actually drawing comparisons between the present day Israelis and the Nazis, just used that as an example of how far the idea of "balance" in journalism can be carried and how ludicrous and self serving the use of the term can become.

Oh--I apologize for being a day late answering your post. The next time I woop your ass, I'll try to be on time. And yes, I am self righteous, which would be a real barf fest if I wasn't corresondingly correct.



Here's more from the article for anyone interested: The economics behind the war:

Harper's magazine-Naomi Klein

Some people were paying attention, of course. That autumn was awash in “rebuilding Iraq” trade shows, in Washington, London, Madrid, and Amman. The Economist described Iraq under Bremer as “a capitalist dream,” and a flurry of new consulting firms were launched promising to help companies get access to the Iraqi market, their boards of directors stacked with well-connected Republicans. The most prominent was New Bridge Strategies, started by Joe Allbaugh, former Bush-Cheney campaign manager. “Getting the rights to distribute Procter & Gamble products can be a gold mine,” one of the company's partners enthused. “One well-stocked 7-Eleven could knock out thirty Iraqi stores; a Wal-Mart could take over the country.”

Soon there were rumors that a McDonald's would be opening up in downtown Baghdad, funding was almost in place for a Starwood luxury hotel, and General Motors was planning to build an auto plant. On the financial side, HSBC would have branches all over the country, Citigroup was preparing to offer substantial loans guaranteed against future sales of Iraqi oil, and the bell was going to ring on a New York‒style stock exchange in Baghdad any day.

http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby Miki » Mon 28 Aug 2006, 06:42:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', '
')So if most of the Irakis want the US to leave, the US needs to stay in order to give democracy to the Iraki people? Don't you think that's a contradictory statement?
When the US conquered Germany, they didn't mess around, they de-Nazified the country. The US should de-Baathify Iraq, Syria, and take out the Mullahs in Iran or stay home. The problem seems to be that we want to have our cake and eat it too. The only way we could do all those things is for the country to be mobilized and determined. This half-measure stuff arises from hubris, IMO. We can do it because we are just so freaking great that we can do it on the fly, easy, piece-of-cake style. Bull. In order to do those things, it should be completely apparent that it is absolutely neccessary. If we did these things, then small non-national militias could easily be destroyed. For my money, it's do it right or get out.
As for the apartheid thing, the reasons are obvious. I don't think any discussion of this will be fruitful between you and me. I've seen your approach and argumentative tactics and do not elect to discuss it with you. Save it for somebody else.


Your arguments are severely flawed PMS:

1-You're arguing that fascist and terrorist means are justified to guarantee democracy.

2-You believe the Iraki people don't have the right to decide what they want to do with their politics, their land, and their resources---and you have the guts to claim that you're an advocate of democracy.

3-The US has never fought a war in the name of democracy. They had a geopolitical nterest each and every time. Even you don't believe that.

4-It seems your democratic views also justify the existence of an apartheid society.

5-You refuse to discuss because you don't have any moral grounds to hold your views. There is no way you can justify what is happening in Irak, Palestine, and Lebanon in a righteous way. The only explanation is the "might is right" phenomenon that has taken us back to fascist WWII. Let us get rid of the hypocrisy please. I know you don't like what your nation has become, but the whole world has little respect for America, so it's high time you acknowledge reality and stop inventing lame rationalizations for your governments undefendable war crimes.
User avatar
Miki
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri 21 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby Miki » Mon 28 Aug 2006, 06:56:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', 'B')ut when you ask these people why they killed 3000 civilians, they will tell you that it is because of the Zionist regime and not because of some preps in high-school.

These kind of people use Israel as an "excuse" to lash out personal frustration and that is different from a "reason".


Muslims believe they are one nation. Zionists have repeatedly atacked Muslims all over the ME through American support and funding.

Every Muslim in the world has the right to protect Islamic people from future atacks and to seek justice for the millions of Muslims that have already been slaughtered.

Your explanation of the "displaced frustration" is just too simplistic and I've never seen a single analyst claim that---not even the dumbass liars of the Bush administration.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat is the whole mechanism of terror. It basically is the same as what Hitler did. Most Germans did not hate the Jews before 1940, they were however very frustrated on a personal level with the low employment, their status in the world having lost WW1 etc.


With a little difference: The Jews did not engage in mass murder against the Germans. Neither did they ethnic cleanse a whole German region. Neither did they invade/occupy/stole tons of German lands. Neither did they maintained a whole German region in an apartheid-like society.

I think maybe---just maybe---that makes a little difference in the case of Muslim nations.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat process of anger projection blurs the underlying causes.


Incidentally, numerous studies in Psychology have shown that agression is much more complex than projection of frustration. The initial theories proposed to explain agression some decades ago focused mainly on frustration projection, but several studies since then have shown that it is much more complex than that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n the case of the terrorists that came from Europe, the real problem is not Israel, but the fact that our society is is not as open and equal as we like to think.


You're generalizing from your own experience observing the oppression of Muslim immigrants in Europe to the causes of Muslim violence all over the world. Muslim oppression may trigger higher incidence of crimes, but not world terrorism.
User avatar
Miki
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri 21 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby Doly » Mon 28 Aug 2006, 08:00:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', '
')When the US conquered Germany, they didn't mess around, they de-Nazified the country. The US should de-Baathify Iraq, Syria, and take out the Mullahs in Iran or stay home.


Since when the US is a world government?

True, the US helped de-Nazify Germany in WWII, but that's what every other European country wanted, too, plus a big number of German residents (for example, those in concentration camps). So nobody had any objection to that.

But why should the US be the ones that right every wrong in the world? Especially because, so far, they seem less interested in justice than in their own interests.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Mon 28 Aug 2006, 08:26:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '
')Since when the US is a world government?

True, the US helped de-Nazify Germany in WWII, but that's what every other European country wanted, too, plus a big number of German residents (for example, those in concentration camps). So nobody had any objection to that.

But why should the US be the ones that right every wrong in the world? Especially because, so far, they seem less interested in justice than in their own interests.
The US is not a world government, of course, Doly. But the big picture, as I see it, is like this: European powers and civilization imploded in the two world wars. George Washington warned us in America not to get entangled in Old World Affairs. But we did it; WWII especially was a gruesome, frightening business. You say nobody had any objection to American force of arms in Europe in the 40s. On the contrary, Germany, Italy, and a number of others such as the Palestinians, Romanians, Hungarians and all the other fascist countries objected strenuously. The result was that the US was changed forever. I wish I could go back and live in an earlier time. Insular America, with no oil or cars, no CIA, no KGB, no Gestapo, no crazy propagandists. When it's all said and done, I think William Catton was right.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Mon 28 Aug 2006, 08:31:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', '
')Muslims believe they are one nation. Zionists have repeatedly atacked Muslims all over the ME through American support and funding.
incidence of crimes, but not world terrorism.
Palestinians have been murdering Jews since well before 1948. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
To paraphrase Golda Meir: the Palestinian - Israeli Conflict won't end until Palestinian children hate their parents more than they hate Jews.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby Miki » Mon 28 Aug 2006, 12:23:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', '
')Muslims believe they are one nation. Zionists have repeatedly atacked Muslims all over the ME through American support and funding.
incidence of crimes, but not world terrorism.
Palestinians have been murdering Jews since well before 1948. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebron
To paraphrase Golda Meir: the Palestinian - Israeli Conflict won't end until Palestinian children hate their parents more than they hate Jews.


Are you talking about the Ottoman Empire?

As for teaching hate to the children, let me remind you that it goes both ways: Israeli text-books teach children to hate Arabs

And if you still feel that Israelis are poor victims that just want to live in peace, here are the Israeli statesmen themselves telling you which kind of people you're supporting:

"I would have joined a terrorist organization."-- Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian.

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online

"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
-- Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.

"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."
-- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."-- Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman, June 25, 1982.

"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy."
-- Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

These and more quotes:

[web]http://monabaker.com/quotes.htm[/web]
User avatar
Miki
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri 21 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Mon 28 Aug 2006, 14:34:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', '
')"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

You either don't understand how the propaganda game is played or else you do but cynically take the ends to justify the means. Doesn't really matter to me. I'm sure that people here in this forum don't need an education in propaganda methods, but this is an interesting example, nonetheless.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves...politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves....The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
Speech by David Ben-Gurion, 1938, quoted in Zionism and the Palestinians by Simha Flapan, 1979.
This quote, like the other example of MIFTAH's activities, is presented without any context, in the effort to delegitimize Israel, and also has no connection with human rights issues or with this organization's mission statement. (Flapan is one of the early members of Israel radical and disaffected academic community, whose publications are rarely read by Israelis, but whose impact on Palestinian propagandists is significant.) While Ben-Gurion was attempting to present the Arab perspective, and was clearly not expressing Israeli views, MIFTAH has distorted the context beyond recognition.


http://www.jcpa.org/ngo/ngo-2-miftah.html
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby smiley » Mon 28 Aug 2006, 15:16:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('miki', 'M')uslims believe they are one nation. Zionists have repeatedly atacked Muslims all over the ME through American support and funding.


I think that is a) not true in general and b) certainly not true in this case.

Said was not a Muslim beforehand. If you look at his history you will see that he directly converted to radical Islam. The same is true for Mohammed Bouyeri the killer of Theo van Gogh. Incidentally he also joined Al Qaida when he dropped out of high-school because he felt discriminated against.

Richard Reid "the shoe bomber", was the product of an English mother and a Jamaican father (Not exactly Muslim territory). He too converted to Islam at a later age, when serving time in Feltham young offenders' institution in west London.

All in all you will find that a very high percentage of the radicals are converts from different walks of life, most of them not exactly the most stable and rewarding ones.

Now you can argue that the same millisecond they became Muslim they inherited the hate against Israel.

I'd say that these people had a predetermined desire to lash out against the society they lived in, and saw an excuse in radical Islam and the battle against Israel. Something which made their actions justifiable and perhaps even heroic. It would give their life (and death) meaning.

No one would applaud someone who blew up an airliner because he was being teased at school. If you do it for 'the Muslim cause' you have at least a few hundred thousand fanatics cheering.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('miki', 'W')ith a little difference: The Jews did not engage in mass murder against the Germans. Neither did they ethnic cleanse a whole German region. Neither did they invade/occupy/stole tons of German lands. Neither did they maintained a whole German region in an apartheid-like society.


To organize hate you have to create a 'perceived' enemy. That does not mean a real enemy per se. The way Israel and the USA are acting now makes that process extremely easy. However that would not mean that at the moment the USA and Israel made a 180 turn in their handling of the Middle-East that the drafting would stop. I believe that was was PMS question: " would the terror stop if Israel gave back occupied territories etc".

I don't think it would, I think people like OBL would be digging up excuses even if they had to get back to biblical times, to show that Jews and America are the rotten core of society. That's what Hitler did, and it shows that it can be very effectively done without a direct provocation.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('miki', 'Y')ou're generalizing from your own experience observing the oppression of Muslim immigrants in Europe to the causes of Muslim violence all over the world. Muslim oppression may trigger higher incidence of crimes, but not world terrorism.


It fashionable these days to label every thing terrorism. In my post I try to distinguish between local (contained) conflicts like in Lebanon/Palestine/Iraq, and global terrorism.

Hezbullah for instance I do not consider to be a terroristic organization. I mean they have a clear purpose, to regain occupied land. And while their methods are crude today, 50 years back throwing rockets at highly populated cities would be considered a perfectly acceptable war tactic. After all the Allies liberated Europe that way. They are an army. A rogue army but an army nevertheless.

Terrorism is a different beast, it is a blind attack against a lifestyle, a culture or a genetic background. That is what Al Qaida does. When you look at global terrorism, you cannot maintain that it is only connected to the middle east.

Perhaps you are guilty of your own indictment. You live in Lebanon, so it is easy to tie everything into the Israel-ME conflict.

I used an example from my turf to show you that there are different reasons to join the terroristic organizations, many of which are not directly tied to Israel.
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby Miki » Mon 28 Aug 2006, 18:09:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', 'A')ll in all you will find that a very high percentage of the radicals are converts from different walks of life, most of them not exactly the most stable and rewarding ones.


"A very high percentage" is a wild generalization. Most radicals are Muslims that are born Muslim and will die Muslim. You mentioned a few cases, and none of those people were leaders--they were just a few of the tons of suicide bombers that the terrorist groups have at their disposal. They have hundreds of thousands of followers. Do you think mostl of them are Muslim converts?

Even if most of the actual suicide bombers were Muslim converts (which they're not), that would say nothing about the real motivations of the terrorist movements. It would only say something about the profile of the suicide bombers.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow you can argue that the same millisecond they became Muslim they inherited the hate against Israel.


In all the cases you mentioned, the people in question had converted to Islam years before engaging in major terrorist atacks. Thus, they had years to absorb the hate from their community of radical Muslims.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'d say that these people had a predetermined desire to lash out against the society they lived in, and saw an excuse in radical Islam and the battle against Israel. Something which made their actions justifiable and perhaps even heroic. It would give their life (and death) meaning.


Maybe, but most terrorists are not Muslim converts, so your theory doesn't really apply to them.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o one would applaud someone who blew up an airliner because he was being teased at school. If you do it for 'the Muslim cause' you have at least a few hundred thousand fanatics cheering.


And why would he want the cheering after he's dead? Please. The only reason why someone engages in suicide bombing is conviction. Whether the conviction is right or wrong is another matter.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')owever that would not mean that at the moment the USA and Israel made a 180 turn in their handling of the Middle-East that the drafting would stop. I believe that was was PMS question: " would the terror stop if Israel gave back occupied territories etc".

I don't think it would, I think people like OBL would be digging up excuses even if they had to get back to biblical times, to show that Jews and America are the rotten core of society.

You said it: people like OBL, but how many followers do you think they could recruit once Israel and the US stopped enraging the Muslim world? Because the hate is not limited to the terrorists.

Radicals have always been minorities, in all religions and groups. The only times in which they become dangerous is when they are given power. And the only power that the terrorist organizations have lies within their capacity to recruit followers and supporters from those who hate Israel and the US.

Otherwise, you can be sure that Muslims themselves would give information on how to find them and finish them. But they won't, because they symphatize with their cause, eventhough they don't agree with their means. And why do you think they sympathize with their cause? Propaganda convinces the dumb that it is something about Islam or Muslims. Reality (history, polls, and geopolitics) prove otherwise.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')
Terrorism is a different beast, it is a blind attack against a lifestyle, a culture or a genetic background. That is what Al Qaida does. When you look at global terrorism, you cannot maintain that it is only connected to the middle east.

I agree, but you're not understanding what I'm saying about this particular point. Al Qaeda are terrorists and the motivations of their leaders are not legitimate. However, most of their followers have joined them because of their hate of Israel and the US. In other words, most of the hundreds of thousands that fight for them are not there to fight the infidels just because they're infidels, or because they want to create a Muslim caliphate.

I'll take that one step further to make it even more clear: many of the people that joined groups like Al Qaeda have been brainwashed into thinking that they're fighting Israel and the US (to make justice/prevent future atacks) but what they're really fighting is the radical Muslim cause of their fanatic leaders.

That's why I've said many times that I think the agendas of many of them are legitimate, eventhough their means are despicable. I don't condone any of Al Qaeda's actions, but I understand the hate that helped them recruit most of their followers.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')erhaps you are guilty of your own indictment. You live in Lebanon, so it is easy to tie everything into the Israel-ME conflict.

True, but I'm not tieying this to the Israeli conflict only. I think the terrorists are more concerned with the US than with Israel--because the US is the real protagonist: not only do they make it possible for Israel to commit all its war crimes, the US commits its own crimes and interventions against sovereignity in the ME. Remember that Bin Laden's enragement with the US began when Americans occupied the holy land of Saudi Arabia. Before that, Bin Laden was America's ally in their fight against the soviets that invaded Afghanistan.

Moreover, as someone who lives in the ME, I can tell you about what Muslims feel about terrorism, Israel, the US, etc. I'm exposed to the opinions of many kinds of Muslims: poor and rich, Sunni and Shiah, Westernized, traditional, and all the in-betweens, etc
Last edited by Miki on Mon 28 Aug 2006, 18:19:49, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Miki
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri 21 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby Miki » Mon 28 Aug 2006, 18:48:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'Y')ou either don't understand how the propaganda game is played or else you do but cynically take the ends to justify the means. Doesn't really matter to me. I'm sure that people here in this forum don't need an education in propaganda methods, but this is an interesting example, nonetheless.


And who's to say it is not the website you posted who is making the propaganda to prevent the speeches from their own Zionists from showing the real face of Israel?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves...politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves....The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
Speech by David Ben-Gurion, 1938, quoted in Zionism and the Palestinians by Simha Flapan, 1979.
This quote, like the other example of MIFTAH's activities, is presented without any context, in the effort to delegitimize Israel, and also has no connection with human rights issues or with this organization's mission statement. (Flapan is one of the early members of Israel radical and disaffected academic community, whose publications are rarely read by Israelis, but whose impact on Palestinian propagandists is significant.) While Ben-Gurion was attempting to present the Arab perspective, and was clearly not expressing Israeli views, MIFTAH has distorted the context beyond recognition.


1-The original quote was from Flapan, but it was also used by Chomsky, a very respected American scholar. Moreover, Flapan is an Israeli historian.

2-And how about all the other quotes in the website that are not from Flapan? There are quotes there from "Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar (NY, 1978); "Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs" (Oxford University Press, 1985); "The Jewish Paradox" by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson (1978), etc.??

3-Most importantly: The quote is saying the truth! The Israelis occupied Palestinian land and decimated the Palestinians through ethnic cleansing (something that they continue to do today). That is a historical fact. Do you doubt it for a second?

4-I tried to get hold of the whole speech but couldn't find it. If you can find it, we can assess if there are other interpretations for this quote, but so far, we have to take Flapan's word for it, because the website you cited does not provide the speech; it only claims it was taken out of context for propagandistic aims.

I'd rather believe the word of Chomsky and an Israeli historian than the word of a pro-Israeli website. Until someone gets the actual speech to prove otherwise.
Last edited by Miki on Mon 28 Aug 2006, 19:20:29, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Miki
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri 21 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby smiley » Mon 28 Aug 2006, 19:07:17

Thaks for your replies Miki. I'm sorry that I might not sound to coherent at times. I sometimes use this board to gather my own thoughts on matters. It is good to have a sparring partner in that process to flip ideas back and forth.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('miki', ' ')However, most of their followers have joined them because of their hate of Israel and the US. In other words, most of the hundreds of thousands that fight for them are not there to fight the infidels just because they're infidels, or because they want to create a Muslim caliphate.


I also don't believe the latter. But I'm still wondering about the former.

I lived in Ireland for a while and do have some experience with terrorism. When I lived there people were still blown up by car bombs. But over the past 10 years I've seen the influence of IRA slowly fade.

Actually nothing changed in those 10 years. Northern Ireland has not joined the Republic and Britain still effectively controls Northern Ireland. All the complaints that seemed so legit at the time are still valid.

What has changed is that the Irish economy has turned for the better. People have hope on a better future, they have jobs stability etc. Former IRA members are now running around in suit and tie, fretting about ther next promotion at their software company. Suddenly 300 years of oppression, the great famine, the exodus, black sunday, all seem forgotten.

That made me wonder. Why is the "cure" so different from the "cause". What was the real problem in the first place?

And could it be something similar for the those countries that are generating Islamic terrorists today?

Therefore I think it is so important to look at the motives of the terrorists.

Anyway it is getting late, so I'll shut up for today. See ya.
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Mon 28 Aug 2006, 19:26:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', '
')1-The original quote was not from Flapan, but from Chomsky, a very respected American scholar. Moreover, Flapan is an Israeli historian.
Wrong, Flapan's book was 1979, Chomsky's was published in 1983. I'm looking for the 1938 Ben Gurion speech. It would be interesting to read it. Then we could decide for ourselves if the quote was indeed taken out of context. The source I quoted said that it was not a representation of Ben Gurion's thinking, but rather it was in the subjunctive mode: i.e. a presentation of Arab objections. If so, then the quote would be a scurrilous misrepresentation, much as I suspect many of those quotes are. I'll say this for you miki, you've gotten me interested in this stuff more than I likely would have been if you weren't posting here. Also, Flapan is reported to be another radical leftist historian that few Israelis ever read. It seems only the Palestinians read him. I do hope I find that speech, because it could show, among other things that Chomsky isn't the objective scholar he's reputed to be, except perhaps in arcane linguistics, and even that would be suspect if he is a dupe for propaganda; that is after all an integral part of modern mass communications, very much in his field.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby Miki » Mon 28 Aug 2006, 19:41:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', '
')1-The original quote was not from Flapan, but from Chomsky, a very respected American scholar. Moreover, Flapan is an Israeli historian.
Wrong, Flapan's book was 1979, Chomsky's was published in 1983.


True. If you noticed, I edited that right after. It seems the Flapan quote is cited in various books so it's misleading.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m looking for the 1938 Ben Gurion speech. It would be interesting to read it. Then we could decide for ourselves if the quote was indeed taken out of context. The source I quoted said that it was not a representation of Ben Gurion's thinking, but rather it was in the subjunctive mode: i.e. a presentation of Arab objections.


My interpretation is that it was both (ie, an acknowledgement that what Arabs thought was valid).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f so, then the quote would be a scurrilous misrepresentation, much as I suspect many of those quotes are.


Why are you so sure? It's not like Zionism is a mistery. It is a well-known situation. Israel created its state through ethnic cleansing. The defense of their state depends on ethnic cleansing and apartheid laws to this day.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'ll say this for you miki, you've gotten me interested in this stuff more than I likely would have if you weren't posting here.

I hope you get something constructive out of the exercise. I have :).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lso, Flapan is reported to be another radical leftist historian that few Israelis ever read. It seems only the Palestinians read him.

Reported by whom? By that website that "checks" NGOs and accuses Edward Said of being a terrorist?
User avatar
Miki
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri 21 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Mon 28 Aug 2006, 19:58:44

from http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=114&aid=156&pg=10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nlike Joan Peters who uncritically repeats the arguments about ”effendi” and foreign agitation, prominent leaders of Palestinian Jewry, representing both major wings of Zionism from which Israel’s contemporary major political parties evolved, admitted that they did not believe what they were saying for external consumption. Vladimir Jabotinsky, the leader of Revisionist Zionism, as early as 1921 considered conflict with the Arabs inevitable because Zionism was a colonizing movement. In a speech to a Zionist meeting in Prague he said: “I don’t know of a single example in history where a country was colonized with the courteous consent of the native population.”74 David Ben-Gurion was even more explicit in his admission that the Palestinians, by opposing Zionism, were fighting for national survival and against Zionist usurpation of Palestine. He was speaking in 1938, during the 1936-1939 Palestinian revolt, to the leadership of the Mapai political party, which means to the leadership of Palestine’s Jewry. Ben-Gurion said:

I want to destroy first of all the illusion among our comrades that the [Palestinian Arab] terror is a matter of a few gangs, financed from abroad... We are facing not terror but a war. It is a national war declared upon us by the Arabs. Terror is one of the means of war.

He continued to say: “This is an active resistance by the Palestinians to what they regard as a usurpation of their homeland by the Jews--that’s why they fight.” Ben-Gurion conceded the need to tell a different story to foreign public opinion. “In our political argument abroad,” he said, “we minimize Arab opposition to us. But let us not ignore the truth among ourselves. I insist on the truth, not out of respect for scientific but political realities.” Ben-Gurion admitted that Palestinian resistance to Zionism was an act of self-defense. “Militarily, it is we who are on the defensive,” he said, but “politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves.” He clarified his view by saying that “the country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country...” He concluded his remark on this subject by saying, “let us not think the terror is a result of Hitler’s or Mussolini’s propaganda.”
So we see the context a little bit better. It does appear that the quote was rather doctored wouldn't you say? But the meanings are not all that divergent, on the other hand. I think we all agree that we should know the truth, but it's quite complex! I have no qualms with the truth, I'm just very leery of being manipulated by either side or anyone. You understand that, I'm sure. (I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Flapan is a radical leftist!)
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby Miki » Tue 29 Aug 2006, 17:37:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'S')o we see the context a little bit better. It does appear that the quote was rather doctored wouldn't you say? But the meanings are not all that divergent, on the other hand.


Judging from the quote you found, it seems Ben Gurion was explaining the Arab perspective but he was also acknowledging it---something that contradicts what the first website you cited said. Which means that website was trying to distort what Ben Gurion really said. Talk about propaganda :).

You know why they do that? Because Ben Gurion was quite an honest guy. He admitted what Israelis today don't have the balls to admit: 1-That they're fighting a resistance, and not a terrorist group; and 2-That their country was formed by invading and settling illegally on Palestinian land.

The zionists of today do their best to hide that because it is not politically correct to say it in that way. The "recommended" way is to say that Israel is a sovereign state that was formed legitimally and that has historically fallen prey to terrorist atacks. A vulnerable state that just wants to live in peace but can't because it is surrounded by hostile Arabs.

Of course no one cares to mention that they continue to steal land from the West Bank *today*, almost 60 years after their state was formed. Neither does anyone care to mention that Israel has the most powerful army of the region along with a few nukes that could reach Iran anytime and billions of US funding to continue updating their arsenal. Neither does anyone care to mention that Israel is way less democratic than Lebanon, as they have an apatheid-like society with clearly discriminatory laws. How many times have you heard any of those *facts* in the American media?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think we all agree that we should know the truth, but it's quite complex! I have no qualms with the truth, I'm just very leery of being manipulated by either side or anyone. You understand that, I'm sure. (I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Flapan is a radical leftist!)


I agree. It is very complex. Too many people interested in blinding public opinion. We are all manipulated by the psychopaths that are in power all around the world.

I don't know about Flapan. We should look him up sometime. But radical right wingers are no better, if I may add :).
User avatar
Miki
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri 21 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby Miki » Tue 29 Aug 2006, 17:52:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'C')homsky isn't the objective scholar he's reputed to be, except perhaps in arcane linguistics, and even that would be suspect if he is a dupe for propaganda; that is after all an integral part of modern mass communications, very much in his field.


Arcane lingustics? You must be kidding, right? Chomsky is one of the most renowned scholars of our time. The man is a genius. He developed a theory of grammar that revolutionized the scientific study of language. It is in great part thanks to him that we understand how humans learn language! That was revolutionary in Psycholinguistics. You just can't study anything about language (even artificial intelligence) without including Chomsky's theories.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')y the 1980's he had become both the most distinguished figure of American linguistics and one of the most influential left-wing critics of American foreign policy. He has been extremely prolific as a writer: his web-site in 2003 listed 33 book publications in linguistics (broadly construed), and although the individuation of his political books is complicated, their number definitely exceeds 40. According to a 1992 tabulation of sources from the previous 12 years in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Chomsky was the most frequently-cited person alive, and one of the eight most frequently-cited authors of all time.


source
User avatar
Miki
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri 21 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Tue 29 Aug 2006, 18:18:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'S')o we see the context a little bit better. It does appear that the quote was rather doctored wouldn't you say? But the meanings are not all that divergent, on the other hand.


Judging from the quote you found, it seems Ben Gurion was explaining the Arab perspective but he was also acknowledging it---something that contradicts what the first website you cited said. Which means that website was trying to distort what Ben Gurion really said. Talk about propaganda :).
Yes, miki, you are right. The quote took out the "militarily we are on the defensive" part which was done for obvious reasons, but in fact Ben Gurion was not saying what the first debunker site I found implied he was.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou know why they do that? Because Ben Gurion was quite an honest guy. He admitted what Israelis today don't have the balls to admit: 1-That they're fighting a resistance, and not a terrorist group; and 2-That their country was formed by invading and settling illegally on Palestinian land.
I want to read more about Ben Gurion. We should recognize that they did what they did to get the hell out of Europe. It was a life and death matter back then. It's a sad, intractable matter now.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he zionists of today do their best to hide that because it is not politically correct to say it in that way. The "recommended" way is to say that Israel is a sovereign state that was formed legitimally and that has historically fallen prey to terrorist atacks. A vulnerable state that just wants to live in peace but can't because it is surrounded by hostile Arabs.
There's been a long history since 1948. I agree that I should take a more sympathetic view, for what that's worth, of the Palestinians and their plight. But I'm not willing to go so far as to condemn present day Israelis. I don't have the common Christian fundamentalist view of many Americans that sympathizes with the biblical aspects of the Return of The Jews and all that; I'm more what you might call a secular philo-semitic. I admire them.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')f course no one cares to mention that they continue to steal land from the West Bank *today*, almost 60 years after their state was formed. Neither does anyone care to mention that Israel has the most powerful army of the region along with a few nukes that could reach Iran anytime and billions of US funding to continue updating their arsenal. Neither does anyone care to mention that Israel is way less democratic than Lebanon, as they have an apatheid-like society with clearly discriminatory laws. How many times have you heard any of those *facts* in the American media?I don't follow the MSM very much. I get my news from the internet mostly. There was an article, though, in the San Diego Union, the major newspaper in my town, about some Palestinian grove owners losing parts of their grove so the fence could be built. You know, the funny thing about American media is that they get it from both sides: the left thinks they are right-wing mouth pieces, and the right thinks they a bunch of damn liberals. The reach of the old MSM is declining though, because of the internet probably.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think we all agree that we should know the truth, but it's quite complex! I have no qualms with the truth, I'm just very leery of being manipulated by either side or anyone. You understand that, I'm sure. (I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Flapan is a radical leftist!)

I agree. It is very complex. Too many people interested in blinding public opinion. We are all manipulated by the psychopaths that are in power all around the world.

I don't know about Flapan. We should look him up sometime. But radical right wingers are no better, if I may add :).I had a dream with George Bush in it the other day. He was with a bunch of creepy country club, polyester suit types. They were trying to help me because my car was gone and I was stranded. My general impression, in the dream, was that these guys have never really thought for themselves. They are network types, extroverts who don't care to be alone ever. Thus there is a component of their souls that is stunted. But they were trying to be of assistance to me, i.e. not all bad. Of course, we always have the last word in our dreams at night and we see the world from our own perspective.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby nwildmand » Wed 30 Aug 2006, 00:37:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', '
')And if you still feel that Israelis are poor victims that just want to live in peace, here are the Israeli statesmen themselves telling you which kind of people you're supporting:



These and more quotes:


but miki, there out of context, you cant do that. what is this you demand i provide whole speeches to quotes and then you dont even provide a link for the quote themselves. miki how the hell is this a fair debate. you make up rules for me and then dont follow them yourself?

wtf?

thanks pms for showing her how to do it the right way.
User avatar
nwildmand
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed 12 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests