|Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 06:31 am: |
I am removing this discussion--a discussion I blame Lawrence for, not Brendan--to this thread from its misguided beginning on Election Day Apologies, which is too light-hearted a thread to support this gobbledegook.
By Lawrence A on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 11:55 pm:
Smacks of pathetic self-hatred if you ask me. I'm as depressed about Bush's re-election as anybody here. But self-hating pseudo-liberal America ought to realise that the nightmare that is the rest of the world (Iraq not included) is the fault of the rest of the world. Really. Not the Great Satan.
I have to work in the rest of the world (so-called third world) and it's fucking terrible, and the hand of the White House is not behind these assorted horrors, brutality, corruption and the like that I have witnessed and continue to witness on a daily basis.
The world moans about Bush in office for another 4 years and then promptly goes into a collective mourning (alla wailing and aweeping) over the death of their favorite terrorist.
A surprisingly honest piece from the LA Times
Fucking hypocrites. The rest of the world I mean.
To all the (hopefully only a few) leftwing fascists here, go back to sleep.
By Brendan on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 12:31 am:
Yeah right. The article says "George Bush alone among world leaders had the courage . . ."
Let's face it Bush and Sharon refused to deal with the legitimate leader of the Palestenians, which is in no way noble. Whether you like Arafat or not is not the point - he was voted into office.
Maybe he was a terrorist. But so are Bush and Sharon.
The White House has been trying to choose a leader for the Palestenians, just as it is doing for Afghanistan and Iraq - just as it wants to do for the whole Middle East.
It is naive (at best) to then say that the US does not play a heavy hand in the situation in third world countries. And this is a trend that can be seen all over the world, not just in the Middle East.
By Lawrence A on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 03:15 am:
To his credit that thug Bush knew the facts about Arafat. That's why he realised any negotiations with him were always going to be fruitless. Talk about a red herring argument. Kerry felt the same way.
"Maybe he was a terrorist."
Nothing maybe about it. The fact that you are so desperate to be ambivalent, equivocal and morally relativistic about a murderous tyrant (dispute the facts at the first link I put up I dare you) speaks volumes about you Brendan.
What does it matter Bush and Sharon? All you employ Brendan is argument from evasion. I was talking about Arafat and how the world is in mourning over a terrorist. What does this tell us about the rest of the world? That's the point I was making which you miss entirely and indeed only can do given the type of person you reveal yourself to be.
Unlike you Brendan I know somethings about the third world (see I grew up there and work there, including passing through several war and post war-zones). You want to know what naive is, you are as naive as it gets. You don't have a clue.
Go back to sleep. Or emigrate to Iran or Syria where you can be a good obedient dhimmi. And take your Chomsky books with you.
By Lawrence A on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 03:59 am:
Uh Brendan don't misunderstand me when I say go back to sleep. I'm not accusing you of being some ANSWER Stalinist type. Not at all. I just mean I do consider you to be naive and so fucking PC. And I don't like to be lectured on the third world (I'm hardly saying the US is innocent here, where on earth do I say that?) when I have lived and worked in numerous hell holes in Africa and Asia, and witnessed the most excessive brutality and violence with my own eyes and it has sweet nothing to do with the White House and the Pentagon. Never mind the corruption. You know nothing about it.
Do you have any idea the mischief Europe, UK, Russia, China get up to? No, because everybody is too busy pointing fingers at the White House. So hardly anybody knows what every other corrupt and nefarious government is up to. Well that suits every government in the world bar the US. The US just has more power than other governments and so can do more harm than others. But in terms of iniquitous intentions, corruption, mendacity, power-mania and brute ruthlesness it is certainly no worse than most. Although Bush certainly seems to be doing his best to compete with third world tyrants in terms of ruthlesness, and sadly succeeding here.
By Brendan on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 04:12 am:
Oh wow. You grew up in the third world? Gee, you are really special. You and billions of other people.
What country are you from? What is your work? Not that I care, but you seem to be incredibly proud of these things which, for the sake of argument, are meaningless.
It is easy to say "terrorist" because that word is flung around for everyone these days.
You are the one who first posted here, with nothing the least bit intelligent to say, spewing off nonsense about "fascist liberals" etc. assuming the position of some sort of intellectual Titan.
You assume that no one else in the world has any experience in third world countries? You think your meagre resume of life experience makes you omniscient?
The subject here anyhow, is about the US and the election. If you want to whine about Syria or Iran why don't you start another thread?
People here are talking about change in the US, a place where most of us have some extremely slight power – as voters.
By Brendan on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 04:14 am:
And I believe Jeff originally posted the link in a lighthearted way - so your flaming seems misplaced.
By Brendan on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 04:45 am:
Furthermore, the proof that Bush completely screwed up in regards to the Palestinian situation, is that the latter has completely deteriorated in the last four years.
By Lawrence A on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 04:53 am:
"Let's face it Bush and Sharon refused to deal with the legitimate leader of the Palestenians, which is in no way noble"
Uh he was a terrorist. Talk about missing the point I was making. You may as well condemn the Allies in WW2 for not "dealing with" the Nazi leadership via dialogue. Or condemn Clinton and Bush for not dealing with Osama by negotiating with him even as he stepped up his plans of attacks on US targets. Or that the ANC should have "dealt with" the National Party government in SA even as the NP were attempting to destroy it. The negotiations only took place from 1990 when de Klerk came into office. He could be negotiated with unlike his predecessors because for all his faults he was a man who was not a terrorist, and he realised that the only way for SA to avoid plunging into civil war was to negotiate with the ANC.
The whole point of the links I provide is to show that Arafat was never interested in negotation, just violence.
Terrorists by definition and on principle cannot be negotiated with. They do not want to negotiate or compromise. They just want to kill and destroy. It's why they're called terrorists. Arafat was no exception here. He reneged on Oslo and the 2000 talks. This is all on the link I put up. And Israel is hardly innocent, but this misses the point that Arafat was a killer, a thief and a liar.
If you even bothered to recognise the facts at the first link I put up (which of course you can't do, probably just Zionist propoganda in your eyes), you would maybe begin to dimly comprehend that negotiation with Arafat was impossible precisely because he was a murderous tyrant and liar who broke his word constantly, along with all the agreements he had made in his talks with Israel, which he never had any intention of keeping. Gettit? No I know you don't Brendan. Keep on trawling Indymedia and zmag. They'll keep telling you the lies you want to hear.
And you never will get it. Your brain is addled with loony left rhetoric. No room left in your brain for anything that may contradict your loony leftist assumptions.
Thanks Brendan for reminding me why I left the Left.
By Brendan on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 05:04 am:
Lawrence – Before WW II broke out, the allied countries (obviously not the “allies” yet) had plenty of dialogue with Hitler.
As for Arafat not being interested in negotiation – that is disputable. Obviously there are arguments on both sides of the issue. But he certainly was willing to negotiate with Clinton. As for not wanting compromise, well – you can hardly say that Sharon has ever been willing to compromise, so the point is moot.
As for referring to the link you put up as if it is an historically accurate document: It is not. It is an op-ed. Opinion. Just like what we are writing here.
You can say that I don’t get it. But that is not an argument, it is just a stubborn statement.
And for the record: I have never liked Arafat. But to lay all the blame at his door is absurd. And yes, the Zionists ARE a big part of the reason that there is a lack of peace in the area. And don’t call me anti-Semitic, because I myself am Jewish.
I assume the reason you say you don't like Bush is that he too is too far left for you.
|Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 06:48 am: |
Yes - I think I should quit posting on these politcal threads and confine myself to literature. My patience is nil right now for this sort of thing.
|Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 07:21 am: |
There's no need to apologize. Lawrence started it, so to speak. And I don't mind that--just not in the context of the other thread.
|Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 03:07 am: |
Yeah Jeff , you're right. I shouldn't have put up my post on the thread that I did. Sorry. Although I do consider my points valid.
With that said...
"I assume the reason you say you don't like Bush is that he too is too far left for you."
Brendan the above moronic, ridiculous assertion (a pathetic transparent mud slinging attempt to avoid the pertinent facts I allude to) is not even worth responding to. Says a lot about you though.
"Before WW II broke out, the allied countries (obviously not the “allies” yet) had plenty of dialogue with Hitler."
And that dialogue really worked hey. Chamberlain with his little Munich Agreement piece of paper, "peace in our time". Hitler's dialogues with Britain and France were just about buying him more time to build up the German military machine. Where did you go to school? Didn't learn much did you? Or do you have a cabbage for a brain? That's a rhetorical question.
And Brendan are you really Jewish? Or do you just say that to avoid the charge of anti-semitism? If you are Jewish, in that case you are a self-hating Jew like Chomsky and his buddy Norman Finkelstein and plenty of others. What's with all these self hating Jews anyway? Pathetic. Doesn't the concept of self-hatred occur to you Brendan? Obviously not by the very fact that you think by saying you are Jewish automatically means you cannot be anti-semitic. Haven't noticed any self-hatred among minorities in the US? No you would need a brain to recognise it.
Btw what's a Jew for Jesus but a self-hating Jew?
But then so many self-hating black people, Hispanics, Native Americans, even gays. The same psychological principles are at work. But that's another topic. I suggest psychoanalysis Brendan but I don't know if that will help. You're too far gone to be helped. Probably a lost cause.
My apologies to Jeff again. But Brendan was asking for it. And I do stand by the points I made. They are valid. I have facts and evidence on my side see?
And when Jeff put up my first post up on this new thread, my first link was not put up so for the benefit of people who may be interested in facts, I put it up again.....
The world moans about Bush in office for another 4 years and then promptly goes into a collective mourning (alla wailing and aweeping) over the death of their favorite terrorist.
And this article by Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe, includes a reference to Arafat's role in the killing of Israeli schoolchildren at the village of Ma'alot in 1974 (not up at link above).
I would just like to add something, I realise that the writers and editors here will never comment on a controversial subject like this on the forum because of well the controversy that would be generated, whatever they write. They are screwed no matter what they write on the subject, which is why they don't comment at all. They have a reputation after all (among the speculative fiction community, fellow writers, publishers, editors and fans) and anything they wrote up here would quickly make the rounds in this small community, and whatever they wrote would have repercussions. Which is why they don't like such controversial subject matter brought up at all. Can't blame 'em. I don't write this up for the benefit of the writers and editors here who know all this, but for the fans out there who don't.
My first post on the other thread, put up here on this new one, was not in fact inappropriate.
It was merely controversial. Pointing out the hypocrisy of the world at moaning about Bush's re-election, but pining for a brutal killer, is anything but irrelevant. By implication what does this tell us about the Left who fail to recognise the obvious truth here, by the very fact that they feel the need to apologise to the tyrant worshipping thugs that populate the rest of the world? Perhaps they are not any different? Perhaps they (despairing Kerry voters putting up apologetic posts on sorryeverybody.com) lack a proper internationalist perspective and are as insular and focused as exclusively on America in their way as any of the navel-gazing-America-is-the-whole-world mentality of the redstaters?
You all may object that the sorryeverybody site is just humorous and I ought to lighten up. But such an objection doesn't wash. I do have a sense of humor, and I can appreciate the humor of the site, but unlike the humor of the piece attacking redstaters put up by Lucius and another very good piece put up by somebody else recently, the sorry to the rest of the wonderful doe-eyed angelic world society outside the Great Satan does hint at a pathetic self loathing among American so-called liberals. Or to be kinder, a lack of awareness of what the rest of the world is like, or that somehow the mess of the rest of the world is the fault of the Great Satan. Once again many of you will object that I read too much into a humorous site and its intent. I don't. I just think people can give themselves away in ways they would not consciously recognise.
Brendan's clueless asinine responses to my posts only proves the truth of my statements about the Left. Here and on other threads. Truth is that writing this - The world moans about Bush in office for another 4 years and then promptly goes into a collective mourning (alla wailing and aweeping) over the death of their favorite terrorist - is also a subtle hint at something very very wrong with the Left. I hit a nerve there, and Brendan's response only proves the truth of what I have hinted at about (many on) the Left, here and on other threads. No doubt to most who bother reading this, it will be wasted.
I will not be posting up on such controversial political matters again. Out of respect for the writers, editors etc here who don't need this headache of somebody opening up a whole can of worms.
I stand by the points I have made though. I can back 'em up with something called evidence. Not ideology.
|Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 03:24 am: |
I concede Jeff's point though that the tone and content of my first post was not appropriate to the thread Jeff initiated. But it is not irrelevant to it. I also thought it important to point out some obvious truths that many here are completely oblivious to, perhaps precisely because they are so obvious.
|Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 03:36 am: |
Let me correct something, to be pedantic. My first post was not appropriate to the tone of Jeff's thread, the content was appropriate and relevant though.
|Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 04:38 am: |
I knew you were going to use the term "self-hating Jew" just like you did "self-hating Democrats" or whatever the hell it is you said.
I am not going to even respond beyond this, because, frankly I am not going to get into an internet dialogue with an obvious racist. The fact is that yes, you are to the far right of Bush.
And anyhow, I don't need to respond to your post. Anyone who reads it will see it for what it is.
|Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 05:51 am: |
A Jew for Jesus isn't a Jew, you schmuck.
|Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 11:14 am: |
I don't understand what you're saying above: They were Jews to begin with and are no longer Jews so Lawrence's assumption that they are "self-hating Jews" is apt. (not necessarily always so but still...)
|Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 11:22 am: |
The term "self-hating Jew" is one used by a lot of very right wing Jews to desribe anyone who is not like-minded. So it really is not a good term to use. But maybe you knew this.
As for what Jeff was saying: They are no longer Jews as they have become Christians. In the sense that their mother's were Jews, maybe they still are . . . But I understand what Jeff was saying.
|Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 12:13 pm: |
Right. They're self-hating Jews who converted to Christianity and now want others to "see the light." I don't see why he was insulting to Lawrence re: that particular phrase.
|Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 01:20 pm: |
Brendan, you've been amazingly level headed.
Lawrence - "Self-hating Jew," that's good. So any Jew that can see both sides of the mess in the Middle East is "self-hating," just like any Palestinian who can see both sides is a "collaborator."
Edward Said, not noted for being Yassar Arafat's biggest fan thought the Oslo Accords were a scam.
Something to keep in mind about the Middle East is that almost everyone has blood on their hands, Ariel Sharon, for example:
Ehud Barak made no bones about his background as a commando. At least he was honest about it. He even was quoted as saying that had he been Palestinian, he would have joined the PLO.
As for having dialogue with Nazis, seems to me the Bush familiy did a bit of business with the Nazis. A sampling from a Yahoo! search for the terms "bush family and nazi germany"
More fun reading:
Then there's the matter of ex-Nazi scientists working on the U.S. space program:
Many places in the rest of the world are a mess, yes. Places where the U.S. government, U.S. business interests, or U.S. client states have contributed to the mess:
Chile (Hello Henry Kissenger)
Columbia (War on Drugs!)
Mexico (More war on drugs! And immigration. And cheap labour - we like the cheap labour, even if the conditions in our client factories lead to situations like the mess in Juarez -
Afganistan (Mujahideen vs. Russians = right the fuck on! Mujahideen vs. U.S. = Hello stone age. Shit didn't we train and arm these guys?)
Pakistan (Military stongmen are a threat to freedom, unless they'll back us vs. the Taliban, then they're all right. Even if the they have developed nuclear weapons [unlike Hussein] and were major backers of the Taliban in the first place.)
Iraq (Hussein was a threat to world peace! Really. Not while he was slaughtering Kurds and attacking Iran though, he was all right then, it's just when he go uppity and went after that bastion of democracy, Kuwait, that we saw his true colours.)
Israel/West Bank (Ok, so there are so many hands in the pie here - MOSSAD, Shin Bet, Syria, Iran, various Palestinian groups, we better get involved...even if we can't really decide what we're doing.)
Russia (We brought down the commies! All right! Um, we didn't realize that the mob was ready to take over. Or maybe we did. Anyway, is not our problem now, WE BEAT THE COMMIES!)
Venezuela (What? Those fuckers want control of their own oil? No goddamn way.)
Did I mention that the U.S. keeps a large chunk of the world drug trade going? You all sure like your cocaine and heroin, despite the war on drugs.
Do I need to go on?
|Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 02:20 pm: |
Ellen - Well, personally I find the phrase Lawrence used to be insulting. As far as Jews for Jesus go, well, of course I have always found them to be pretty damned annoying.
Re: Jeff being insulting by calling Lawrence a schmuck . . . Well, it is not that bad. I would rather be called a schmuck than a self hating Jew. Calling someone a schmuck is like calling someone a jerk; so while insulting . . .
As far as the accuracy of the statement goes, it once again depends on whether you are using "Jew" in the sense of religion, or in the sense of race. If the former, Jeff is accurate, if the latter then he is not; but either way his statement didn't seem that grave.
Neddal - Thanks. I agree with your statement that everyone has blood on their hands in the Middle East. It seems to me that all parties need to engage in some serious self reflection - though maybe that is just a dream.
|Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 02:50 pm: |
Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought Jeff was responding to the term "self-hating Jew" vis a vis "Jews for Jesus" and that's it. If that is the case then I think his reaction was way over the top.
If it was with regard to the rest of the conversation, that's a whole different issue. One I'm not referring to.
|Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 02:59 pm: |
Well, I doubt he would have responded that way if the only thing Lawrence had written was about Jews for Jesus, but that comment was part of a long post, or series of posts, which might have had something to do with the understandably negative tone of Jeff's response.
But considering all the insulting things that both Lawrence and myself wrote, it seems odd to pick out the schmuck thing .
But maybe Jeff is held to a higher standard! ;)
|Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 06:27 pm: |
A Jew for Jesus is a Christian. Period.
I meant "schmuck" as a joke in the context of Jews for Jesus.
I think I'm being kind of enlightened even letting Lawrence's thread exist.
|Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 07:42 pm: |
Re letting the thread exist--just that it was clearly inappropriate in the other context. I don't want to ever get to a point on this message board where Jason/Jeremy/NS has to have a debate about what's appropriate or not, but I think it was clearly appropriate to at least divert this discussion.
Regarding Jews for Jesus, Ellen--many of them never were Jews to begin with.
I'm not Jewish, but my wife is, and I'm afraid I bristle at the whole concept of Jews for Jesus. I also think Lawrence would be better off sticking to comments about Israel as a sovereign state than comments about Jews. He came perilously close to, at the very least, stereotyping.
|Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 09:36 pm: |
Brendan. No I don't hold Jeff up to a higher standard. His one--off comment just seemed in inaccurate to me.
I don't know any JFJ personally, so I have no idea what their original religion was. I find them totally offensive. As I find anyone who proslytizes for their religion and against others.
But I shouldn't have gotten caught up in a side issue of the original discussion. Excuse me. I'm outta here.
|Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 10:01 pm: |
we really fucked up on training and giving these dudes stinger missiles m16's and alot of fucking weapons that say US and they use it on us god damn the intellegence did this oh well they ran like cowards when we showed up on afghanistan obl is a fucking nut job