Israel/Gaza: Calling all UK forum members.

TGM: Orb wrote: It's not so much that Israel want to live in peace that's the problem. It's that they want to live in peace on a bit of land that they really never had any right to, and, to do that, they essentially kicked out the locals to do so. Their own bloody fault, in that respect.

Edited by crimson87 - January 14 2009 at 14:18

BaldJean wrote: T, Chomksy is definitely NOT one of those left-wingers you mention; his works are well worth reading. and I have no idea where you get the idea he is belittling the terrors of the Cambodian regime from. believe me, this would be very untypical for Chomsky

You may be thinking of someone else, Chomsky is definitely the guy doing all those things you listed. A simple survey over the Wikipedia topics dedicated to him clearly show this.

"Because the stakes in guessing how "it may turn out" in terms of lives lost were so high, Chomsky has been criticized for decades for being irresponsibly, even callously skeptical with regards to evidence of mass atrocities in Cambodia." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Russil_Wvong/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky

"He defended Faurrison. He championed the Khmer Rouge. His condemnations of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are one hundred percent one-sided, based on the (obviously) false notion that the Arab nations and the Palestinian people have been trying to arrange a peace with Israel for decades. He viewed the rescue mission undertaken in Kosovo as nothing more than the extension of imperial power. He accuses the United States of perpetrating a holocaust in Afghanistan and thinks that the mistaken attack on the pharmaceutical factory in Somalia [sic] was as bad if not worse than the attack on the Twin Towers. One could go on, but it all adds up to, I fear, the mirror image of the ignorant jingoism of Bennett, Krauthammer, Kelly, Will, etc. And I find it amazing that intelligent people take it seriously. --Eric Alterman, June 2002 [220]"

"Although he lost some of his appeal in the late-1970s and 1980s by his defense of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, he has used September 11 to restore his reputation, indeed to surpass his former influence and stature. --Keith Windschuttle, May 2003 [247]"

etc.

^ that doesn't mean that it doesn't carry any truth. you should accept the facut that you can't be right all the time.

I can't give my word about Chomsky since I haven't read any of his writings but Israel/Gaza is definitely a big problem since it asks so many questions outside the fact that civilians from both sides are dying in appalling circumstances because of fanaticism(Hamas and Israel's far right wing organisations)and Israel 's government active colonisation policy.In every "free" country(France or Sweden) when there are demonstrations for Peace or Palestine Leftists don't feel uneasy when walking alongside with religious fanatics and anti-jew propagandists:it's a shame!But"less" ashaming than the ever growing casualties of this 6 decades war.I hope peace for all will come!

Syzygy wrote: Swan Song wrote: BaldJean wrote: T, Chomksy is definitely NOT one of those left-wingers you mention; his works are well worth reading. and I have no idea where you get the idea he is belittling the terrors of the Cambodian regime from. believe me, this would be very untypical for Chomsky You may be thinking of someone else, Chomsky is definitely the guy doing all those things you listed. A simple survey over the Wikipedia topics dedicated to him clearly show this. "Because the stakes in guessing how "it may turn out" in terms of lives lost were so high, Chomsky has been criticized for decades for being irresponsibly, even callously skeptical with regards to evidence of mass atrocities in Cambodia." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Russil_Wvong/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky "He defended Faurrison. He championed the Khmer Rouge. His condemnations of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are one hundred percent one-sided, based on the (obviously) false notion that the Arab nations and the Palestinian people have been trying to arrange a peace with Israel for decades. He viewed the rescue mission undertaken in Kosovo as nothing more than the extension of imperial power. He accuses the United States of perpetrating a holocaust in Afghanistan and thinks that the mistaken attack on the pharmaceutical factory in Somalia [sic] was as bad if not worse than the attack on the Twin Towers. One could go on, but it all adds up to, I fear, the mirror image of the ignorant jingoism of Bennett, Krauthammer, Kelly, Will, etc. And I find it amazing that intelligent people take it seriously. --Eric Alterman, June 2002 [220]" "Although he lost some of his appeal in the late-1970s and 1980s by his defense of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, he has used September 11 to restore his reputation, indeed to surpass his former influence and stature. --Keith Windschuttle, May 2003 [247]" etc.   Anybody can post anything on Wikipedia. Come up with properly cited Chomsky quotations to back up the droolings of the right wing blogosphere - agree with him or not, Chomsky's writings are always meticulously researched and have thorough footnotes and citations, something conspicuously lacking in the writings of most of his critics.

exactly. come up with a Chomsky quote instead of some second-hand allegations. and indeed, Chomsky's books always have a large annex where he gives the sources of his quotes.

there is only one thing I hold against Chomsky: he invented linear transformation grammar which is a pain in the ass for all linguistic students


Edited by BaldJean - January 14 2009 at 17:39

The T wrote: If we restrict the "dictator" label to those that weren't elected democratically, you're right. Well, I don't see any other way to define a dictator. But when a presidents uses all his power to manipulate everyone, eliminate the opposition, impose constitutional amendments to stay in power for longer, and even closes media outlets like a prestigious Tv station because it dared to state a different "truth" nthan the one recognized by the goverment, then we're at least in the presence of some oxymoronic thing called "democratic dictatorship" Let's take the closure of the one media network that was "closed."  First, it wasn't shut down by Caracas; rather it was prohibited from further broadcasting of anti-government propaganda.  At the time, there was an (unpopular) coup, instigated by the tiny elite who were infuriated by Chavez social reforms.  While the government was attempting to maintain some sort of order, that particular outlet continued to broadcast what were essentially lies in order to persuade listeners of how Chavez is somehow detrimental to their welfare.  There were no political prisoners kept or any arrests, etc.  Now imagine if that were to happen in the US or Western Europe.  The first thing to notice is that it couldn't happen; secondly, if it did occur, then assuming the government maintained power the network executives would likely receive the death penalty for treason. The problem is that he doesn't do it in advantage of their people. Check economic statistics: the average venezuelan is much poorer now. Crime is impossible to control in caracas. Money has given Chavez power to "buy" political allies in the world and also to give charity to the poorest in his cpountry, instead of doing actual reforms that help them in the long run. Not sure where you obtain your information, but it's simply not true.  Check out the non-elite media. The populist phenomenon in south america is much deeper and more difficult than north-westerners may understand. That's why the US and Europe got their policies regarding latinamerica wrong 50% of the time. they see everything through THEIR eyes. But this naively assumes that the Western powers really do have the best interests of the southern hemisphere in mind.  They don't, and their actions witness to this.

1800iareyay wrote: Epignosis wrote: All I'm going to say is this: If someone is a real threat to me or my family or my home... ...a "proportionate" reaction is not something I'm going to entertain. So what, if someone breaks into your house, not only will you kill the robbers you'll find their families? And the analogy is flawed, because in this situation you'd be the robber, living in another person's home and getting outraged when the real owner tries to get you out of it. Now, I think Hamas is a bit silly for lobbing rockets into the area they want to move back into, but then they probably realize at this point that they're never getting back in, so they settled for revenge. Maybe if Israel had bothered to clean up Gaza when they controlled it they wouldn't have fostered another generation of hate.

I guess I'm a liar in that that is not all I will say.

The analogy is fair because, like a couple years ago, with the confrontation with Hezbollah, Israel got condemned by many for not being "proportionate" (the media's word, not mine) with their retribution.

And no, I would not go after the families.  That would be retarded.

However, if a man breaks into my home and breaks my wife's leg, I will not try to break his leg...I will do more if I can.

Speaking of Chomsky being awesome.....

WinterLight wrote: Epignosis wrote: The analogy is fair because, like a couple years ago, with the confrontation with Hezbollah, Israel got condemned by many for not being "proportionate" (the media's word, not mine) with their retribution. But 1800iareyay didn't claim that the analogy isn't fair but rather that it's flawed, which, I think, he successfully demonstrated. And no, I would not go after the families.  That would be retarded. That, I believe, is his point. However, if a man breaks into my home and breaks my wife's leg, I will not try to break his leg...I will do more if I can. I can't imagine what purpose beyond satisfying some sadistic fantasy or stoking a righteous indignation that course of action could serve.

progmetalhead wrote: Everyone has a limit before they lose their temper, thats what makes us human.

Quite the contrary: the essential characteristic of humanity is its capacity for reason and self-control.