RE: Pardalis: "anti-semitic garbage"

[Gurdur]

I thought Britons say "bloody".

Actually, while used, it really isn't all that common in the UK; certainly nowhere near as commonly as in Australia.

How did you end up in this (currently) rainy, windy and cold place?

Pure accident. No, I am not joking. And I ended up simply staying. Laziness mebbe.

 

[Pardalis]

Gurdur, could you go to Oliver's place and smack him on the back of the head for me please?

Thanks

 

[Oliver]

Actually, while used, it really isn't all that common in the UK; certainly nowehere near as commonly as in Australia.


Pure accident. No, I am not joking. And I ended up simply staying. Laziness mebbe.

*lol* This almost sounds like you were drunken and accidentally felt into a plane that ended up here.

Gurdur, could you go to Oliver's place and smack him on the back of the head for me please?

Thanks

We will drink a Foster's and think about your idea.

 

[Pardalis]

*lol* This almost sounds like you were drunken and accidentally felt into a plane that ended up here.

We will drink a Foster's and think about your idea.

Don't get him too drunk, he might end up in Switzerland.

 

[Oliver]

Don't get him too drunk, he might end up in Switzerland.

That wouldn't be a problem since they also speak german.
The question is - would he notice if he would be in another country if he's so drunken?

 

[fuelair]

I understand your point here - but let me ask: What is biased in if a "Commie-Source" says:

"20 March 2003 - The US invaded Iraq."

Does that make the data biased or wrong just because the source was a commie-site, for example? No, it doesn't - that's my point with the list in question.

I understand that - and for straight, unarguable, no editorial comment - and assuming no important point is omitted (important being anything meaningful to the statement(s))- I see no problem with a simple complete list. But, I would still prefer that list from as unbiased a source as possible so I do not feel it necessary to double check each point in it. As an example: Zionist refers to specific persons with a fairly specific agenda - neither Israelis or Jews are automatically Zionists though pretty much all Zionists may be Jewish and/or Israeli. Equally, all Palestinians are not either Hamas or Fatah though many Hamas and Fatah are Palestinians. Equally, Israelis do not tend to set up military functions and storage in otherwise civilian areas whereas Hamas and Fatah (and other similar groups) overwhelmingly do. When a list or description ignores these points or denies them I tend to doubt its' accuracy on any other points it may be making. If it does not ignore points like this and takes them into account, I am much more likely to accept it as reasonably well thought out/stated.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Damn, that's good. I saw this on a Penn & Teller BS episode.

I used to read that piece to my 9th grade class. Then would follow a heated discussion on whether DHMO should be banned. The consensus generally was that something should be done about it.

Then I put on a lab coat, goggles, and heavy rubber gloves, unlocked a cabinet, and took out a stoppered flask of the stuff. I'd ever so gently take out the stopper, smiling as the students moved back in their seats, swirled the liquid a bit....

...and then drank it down swiftly, to the gasps and horror of the kids.

I'd follow that up with a lesson on "know how to write and you can slant anything, know how to read and you won't be fooled."

 

[Oliver]

I understand that - and for straight, unarguable, no editorial comment - and assuming no important point is omitted (important being anything meaningful to the statement(s))- I see no problem with a simple complete list. But, I would still prefer that list from as unbiased a source as possible so I do not feel it necessary to double check each point in it. As an example: Zionist refers to specific persons with a fairly specific agenda - neither Israelis or Jews are automatically Zionists though pretty much all Zionists may be Jewish and/or Israeli. Equally, all Palestinians are not either Hamas or Fatah though many Hamas and Fatah are Palestinians. Equally, Israelis do not tend to set up military functions and storage in otherwise civilian areas whereas Hamas and Fatah (and other similar groups) overwhelmingly do. When a list or description ignores these points or denies them I tend to doubt its' accuracy on any other points it may be making. If it does not ignore points like this and takes them into account, I am much more likely to accept it as reasonably well thought out/stated.

Basically I was pointing out foreign policies - and the timetable is pretty accurate concerning the dates and people involved. Now some may argue that the wording of "Zionists" may not be accurate concerning a "political correct" source, but the data I am referring to pretty much is true nevertheless, no matter of wording. (And I agree with you in terms of wording)

 

[RandFan]

Basically I was pointing out foreign policies - and the timetable is pretty accurate concerning the dates and people involved. Now some may argue that the wording of "Zionists" may not be accurate concerning a "political correct" source, but the data I am referring to pretty much is true nevertheless, no matter of wording. (And I agree with you in terms of wording)

I think that there is an awful lot more that could be argued. For one it is simply a cobbling together of facts and it only posts "facts" that fit the view of the author. To "debunk" any possible conclusions drawn from the timetable would require not only verifying that they all happened as listed but understanding the events in context.

I would want to see these events written about by a respected and objective expert. As it is there is a very good reason to be skeptical of such a list.

 

[Texas]

Basically I was pointing out foreign policies - and the timetable is pretty accurate concerning the dates and people involved. Now some may argue that the wording of "Zionists" may not be accurate concerning a "political correct" source, but the data I am referring to pretty much is true nevertheless, no matter of wording. (And I agree with you in terms of wording)

The problem with your list is not the timeline or the accuracy even though the accuracy is debatable it is the lack of context. Events do not happen in a vacuum. The list is exclusively about Israel and the United States. The United States had almost no role in the creation of Israel and the United States is the new kid on the block when it comes to foreign involvement in the Middle East.

 

[Oliver]

Hi Oliver. I'd like to clarify what I believe is a position of yours, based on an earlier thread. It's a simple question, asked in total earnest. The answer might help me determine whether or not to participate in this discussion. It may seem somewhat off-topic, but I can easily see an underlying connection with the OP:

Do you think that, on average, Americans are less intelligent than Europeans?

No, why should I think that? Their general view of the world outside the US may be less skilled, but I don't know for sure.

 

[RandFan]

No, why should I think that? Their general view of the world outside the US may be less skilled, but I don't know for sure.

WTF does less skilled mean?

 

[Oliver]

WTF does less skilled mean?

I was referring to a slightly more single-sided point of view. Some would call it arrogance, but I don't agree with this term. Maybe it has something to do with the general, strong patriotism and as a result, less education and/or coverage about foreign countries and cultures.

Well, as I said - I don't know for sure.

 

[gumboot]

This post is as pointless as this thread.

-Gumboot

 

[Oliver]

This post is as pointless as this thread.

-Gumboot

So why did you post it then ... and also still reading this thread?

 

[robinson]

Oliver 89
Pardalis 43
RandFan 34

 

[Darth Rotor]

I still don't know why the jewish lobby seems to be so influential - which isn't Neo-Nazi thinking at all - besides natural skepticism.

Oliver: putting the E in JREF for a moment. First off, here is a short article from the London Review of Books.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

The article discusses the forty page piece published by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

In .pdf format, you can find the original here: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

The paper itself is a good read, but for my money is roughly an 80% level for discussing the matter of the very effective Pro Israel Lobby, or rather, lobbies, in the U.S. There is more than one group of people who advocate for Israel, and for how the US should interact with Israel, though the most prominent is AIPAC.

I'd like to see the paper (in a second edition form that addresses some of the academic criticisms the paper attracted) included in a larger study that takes a similar look at three or four other lobbies as well, for example:

Oil Lobby
Environmental Lobby
Farm Lobby
Saudi Lobby

Such an anthology would provide a more complete conceptual framework within which to view the AIPAC, and lobbying on behalf of Israel in general, as a facet of American political life.

The paper itself was put out sort of as a thought piece, and IIRC was at some point going to be revised and put out in a more complete form. I am not sure if that will happen, given the firestorm of personal attacks and criticisms the authors had to weather when it first hit the street.

I'd strongly recommend it.

DR

 

[Oliver]

Oliver: putting the E in JREF for a moment. First off, here is a short article from the London Review of Books.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

The article discusses the forty page piece published by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

In .pdf format, you can find the original here: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

The paper itself is a good read, but for my money is roughly an 80% level for discussing the matter of the very effective Pro Israel Lobby, or rather, lobbies, in the U.S. There is more than one group of people who advocate for Israel, and for how the US should interact with Israel, though the most prominent is AIPAC.

I'd like to see the paper (in a second edition form that addresses some of the academic criticisms the paper attracted) included in a larger study that takes a similar look at three or four other lobbies as well, for example:

Oil Lobby
Environmental Lobby
Farm Lobby
Saudi Lobby

Such an anthology would provide a more complete conceptual framework within which to view the AIPAC, and lobbying on behalf of Israel in general, as a facet of American political life.

The paper itself was put out sort of as a thought piece, and IIRC was at some point going to be revised and put out in a more complete form. I am not sure if that will happen, given the firestorm of personal attacks and criticisms the authors had to weather when it first hit the street.

I'd strongly recommend it.

DR

Thanks for the links, Darth Rotor.

I'm still reading but...

Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’

Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek Security Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let UN inspectors back in.

Source: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

WTF?
Is that true?

 

[Darth Rotor]

WTF?
Is that true?

All I can say is read the entire paper by M and W, and consider the sources they use. Their bibliography is rather extensive. I cannot attest to the truth or lack thereof of any of their claims, nor do I wish to.

Take a look at the character of the critiques of the paper, and who wrote them.

Avail yourself of a little Google Fu, and look up what Finkelstein and Dershowitz had to say about the paper. (They tend to see opposite sides of many issues.) See also if Chomsky has a comment, I think he did when it came out.

Like I said, the paper is about an 80% effort at the story, with the predictable shortcoming that 80% efforts do indeed have errors and omissions in them.

DR

 

[Oliver]

All I can say is read the entire paper by M and W, and consider the sources they use. Their bibliography is rather extensive. I cannot attest to the truth or lack thereof of any of their claims, nor do I wish to.

Take a look at the character of the critiques of the paper, and who wrote them.

Avail yourself of a little Google Fu, and look up what Finkelstein and Dershowitz had to say about the paper. (They tend to see opposite sides of many issues.) See also if Chomsky has a comment, I think he did when it came out.

Like I said, the paper is about an 80% effort at the story, with the predictable shortcoming that 80% efforts do indeed have errors and omissions in them.

DR

I'm still reading and will Google it up - but I get the strong impression that if this article is true, the US system is pretty much undermined if not overthrown by a foreign country in terms of Middle-East politics.

Is that correct?

Happy 4th of July.