• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

RE: Pardalis: "anti-semitic garbage"

Oliver said:
I did.
Click to expand...

Really? You just said this a moment ago:

Oliver said:
So even if I didn't check all points yet, I have no reason to believe they're "made up" - as you tried to portray falsely. :(
Click to expand...

Let me spell it out for you more clearly: an article from a revolutionary communist journal should raise red flags for anyone who reads it. (pun intended)

I'm not saying we should dismiss it, just be very skeptical of it.


And I'm happy to see you debunking at least 50% of the "Anti-American propaganda". :)
Click to expand...
I don't now what that means.
 
Pardalis said:
Really? You just said this a moment ago:

I don't now what that means.
Click to expand...


I've read it and I found no flaws in it - so even if ONLY 50% is true, it explains my point nevertheless - which is: "American involvement in the Middle-East is the major argument for Terrorists to hate America, not some silly `Freedoms´ ".
 
Oliver said:
I fully agree with "Never again".
Click to expand...
Thank you. I am not sure I don't need to say it too, for my country, but history will tell that tale.

Oliver said:
Nevertheless - I think the so called Zionists play a major role in Anti-American propaganda. You really can't dismiss this fact if you ever listened to Osama's speeches in the past.
Click to expand...
I have, and all I see is racism. I'm pretty left-wing, Oliver- I don't tolerate racism well. I don't really care whether someone wants to split hairs over whether Jews are a race or not, either. It's all the same animal to me. And I think it should be to anyone.

I find, as I expected to find in a document that contains that word, racism. I'm not much interested in anything they have to say after that. I don't really care how much of it is true; by descending to racism, they have invalidated anything else they might have to say. If they're interested in what I think of them, they'll get rid of that; then I might listen. Otherwise, not. It's an ideological position, Oliver. There are things I don't like that I will tolerate, and things I don't like I will not, and racism is one I will not.

If you can find another source that doesn't have racism in it, we can talk about it. Otherwise, I'm not much interested if there's racism involved; I don't think anyone who's responsible will, or should, overlook racism.
 
Oliver said:
I've read it and I found no flaws in it - so even if ONLY 50% is true, it explains my point nevertheless - which is: "American involvement in the Middle-East is the major argument for Terrorists to hate America, not some silly `Freedoms´ ".
Click to expand...

So you post a piece of propaganda to support your argument that Islamic fundamentalists are using the same propaganda to justify their actions...

OK I agree then.

ETA: and you are a useful idiot for buying into it.
 
Last edited:
Schneibster said:
Thank you. I am not sure I don't need to say it too, for my country, but history will tell that tale.

I have, and all I see is racism. I'm pretty left-wing, Oliver- I don't tolerate racism well. I don't really care whether someone wants to split hairs over whether Jews are a race or not, either. It's all the same animal to me. And I think it should be to anyone.

I find, as I expected to find in a document that contains that word, racism. I'm not much interested in anything they have to say after that. I don't really care how much of it is true; by descending to racism, they have invalidated anything else they might have to say. If they're interested in what I think of them, they'll get rid of that; then I might listen. Otherwise, not. It's an ideological position, Oliver. There are things I don't like that I will tolerate, and things I don't like I will not, and racism is one I will not.

If you can find another source that doesn't have racism in it, we can talk about it. Otherwise, I'm not much interested if there's racism involved; I don't think anyone who's responsible will, or should, overlook racism.
Click to expand...


Personally I fully agree with you concerning hate towards other people, no matter if skin-color, race, ethics, age, gender or anything else.

But I also have no problem to criticize people for intolerance. That's why I posted the summary about US-Involvement in the Middle East.

To say: "The others are bad and we're the good ones" is an outrageous lie, just as it was a lie to say: "Jews are bad - we are good". That's the main reason why I started this thread: The world isn't black and white - and people should start to understand this fact and see their own ugly behaviors, too - as part of the things that happen around the world.
 
Oliver said:
But I also have no problem to criticize people for intolerance. That's why I posted the summary about US-Involvement in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

A "summary" you never cared to check for its accuracy and objectivity, of course...
 
Oliver said:
Personally I fully agree with you concerning hate towards other people, no matter if skin-color, race, ethics, age, gender or anything else.
Click to expand...
Good, then we are in agreement on this point.

Oliver said:
But I also have no problem to criticize people for intolerance. That's why I posted the summary about US-Involvement in the Middle East.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with you doing that, Oliver- I have a problem with you using that source. I don't care how valid the criticism is, I don't care how good your arguments are, by using that source, you are being irresponsible, because it's racist. If you want to criticize, then do so- USING LEGITIMATE SOURCES. Be responsible. If you don't agree with the policies of the source, don't use it.

As it happens, I think the US government has acted in a manner that is worthy of criticism, and I offer quite a bit. Some of it is very harsh criticism, too. But that doesn't change the fact that if I find myself using sources that promote racism, I have done no better than they have. You need to understand that you cannot base your arguments on sources like this. It's an important point.

Oliver said:
To say: "The others are bad and we're the good ones" is an outrageous lie, just as it was a lie to say: "Jews are bad - we are good". That's the main reason why I started this thread: The world isn't black and white - and people should start to understand this fact and see their own ugly behaviors, too - as part of the things that happen around the world.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you say, but I do not agree with your using that source to say it. Find another one.
 
Oliver said:
Nevertheless - I think the so called Zionists play a major role in Anti-American propaganda. You really can't dismiss this fact if you ever listened to Osama's speeches in the past.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this post.

You're saying the use of "zionism" in anti-American propaganda is also used by OBL...

So if it's propaganda, it is not accurate and it's agenda driven.

So what does that say about the article you posted in the OP?
 
Schneibster said:
Good, then we are in agreement on this point.

I have no problem with you doing that, Oliver- I have a problem with you using that source. I don't care how valid the criticism is, I don't care how good your arguments are, by using that source, you are being irresponsible, because it's racist. If you want to criticize, then do so- USING LEGITIMATE SOURCES. Be responsible. If you don't agree with the policies of the source, don't use it.

As it happens, I think the US government has acted in a manner that is worthy of criticism, and I offer quite a bit. Some of it is very harsh criticism, too. But that doesn't change the fact that if I find myself using sources that promote racism, I have done no better than they have. You need to understand that you cannot base your arguments on sources like this. It's an important point.

I agree with what you say, but I do not agree with your using that source to say it. Find another one.
Click to expand...


Even if I don't understand the source-argument because that's not a disapproval at all, here's one from Harvard.edu:

http://drclas.fas.harvard.edu/revista/articles/view/828

I search for other sources in the mean-time...
 
 
Pardalis said:
I don't understand this post.

You're saying the use of "zionism" in anti-American propaganda is also used by OBL...

So if it's propaganda, it is not accurate and it's agenda driven.

So what does that say about the article you posted in the OP?
Click to expand...


Pardalis: Sometimes I think I talk to a little child. You know that Propaganda also may be used solely on facts. "Propaganda" doesn't mean it has to be a lie, "Propaganda" means to make a point pointing out ugly things against an opponent. This has nothing to do with "lie" or "facts".

Of course "Propaganda" is agenda driven. But that doesn't mean that the propaganda itself is a lie.

I can say: "Don't listen to Pardalis, he's a Canadian".
Did I lie? - No.
Did I try to make Propaganda against Canadians? Yes.

You really should know the difference... :boggled:
 
Pardalis said:
It's from the Revolutionary Communist Party, that's reason enough to be skeptical about it. These people usually have an agenda.

A reputable source of objective information would have to be unbiased, unafiliated and apolitical.
Click to expand...
I quickly glanced through the lengthy timeline, and it seemed to me quite accurate and moderate. Nothing "anti-Semitic" there.

I would be interested to know who in the world does not have any "agenda", and who in the world is "reputable", "objective", "unaffiliated" and "unbiased".

I would like to meet such persons, shake their hands and kiss the sacred ground under their feet (which probably would be levitating a few inches off the ground).
 
Oliver said:
Pardalis: Sometimes I think I talk to a little child. You know that Propaganda also may be used solely on facts. "Propaganda" doesn't mean it has to be a lie, "Propaganda" means to make a point pointing out ugly things against an opponent. This has nothing to do with "lie" or "facts".

Of course "Propaganda" is agenda driven. But that doesn't mean that the propaganda itself is a lie.
Click to expand...

From one of your source sites (bolding mine)...

wikipedia said:
Propaganda [from modern Latin: 'Propaganda Fide', literally “propagating the faith”] is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of groups of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can present accurate facts, but does so selectively to produce deliberately misleading information, or loaded messages, whether essentially truthful or not, in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the message that is being presented.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that's exactly the best way to present "facts" to a skeptical audience, would you?
 
NobbyNobbs said:
From one of your source sites (bolding mine)...

I wouldn't say that's exactly the best way to present "facts" to a skeptical audience, would you?
Click to expand...


I know what you mean - but the list I provided isn't proven as being propaganda yet. So I wait until someone is able to provide evidence concerning the data as being propaganda -AKA- manipulated facts. From what I can tell they are facts, independent from it's source.
 
Oliver,

I'm really disappointed. You're really not even trying. Just on a quick glance, here's some issues:

November 1947: The U.S. helps push through a UN resolution partitioning Palestine into a Zionist state and an Arab state, giving the Zionist authorities control of 54% of the land. At that time Jewish settlers were about 1/3 of the population.
Click to expand...

This is patently false. The establishment of separate Arab and Jewish states in Palestine traces back to the Balfour Declaration of 1917. This was a wholly British decision to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and it resulted in Britain being given the League of Nations mandate for Palestine after World War One.

This move by the League of Nations did not involve the United States, who was not a member.

After World War Two, Great Britain expressed its intention to withdraw from Palestine. In response the General Assembly of the United Nations formed the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) to analyse the situation in Palestine and draft a solution.

In order to ensure neutrality, none of the major powers were members of UNSCOP. The eleven members were:

Canada
Czechoslovakia
Guatemala
Netherlands
Peru
Sweden
Uruguay
India
Iran
Yugoslavia

After three months of study, UNSCOP presented a plan to establish separate Jewish and Arab states. India, Iran, and Yugoslavia disagreed with the plan, but the majority supported it.

This was drafted into United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181. The resolution was passed on 29 November 1947 by a vote of 33 to 13, with 10 abstaining.

The nations that voted in support of the creation of a Jewish state were:

Australia
Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil
Byelorussian SSR
Canada
Costa Rica
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
France
Guatemala
Haiti
Iceland
Liberia
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Norway
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Sweden
South Africa
Ukrainian SSR
United States of America
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Uruguay
Venezuela

Those opposed to the resolution were:

Afghanistan
Cuba
Egypt
Greece
India
Iran
Iraq
Lebanon
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Turkey
Yemen

Those whom abstained from voting were:

Argentina
Chile
Republic of China
Colombia
El Salvador
Ethiopia
Honduras
Mexico
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Yugoslavia

Those nations absent:

Thailand

As you can see, your "facts" are utterly false. The United States had no role in the formation of Israel, other than to vote on UNGA Res.181, just like every other member of the UN.

In light of how grossly untrue the information presented at your linked site was on this point, I now expect you to retract your claims that this page contains facts until such time as you actually present some sources to support your contentions.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Oliver,

I'm really disappointed. You're really not even trying. Just on a quick glance, here's some issues:



This is patently false. The establishment of separate Arab and Jewish states in Palestine traces back to the Balfour Declaration of 1917. This was a wholly British decision to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and it resulted in Britain being given the League of Nations mandate for Palestine after World War One.

This move by the League of Nations did not involve the United States, who was not a member.

After World War Two, Great Britain expressed its intention to withdraw from Palestine. In response the General Assembly of the United Nations formed the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) to analyse the situation in Palestine and draft a solution.

In order to ensure neutrality, none of the major powers were members of UNSCOP. The eleven members were:

Canada
Czechoslovakia
Guatemala
Netherlands
Peru
Sweden
Uruguay
India
Iran
Yugoslavia

After three months of study, UNSCOP presented a plan to establish separate Jewish and Arab states. India, Iran, and Yugoslavia disagreed with the plan, but the majority supported it.

This was drafted into United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181. The resolution was passed on 29 November 1947 by a vote of 33 to 13, with 10 abstaining.

The nations that voted in support of the creation of a Jewish state were:

Australia
Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil
Byelorussian SSR
Canada
Costa Rica
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
France
Guatemala
Haiti
Iceland
Liberia
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Norway
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Sweden
South Africa
Ukrainian SSR
United States of America
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Uruguay
Venezuela

Those opposed to the resolution were:

Afghanistan
Cuba
Egypt
Greece
India
Iran
Iraq
Lebanon
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Turkey
Yemen

Those whom abstained from voting were:

Argentina
Chile
Republic of China
Colombia
El Salvador
Ethiopia
Honduras
Mexico
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Yugoslavia

Those nations absent:

Thailand

As you can see, your "facts" are utterly false. The United States had no role in the formation of Israel, other than to vote on UNGA Res.181, just like every other member of the UN.

In light of how grossly untrue the information presented at your linked site was on this point, I now expect you to retract your claims that this page contains facts until such time as you actually present some sources to support your contentions.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


Okay, accepted. So 1% of 99% is not entirely correct. Go on. :)
Remember: You still prefer the "Freedoms" explanation instead the "Foreign Policies".
 
It is a mix of true facts, vague facts, untrue or distorted facts, and facts used with the words "supposedly" or worded just right.

Example: "Iraq invades Kuwait. The U.S. seizes the moment to assert its hegemony in the post-Soviet world and strengthen its grip on the Persian Gulf: the U.S. condemns Iraq, rejects a diplomatic settlement, imposes sanctions, and prepares for an all-out military assault on Iraq."

Was that written by Saddam himself?

There are many facts that I'm not proud of in the list that are probably true. The Cold War had alot of smaller countries used as pawns for what could have been a large war. I would take all those little pawn games all over again to not of had WW3.

But seriously Oliver, your constant threads to make everyone yell "America is evil and the cause of all the middle east problems" is getting boring. The world isn't as simple as you think it is. Yes, many countries have done bad things sometimes trying to do good things or just made a move for power or future strategic reasons. Welcome to the history of the world. The results are screwed up sometimes.
 
Tailgater said:
It is a mix of true facts, vague facts, untrue or distorted facts, and facts used with the words "supposedly" or worded just right.

Example: "Iraq invades Kuwait. The U.S. seizes the moment to assert its hegemony in the post-Soviet world and strengthen its grip on the Persian Gulf: the U.S. condemns Iraq, rejects a diplomatic settlement, imposes sanctions, and prepares for an all-out military assault on Iraq."

Was that written by Saddam himself?

There are many facts that I'm not proud of in the list that are probably true. The Cold War had alot of smaller countries used as pawns for what could have been a large war. I would take all those little pawn games all over again to not of had WW3.

But seriously Oliver, your constant threads to make everyone yell "America is evil and the cause of all the middle east problems" is getting boring. The world isn't as simple as you think it is. Yes, many countries have done bad things sometimes trying to do good things or just made a move for power or future strategic reasons. Welcome to the history of the world. The results are screwed up sometimes.
Click to expand...


That's my agenda here, Tailgater: Don't accept a stupid: "We are good - the rest is evil". I'm fully aware of the fact that I'm wont be loved for pointing out a more gradual world then the "White and Black" world portrayed by US-Media and US-Government. And I don't believe it's wrong to explain it to "Black&White"-thinkers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom