Hariri murder probe: Hizbulla to blame?

[Skeptic]

And when Israel not just acknowledges but stops actively preventing the Palestinian right to exist then progress can be made.

Doubtful. They did just that in 2001, after the 1967 Arab attempt at genocide fails ("waiting for a telephone from Hussein"), in 1936, in 1947... the result in all cases from the Arab world was, from the 1930s "Arab revolt" to the 1940s support of Nazism to the 1948 attempt to throw the Jews into the sea to the 1967 and 1973 attempts to do the same to the Al Aksa Intifada was the same: Itbah al-Yahud.

 

[bit_pattern]

So did the Arabs in 1978 and 2001

/shrugz

I like the way you conflate everyone as monolithic "Arabs" without ever recognising the significant peace concessions gained by Israel's main enemy in '48, '67 and '73 but still managing to blame the Palestinian's, because after all they're all filthy Ayrabs!

 

[Virus]

No surprise there. but excuse me if I don't believe for a second that you've ever sat down and read a a book or essay of his in its entirety.

So, nobody that's ever read Chomsky could possibly disagree with it?

And America NEVER encouraged the rise of Islamism to counter the Soviets, oh no, american foreign policy has NEVER had any unintended consequences

Afghans were supported with US money against a brutal Communist tyranny and soviet occupation. But don't get too cocky about it. Given that Communism had killed 100,000,000 people including 400,000 in Afghanistan while Islamism wasn't even a blip on the radar.

Except, of course, that the Brotherhood concerned itself virtually exclusively with the going on of Muslim countries, and that the 'global Jihad' brand was almost entirely a construct to arise from the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Wrong. Qutb called for the destruction of America before the War in Afghanistan.

Yes, the CIA is "the left"

That's a bizarre comment. I don't even know what you're getting at here.

As I said, you can pretend that Islamism is entirely the product of a "mad ideology",

I'm not pretending anything. It is mad. It's fascism with an Islamic stamp.

and ignore the more nuanced understandings of the phenomenon,

"Nuanced" being code for "all America's fault"

but you can never beat an enemy you don't understand

Pfft. Even if we granted the Leftist delusion and America was 100% to blame for Al-Qaeda. They'd still have to be defeated by military means.

and your reductionist 'good v. evil'

Al-Qaeda are evil. There's nothing good about them. They're out of their minds.

narrative is as stupiud and counterproductive as the reductionist 'monolithic Communism' fallacy that dominated thinking during the Cold War.

Can't have been that unproductive since the Commies lost. Mind you, we mostly had to just wait it out until the idiotic system collapsed in on itself.

 

[bigjelmapro]

And America NEVER encouraged the rise of Islamism to counter the Soviets, oh no, american foreign policy has NEVER had any unintended consequences

Could be true if there wasn't a gap between of almost 30 years between Qutb's writings of strict adherence to sharia law, its implementation in Islamic countries (and those lands considered dar al-harb), and that of jihad extending outside of the Islamic uhmmah. This all happened after Qutb visited the US. Coincidentally, Islamism started about the same time as Neoconservatism. Guess we can blame the liberals for that.

Except, of course, that the Brotherhood concerned itself virtually exclusively with the going on of Muslim countries, and that the 'global Jihad' brand was almost entirely a construct to arise from the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Refer to the previous. Still that 30 years gap.

As I said, you can pretend that Islamism is entirely the product of a "mad ideology", and ignore the more nuanced understandings of the phenomenon, but you can never beat an enemy you don't understand and your reductionist 'good v. evil' narrative is as stupiud and counterproductive as the reductionist 'monolithic Communism' fallacy that dominated thinking during the Cold War.

I still find it amazing that people like Chomsky and the lot defend Islamists even when they are on completely different ends of the political spectrum.

 

[WildCat]

I still find it amazing that people like Chomsky and the lot defend Islamists even when they are on completely different ends of the political spectrum.

Because people like Chomsky see themselves as superior to all others, especially non-white people who can't possibly be expected to act in a civilized manner and whose every action is merely an instinctive reaction to what all those superior white people are doing. They can be blamed no more than a dog can be blamed for biting you when you pull its tail.

 

[Virus]

You can see a variety of uses the extreme left have for Islamists. The left's primary interest is in inciting a revolution against the government and corporations. Problem is, people just don't hate the government enough to actually get involved in a violent revolution. This angers the Leftists to no end. What if we could harness the fear the terrorists create to incite some of that hate?

It's the governments fault we're besieged by religious lunatics. George Bush made them do it. America unleashed Islamists on the world. It's all their fault. Our only hope is to overthrow the government that turns poor Arabs into psychopaths by doing unspeakable things to them.

Maybe they see these death cults as "useful lunatics"?

 

[Paranormal Inquirer]

Because people like Chomsky see themselves as superior to all others, especially non-white people who can't possibly be expected to act in a civilized manner and whose every action is merely an instinctive reaction to what all those superior white people are doing. They can be blamed no more than a dog can be blamed for biting you when you pull its tail.

Subtle racism.

 

[bit_pattern]

Could be true if there wasn't a gap between of almost 30 years between Qutb's writings of strict adherence to sharia law, its implementation in Islamic countries (and those lands considered dar al-harb), and that of jihad extending outside of the Islamic uhmmah. This all happened after Qutb visited the US. Coincidentally, Islamism started about the same time as Neoconservatism. Guess we can blame the liberals for that.

LOL, that's actually pretty funny And yeah, I saw that documentary too, I also remember that a good deal of Qutb's radicalisation, at least in terms of violence, came from his experience at the hands of American-trained Egyptian torturers. Another example of unintended consequences of American foreign policy.

Refer to the previous. Still that 30 years gap.


I still find it amazing that people like Chomsky and the lot defend Islamists even when they are on completely different ends of the political spectrum.

Well, that's simple, he doesn't defend Islamists, so it's a moot point

 

[bit_pattern]

Because people like Chomsky see themselves as superior to all others, especially non-white people who can't possibly be expected to act in a civilized manner and whose every action is merely an instinctive reaction to what all those superior white people are doing. They can be blamed no more than a dog can be blamed for biting you when you pull its tail.

More fantasies that don't in any way represent what Chomsky has ever actually said. I'm reasonably familiar with his work, and his response would be very straightforward; it is a simple moral truism that one holds one's self to equal, if not higher, standards, than one holds to others. It is a very simple moral standard that has been at the heart of the Judeo-Christian moral code for at least 2000 years.

But of course, you guys need to distort and misrepresent what people who dare to criticise your, for want of a better word, "neocon" weltanschauung, are actually saying.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Bit_pattern

Whenever Qutb wrote his teachings, Egypt was in the USSR's sphere of Influence. Does Nasserism ring any bells?

And Chomsky has no credibility. Read about his apologia for Pol Pot, the Bosnian Serbs, the Vietcong, Hizbullah and others.

 

[bit_pattern]

Bit_pattern

Whenever Qutb wrote his teachings, Egypt was in the USSR's sphere of Influence. Does Nasserism ring any bells?

The CIA was training Egyptian security forces before Nasser came to power, which iirc was the point the documentary was making.

And Chomsky has no credibility. Read about his apologia for Pol Pot, the Bosnian Serbs, the Vietcong, Hizbullah and others.

Actually, I'd prefer to read about what Chomsky said on those issues at the time, not what conservative attack dogs quote mine to make him look like a bloodthirsty monster, which has been my whole point about Chomsky and his critics has been about.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Let's see, calling the killing fields a "moss new york times creation" (distortions at fourth hand), giving a cheerleading speech in Hanoi (1970) and going to Hizbullah land as a guest of honour.

 

[bit_pattern]

Let's see, calling the killing fields a "moss new york times creation" (distortions at fourth hand), giving a cheerleading speech in Hanoi (1970) and going to Hizbullah land as a guest of honour.

The Cambodia thing was a cock-up, no doubt, but if you do read the essay it is pretty apparent that he is talking about the quality of the sources and the way that what were at the time still tenuous reports were being presented by the American media as propaganda to further the ends of the American strategy, and not out of any concern for the fate of Cambodia. Obviously, he was very, very wrong, but the criticism of the Times did have actual substance, and I don't think being right 100% of the time is a standard that you could anyone to.

As for the rest of it, I can't be arsed looking into your specific examples, but Vietnam was a legitimate nationalist struggle, I have no problem with people back then offering support to Hanoi (if that is what happened, I'll take your word for it). And Hezbollah, yeah, so what? He has also spent a lot of time as a guest of Kurdish rebels too. I'd like to think that a self-professed authority on international affairs WOULD be familiar with his subject material. I wish MORE academics would go and spend time among the people they write about from the dizzying heights of their plush ivory towers, maybe then we'd get a less lofty and more human depiction of the very human conflicts that rage around the world.

 

[Skeptic]

Chomsky apologizes for anybody who hates Jews and/or the USA. It's an old story. It's just that lately, for some reason, he seems to care less about what others say about him, and he not only supports murderous terrorists in print, but actually goes to worship them in their home base. Go figure.

 

[bit_pattern]

Chomsky apologizes for anybody who hates Jews and/or the USA. It's an old story.

Your need to try and demonise him through simplistic charcterisations speaks for the strength of his arguments in that you don't actually challenge them rather rely on cheap character assassination

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Excuse me, Vietnam was NOT a "legitimate nationalist struggle". It was an attempt by the north to devour the South in outright aggression (why did millions flee then? Why did North Vietnam break the Paris Peace Accords?).

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Im afraid any academic worth their salt would not even so much as go near Hezbollah land given its themes of holocaust denial and antisemitism.

 

[WildCat]

More fantasies that don't in any way represent what Chomsky has ever actually said. I'm reasonably familiar with his work, and his response would be very straightforward; it is a simple moral truism that one holds one's self to equal, if not higher, standards, than one holds to others. It is a very simple moral standard that has been at the heart of the Judeo-Christian moral code for at least 2000 years.

But of course, you guys need to distort and misrepresent what people who dare to criticise your, for want of a better word, "neocon" weltanschauung, are actually saying.

Bold emphasis mine... I was unaware of Chomsky's involvement in the Israel-Palestine conflict. What Israeli military unit did Chomsky command again?

 

[bit_pattern]

Bold emphasis mine... I was unaware of Chomsky's involvement in the Israel-Palestine conflict. What Israeli military unit did Chomsky command again?

Lulwut? Care to extrapolate? Cos I wouldn't have the foggiest idea of what you're getting at here How on Earth does that have any relation to whether Chomsky the American, the Jew, has a responsibility to hold his own people to higher standards than other international actors that don't subscribe to the liberal, Enlightenment values that are the basis of our moral and ethical superiority or not?

 

[bit_pattern]

Excuse me, Vietnam was NOT a "legitimate nationalist struggle".

Yes it was

It was an attempt by the north to devour the South in outright aggression

No it wasn't.

(why did millions flee then?

Because they were involved in a decades long conflict with their own people and were on the losing side.

Why did North Vietnam break the Paris Peace Accords?).

Because the South, at the behest of America, refused to honour the agreement for elections on reunification.

That being said, I'm not about to get into the minutiae of the Indo-China conflicts with you. If you want to get into that then go start a Vietnam War thread or something.