Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Muslim culture spreading to America - SCARY

ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 1:27:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
https://www.youtube.com...

He answered the question by forcing it out of her. The connection between MSA and terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah is that both groups carry the same twisted values (jew hating in a nutshell). They both want the same thing, it's just that one of them has the means to carry out their goals in accordance with these so-called "values."

A while ago I made a thread regarding cultural autonomy. She may have freedom of speech here, but there is no way we could allow evil thoughts like that to spread in a country like ours (US). I feel like people like her would be the ones to plant homegrown terrorists.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 3:54:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Danios's Law:
As a Muslim person becomes more prominent, the probability of anti-Muslim bigots linking that Muslim to Hamas* approaches 1.
*Or some other extremist group


There is a difference between criticism of the state of Israel, it legitimacy, or Zionism and "Anti-Semitism". Aren't Middle-Eastern Arabs Semites anyway?
Not sure why the desire to make all non-Jews have a guilt complex.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 6:23:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 3:54:11 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Danios's Law:
As a Muslim person becomes more prominent, the probability of anti-Muslim bigots linking that Muslim to Hamas* approaches 1.
*Or some other extremist group


There is a difference between criticism of the state of Israel, it legitimacy, or Zionism and "Anti-Semitism". Aren't Middle-Eastern Arabs Semites anyway?
Not sure why the desire to make all non-Jews have a guilt complex.

Same logic as white guilt.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 7:50:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 3:54:11 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Danios's Law:
As a Muslim person becomes more prominent, the probability of anti-Muslim bigots linking that Muslim to Hamas* approaches 1.
*Or some other extremist group


There is a difference between criticism of the state of Israel, it legitimacy, or Zionism and "Anti-Semitism". Aren't Middle-Eastern Arabs Semites anyway?
Not sure why the desire to make all non-Jews have a guilt complex.

Regardless the provocation made by Horowitz, the MSA girl was clearly aligned, or at least accepting, with the positions of Hamas and other terrorist groups. Spreading apartheid awareness in American colleges ("Israel apartheid") as a passive effort to support terrorist organizations won't do Americans any good.

And, can someone link me to some articles that discuss apartheid in Israel?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 2:33:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 1:27:32 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...


He answered the question by forcing it out of her. The connection between MSA and terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah is that both groups carry the same twisted values (jew hating in a nutshell). They both want the same thing, it's just that one of them has the means to carry out their goals in accordance with these so-called "values."

A while ago I made a thread regarding cultural autonomy. She may have freedom of speech here, but there is no way we could allow evil thoughts like that to spread in a country like ours (US). I feel like people like her would be the ones to plant homegrown terrorists.

At first, I thought you are just paranoid... but when I watched your video - oh my..
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 3:11:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 1:27:32 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...


He answered the question by forcing it out of her. The connection between MSA and terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah is that both groups carry the same twisted values (jew hating in a nutshell). They both want the same thing, it's just that one of them has the means to carry out their goals in accordance with these so-called "values."

A while ago I made a thread regarding cultural autonomy. She may have freedom of speech here, but there is no way we could allow evil thoughts like that to spread in a country like ours (US). I feel like people like her would be the ones to plant homegrown terrorists.

Well, certainly anyone can play Mr. Horowitz's game here. Will you sir condemn the Pilgrim Fathers, Founding Fathers, pioneers, et al., who are revered for creating this country but who also practiced slavery and genocide? Yes or no, will you unequivocally and categorically disavow and condemn the neocon, right-wing ideology and agenda (an agenda that in fact cost the lives of as many as a million human beings in the course of the unprovoked U.S. invasion/occupation of Iraq) that David Horowitz represents? Will you condemn the heavy-handed, hegemonic, repressive, and downright terroristic behavior of the state of Israel? Probably not, yet you simplistically see menace and evil in a woman whose worldview includes a recognition of the imperialism of the West and the injustices perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people and who's therefore disinclined to jump at the chance to pass Mr. Horowitz's litmus test by condemning organizations that are opposed to American and Israeli hegemony. Lol!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 6:58:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would also point out that Mr. Horowitz's tactic involves asserting a morally superior and dominant position in a peremptory and contentious fashion that's bound, if not designed, to elicit reactance, to produce a defensive, resistant, obstinate, and immoderate response, thus making the individual on the receiving end look unreasonable and militant in attitude. That is, it's simply an unfair tactic for discrediting one's opponent, and reflects quite poorly on the integrity and ideology of those who resort to it.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 11:26:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 3:11:10 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/12/2014 1:27:32 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...


He answered the question by forcing it out of her. The connection between MSA and terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah is that both groups carry the same twisted values (jew hating in a nutshell). They both want the same thing, it's just that one of them has the means to carry out their goals in accordance with these so-called "values."

A while ago I made a thread regarding cultural autonomy. She may have freedom of speech here, but there is no way we could allow evil thoughts like that to spread in a country like ours (US). I feel like people like her would be the ones to plant homegrown terrorists.

Well, certainly anyone can play Mr. Horowitz's game here. Will you sir condemn the Pilgrim Fathers, Founding Fathers, pioneers, et al., who are revered for creating this country but who also practiced slavery and genocide? Yes or no, will you unequivocally and categorically disavow and condemn the neocon, right-wing ideology and agenda (an agenda that in fact cost the lives of as many as a million human beings in the course of the unprovoked U.S. invasion/occupation of Iraq) that David Horowitz represents? Will you condemn the heavy-handed, hegemonic, repressive, and downright terroristic behavior of the state of Israel? Probably not, yet you simplistically see menace and evil in a woman whose worldview includes a recognition of the imperialism of the West and the injustices perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people and who's therefore disinclined to jump at the chance to pass Mr. Horowitz's litmus test by condemning organizations that are opposed to American and Israeli hegemony. Lol!

Surely you have to take context into consideration (time period, setting (war/civil war), etc.) as well as consider the achievements made by these persons/entities.

Example of context: The second industrial revolution (beginning of 20th century) was the first of its kind. We didn't know the environmental effects of pollution, the limits to non-renewable resources, the health effects of pollution, and the general world-wide net impact industrialization would have on us (ourselves, the planet, and its biosphere). Now, we have huge amounts of retrospective data/statistics (I forgot the term lol) to tell and warn us of the consequences of rapid industrialization. We also have nearly a century's worth of technological advancement that provides newly developing/industrializing countries with alternative, greener methods to move up the economic ladder. For a country to pollute (in the name of economic development) as irresponsibly as a country 100 years ago is unacceptable today.

I would say that I condemn ASPECTS of certain entities, but I do not condemn their worth as a whole. There's a difference between a group of people that fight for a right (and fight for it respectably at that) and a group of people that fight for their "divine rights."

I sometimes like to believe in moral objectivity, and thus I find it easy to condemn many mixed/pure ideologies.
I will not condemn Israel. They are not militaristic, they are defensive. They are not hegemonic, they are democratic. They are not terroristic, they are peaceful. And I certainly see menace in a woman who supports an organization that would like to commit genocide. I hope you do, too.

I quote (myself on youtube): "Jews have also been living in Israel for thousands of years. And, up to the point where the question of a Jewish state became relevant (around 1870-80s during the first european jewish immigration to the land of israel/palestine), Israel/palestine was a wasteland with the majority of the land being empty, with a few Arab settlers scattered. The main cities like Jerusalem were at that time, in fact, mostly held by Jews. And when the Jews immigrated to Israel, they did not steal the land, they bought it from Arabs. They cultivated the baron lands of Israel into the oasis that it is today. Much more than this can be said for Israel's case."

IF you want to learn the history behind the land of Israel/Palestine, the happenings before, during, and after the creation of the state of Israel, I suggest you read Alan Dershowitz's "A Case For Israel." I'm currently reading it and it is a very enlightening story. I am currently reading this book though it's taking me a long time (only on page 60 or so out of ~250) since I don't find much time to read it during this last semester of mine in college (taking 21 credits worth of courses to graduate early).
slo1
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 12:02:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 1:27:32 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...


He answered the question by forcing it out of her. The connection between MSA and terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah is that both groups carry the same twisted values (jew hating in a nutshell). They both want the same thing, it's just that one of them has the means to carry out their goals in accordance with these so-called "values."

A while ago I made a thread regarding cultural autonomy. She may have freedom of speech here, but there is no way we could allow evil thoughts like that to spread in a country like ours (US). I feel like people like her would be the ones to plant homegrown terrorists.

There is only one way for that level of hate to stop spreading throughout the world. That is to stop taking over the West Bank, allow the Palestinians to self rule, and allow them to either choose an Anti Israel state or one that wants to exist with Israel. Too many of people such as myself have very little empathy for Israel because they choose uber authoritarian policies over the Palestinians who they virtually rule rather than working with the moderate Palestinians who support a two state solution. It is a form of collective punishment.

War begets war and busting in and arresting over 400 people and killing 4 or so to find two kidnapped citizens is ware fare. Eye for an eye only gets more killed and is not safer in the long term.

Israel is not just a simple bystander who is the sole victim in this conflict despite conservative attempts to paint that picture.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 4:30:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 11:26:32 AM, ben2974 wrote:

I would say that I condemn ASPECTS of certain entities, but I do not condemn their worth as a whole.

Ah, but note that Mr. Horowitz's tactic involves not giving one the option of such a qualified, nuanced response; rather, he insists on a categorical condemnation of "evildoers". I would also point out that your insistence here on your right to be selective about the aspects of a group that you'll condemn implies that you in fact reject the legitimacy of Mr. Horowitz's tactic, and therefore you shouldn't have created a thread based on an exchange that resulted from his use of an unfair tactic that you personally disagree with and aren't inclined to submit to.

There's a difference between a group of people that fight for a right (and fight for it respectably at that) and a group of people that fight for their "divine rights."

Hmm, do I detect in this distinction a bit of anti-religious prejudice? And, typical of secularists, apparently you don't realize that our modern concept of our secular civil & human rights in large measure derives from and can even be viewed as the secularization of values whose original home was our now somewhat outmoded religious tradition. Mm-hmm, to gloss over this (i.e., the theological origins of our sense of decency), as many do, and simplistically think "Secularism progressive and good, religion backward and bad", and to exploit the religiosity of Muslim "militants" to discredit them, merely betrays a modern Western bias.

I will not condemn Israel. They are not militaristic, they are defensive.

An absurdly biased and unrealistic view.

They are not hegemonic, they are democratic.

A great many Palestinians might beg to differ. But then you might not be too terribly interested in their opinion, as from your superior secularist point of view they're all dismissble as wild-eyed religious fanatics.

...they are peaceful.

Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I certainly see menace in a woman who supports an organization that would like to commit genocide. I hope you do, too.

Again, let me turn the table on you and ask if you would categorically condemn the U.S., its corporate-government-military complex, for the massive amount of death and suffering that its invasion/occupation of Iraq caused? If not, if you wish to make excuses for murderous American imperialism and for the men and women in uniform who personally carried out our morally criminal aggression against the Iraqi people, well, then perhaps I should view you as a dangerous apologist and supporter of mass life-taking, very much the way you view the young woman in the video?

I quote (myself on youtube): "Jews have also been living in Israel for thousands of years. And, up to the point where the question of a Jewish state became relevant (around 1870-80s during the first european jewish immigration to the land of israel/palestine), Israel/palestine was a wasteland with the majority of the land being empty, with a few Arab settlers scattered. The main cities like Jerusalem were at that time, in fact, mostly held by Jews. And when the Jews immigrated to Israel, they did not steal the land, they bought it from Arabs. They cultivated the baron lands of Israel into the oasis that it is today. Much more than this can be said for Israel's case."

Revisionist history. One could in the same fashion attempt to justify the European colonization of the New World and the historical crimes perpetrated against its indigenous peoples, but it comes down to a simple ethical question: Is taking over another people's land and repressing and killing them when they resist morally justified if one is able to exploit its natural resources more efficiently and build modern cities? I for one would answer no.

IF you want to learn the history behind the land of Israel/Palestine, the happenings before, during, and after the creation of the state of Israel, I suggest you read Alan Dershowitz's "A Case For Israel."

Alan Dershowitz, oy vey and lol! For the sake of balance I would suggest that you also read Professor Norman Finkelstein's book, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History.

(I quote from the Wikipedia article: "The political scientist and author Norman Finkelstein has claimed the book [The Case for Israel] is a 'hoax' and that some of its citations are plagiarized from From Time Immemorial, a 1984 book by Joan Peters.

After a heated exchange between the two on Democracy Now! ,in which Finkelstein repeatedly accused Dershowitz of plagiarism and questioned his credentials to teach at Harvard University, Finkelstein released a book, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, whose second part is about The Case for Israel. The book lists many examples of text that Finkelstein claims Dershowitz to have lifted from Peters... Finkelstein later agreed to delete all references to 'plagiarism' from his book, instead writing that Dershowitz 'lifted' or 'appropriated' text from Peters, but said he only did it to avoid a lawsuit. According to Oxford University's professor of international relations Avi Shlaim, Finkelstein's charge of plagiarism 'is proved in a manner that would stand up in court.'")
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 10:20:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 4:30:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/14/2014 11:26:32 AM, ben2974 wrote:

I would say that I condemn ASPECTS of certain entities, but I do not condemn their worth as a whole.



They are not hegemonic, they are democratic.

A great many Palestinians might beg to differ. But then you might not be too terribly interested in their opinion, as from your superior secularist point of view they're all dismissble as wild-eyed religious fanatics.


...they are peaceful.

Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I certainly see menace in a woman who supports an organization that would like to commit genocide. I hope you do, too.

Again, let me turn the table on you and ask if you would categorically condemn the U.S., its corporate-government-military complex, for the massive amount of death and suffering that its invasion/occupation of Iraq caused? If not, if you wish to make excuses for murderous American imperialism and for the men and women in uniform who personally carried out our morally criminal aggression against the Iraqi people, well, then perhaps I should view you as a dangerous apologist and supporter of mass life-taking, very much the way you view the young woman in the video?

I quote (myself on youtube): "Jews have also been living in Israel for thousands of years. And, up to the point where the question of a Jewish state became relevant (around 1870-80s during the first european jewish immigration to the land of israel/palestine), Israel/palestine was a wasteland with the majority of the land being empty, with a few Arab settlers scattered. The main cities like Jerusalem were at that time, in fact, mostly held by Jews. And when the Jews immigrated to Israel, they did not steal the land, they bought it from Arabs. They cultivated the baron lands of Israel into the oasis that it is today. Much more than this can be said for Israel's case."


Revisionist history. One could in the same fashion attempt to justify the European colonization of the New World and the historical crimes perpetrated against its indigenous peoples, but it comes down to a simple ethical question: Is taking over another people's land and repressing and killing them when they resist morally justified if one is able to exploit its natural resources more efficiently and build modern cities? I for one would answer no.



IF you want to learn the history behind the land of Israel/Palestine, the happenings before, during, and after the creation of the state of Israel, I suggest you read Alan Dershowitz's "A Case For Israel."


Alan Dershowitz, oy vey and lol! For the sake of balance I would suggest that you also read Professor Norman Finkelstein's book, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History.

(I quote from the Wikipedia article: "The political scientist and author Norman Finkelstein has claimed the book [The Case for Israel] is a 'hoax' and that some of its citations are plagiarized from From Time Immemorial, a 1984 book by Joan Peters.

After a heated exchange between the two on Democracy Now! ,in which Finkelstein repeatedly accused Dershowitz of plagiarism and questioned his credentials to teach at Harvard University, Finkelstein released a book, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, whose second part is about The Case for Israel. The book lists many examples of text that Finkelstein claims Dershowitz to have lifted from Peters... Finkelstein later agreed to delete all references to 'plagiarism' from his book, instead writing that Dershowitz 'lifted' or 'appropriated' text from Peters, but said he only did it to avoid a lawsuit. According to Oxford University's professor of international relations Avi Shlaim, Finkelstein's charge of plagiarism 'is proved in a manner that would stand up in court.'")

I don't think there is much else to a terrorist organization other than its terrorism. You may say they are "freedom fighters" fighting for what they believe in, but to the rest of the world (Americas/Europe/Asia), and especially to Israel, they are an organization who's primary wishes include the removal of the Jews; in such a way, they can be "categorically condemned." Their nature, their purpose, is to be condemned. We will judge them by their means, and their ends. Neither are justified in today's world. The United States and other Western powers (including Japan and South Korea), on the other hand, cannot be wholly condemned due to political blemishes. They do not wish to massacre civilians, to destroy cities, and to keep countries dependent on them (so as to control them). The United States is part of several international alliances ranging from trade to protection. It does not do so solely to serve itself; however, we are a competitive country and any country would find it rational to keep oneself competitive. It also wishes to uphold the justice it serves as a member of the U.N, the World Bank, NATO, and so forth. We cannot categorically condemn a nation by selectively choosing blemished policies. We can't condemn a group by looking at a couple policies, but we can condemn a group based on its ideology.
The only thing I can think of that can be considered "offensive" (not even remotely close to militaristic) by Israel is Jewish settlements in the west bank. That will not solve the crisis. But murdering those settlers as a form of protest won't solve it either. And the reason Israel gets such a bad rep during conflicts is because they are always instigated. Just like how Hamas instigated this past Gaza conflict.

"A great many Palestinians might beg to differ. But then you might not be too terribly interested in their opinion, as from your superior secularist point of view they're all dismissble as wild-eyed religious fanatics."

Can you explain this?

"Revisionist history. One could in the same fashion attempt to justify the European colonization of the New World and the historical crimes perpetrated against its indigenous peoples, but it comes down to a simple ethical question: Is taking over another people's land and repressing and killing them when they resist morally justified if one is able to exploit its natural resources more efficiently and build modern cities? I for one would answer no."

So, basically every modern country should be forever condemned because of its violent past. Okay. What people like you should do is to reconcile the past. Imagine if today's United States is continually terrorized by the native american minorities because they never accepted the trajectory that history took 300 years ago. Is that truly sensible? No, it's not. Get over it. The land of America is now the United States, populated by "Americans." But anyway, this doesn't even apply to Israel as far as my knowledge goes. If we simply disagree with the facts regarding the history leading up to the creation of the state of Israel, then there is really nothing we can do here.

After reading "Crisis of Islam" by Bernard Lewis, it has come to my understanding that those of most Muslims nations struggle to keep up with the modernizing world precisely because of Islam itself. In this case religion has inhibited Arab-Muslim progress. If you (Muslim state) are personally okay with that, then great! But if you can't handle your peers rising above you because they've abandoned what you deemed infallible, do not blame those around you - blame yourself.

And no, I do not think that the ends always justify the means, especially if it means destroying a nation in the process.

And yes, I will eventually read finkelstein's book.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 12:40:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 10:20:02 PM, ben2974 wrote:

I don't think there is much else to a terrorist organization other than its terrorism.

This sort of simplism isn't at all constructive.

You may say they are "freedom fighters" fighting for what they believe in, but to the rest of the world (Americas/Europe/Asia), and especially to Israel, they are an organization who's primary wishes include the removal of the Jews; in such a way, they can be "categorically condemned." Their nature, their purpose, is to be condemned. We will judge them by their means, and their ends. Neither are justified in today's world. The United States and other Western powers (including Japan and South Korea), on the other hand, cannot be wholly condemned due to political blemishes.

They do not wish to massacre civilians, to destroy cities,

Oh?! I seem to recall that the United States dropped a greater tonnage of bombs on Hanoi (Encyclopedia Britannica: "During the Vietnam War, the bombing of Hanoi by the United States in 1965, 1968, and 1972 caused massive damage." Another source: "In just one night, more than 2,000 homes were destroyed around Kham Thien, a busy shopping street in Hanoi.") and North Vietnam than it did on all of its Axis enemies in the course of WWII, and killed approximately a million Vietnamese. Then there was the destruction cruelly visited upon Panama City in the course of the euphemistically code named invasion, Operation Just Cause (I quote from the book The Laws of War and the Conduct of the Panama Invasion : "The shelling of urban areas during the few hours of fighting caused the destruction of many private homes, alnost entirely in poor neighborhoods In Panana City and in Colon. The dwellers of El Chorrillo Initially fled to a Catholic parish, whose building was Bade of cement and brick and therefore would not bum down, at the edge of the neighborhood and farthest away from the Comandancia. By the end of the initial hours of fighting, close to ten thousand people were crowding the church and adjacent buildings. A few hours later they left on their own, crossed the highway and spontaneously settled in the campus of the Balboa High School, in the fomer Canal Zone. Balboa High School is a large school for the children of American servicemen and residents. The Southen Command closed down the school and provided security, food and some emergency assistance to almost 15,000 people who were displaced in those early hours. Eventually, many of these people left the school to go back to apartments and houses which were not completely condemned in El Chorrillo, or to relocate with relatives elsewhere in the city. We visited the makeshift camp in Balboa on January 12, 1990, when there were still close to 3,000 persons living there. The living conditions we observed were appalling. Families lived in cardboard boxes outside or on the floor of the gymnasium, without any privacy or separation from each other. Very few had been given Army tents, and others made tents out of parachutes ..." And I should think that there's no need to cite the destruction inflicted on Iraqi cities in the U.S.' two unjustified aggressions against that country.

and to keep countries dependent on them (so as to control them).

In point of fact, the United States is the dominant power of a capitalist world-system in which Third-World countries are most certainly kept dependent and subject to American economic hegemony.

The United States is part of several international alliances ranging from trade to protection. It does not do so solely to serve itself; however, we are a competitive country and any country would find it rational to keep oneself competitive.

Correction, the United States is a capitalistically competitive, neocolonial, hegemonic power.

It also wishes to uphold the justice it serves as a member of the U.N, the World Bank, NATO, and so forth.

Yeah, the World Bank and the U.S. military are all about upholding justice. LOL!


We cannot categorically condemn a nation by selectively choosing blemished policies. We can't condemn a group by looking at a couple policies, but we can condemn a group based on its ideology.
The only thing I can think of that can be considered "offensive" (not even remotely close to militaristic) by Israel is Jewish settlements in the west bank. That will not solve the crisis. But murdering those settlers as a form of protest won't solve it either. And the reason Israel gets such a bad rep during conflicts is because they are always instigated. Just like how Hamas instigated this past Gaza conflict.

So, to condense, you're saying here that it's only legitimate to be black and white in condemnation of Israel's and America's enemies. That to your mind the Israeli-Arab conflict is set in a Star Wars moral universe in which the state of Israel is a force for light fighting against the darkness of Islam. Oh dear.

"A great many Palestinians might beg to differ. But then you might not be too terribly interested in their opinion, as from your superior secularist point of view they're all dismissble as wild-eyed religious fanatics."

Can you explain this?

It's a quite explicit statement. You and many other Westerners view Arabs as fanatical religious ideologues, and Israelis as rational, secular sharers in Western culture, which is one reason for your underlying bias.

"Revisionist history. One could in the same fashion attempt to justify the European colonization of the New World and the historical crimes perpetrated against its indigenous peoples, but it comes down to a simple ethical question: Is taking over another people's land and repressing and killing them when they resist morally justified if one is able to exploit its natural resources more efficiently and build modern cities? I for one would answer no."

So, basically every modern country should be forever condemned because of its violent past. Okay. What people like you should do is to reconcile the past. Imagine if today's United States is continually terrorized by the native american minorities because they never accepted the trajectory that history took 300 years ago. Is that truly sensible? No, it's not. Get over it.

Ah, but note that this isn't at all what I'm saying. Rather, my point is merely that the "development" that the white man prides himself on doesn't expiate the historical crime perpetrated against the red man.


After reading "Crisis of Islam" by Bernard Lewis, it has come to my understanding that those of most Muslims nations struggle to keep up with the modernizing world precisely because of Islam itself. In this case religion has inhibited Arab-Muslim progress. If you (Muslim state) are personally okay with that, then great! But if you can't handle your peers rising above you because they've abandoned what you deemed infallible, do not blame those around you - blame yourself.

Anti-Muslimism.

And no, I do not think that the ends always justify the means, especially if it means destroying a nation in the process.

So, I put it to you, will you condemn the American invasion/occupation of Iraq? (Not that the American invasion/occupation of Iraq presents us with a Does-the-end-justify-the-means sort of ethical problematic, as the U.S. had no noble or at all legitimate objective that might have conceivably justified its aggression. The war was motivated purely by neocon ideology and realpolitik and realeconomik concerns.)

And yes, I will eventually read finkelstein's book.

I sincerely hope that it deepens and enlightens your point of view.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 10:27:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 12:40:42 AM, charleslb wrote:

You cite all the gruesome details but decidedly ignore the context of the situation and the rationale. Admittedly, I am not a textbook on 20th century warfare (or any century lol), nor am I a politician who knows the nitty gritty behind the decision-making process (which is why it's so easy for someone like you to press me with death toll numbers); I can only, and will only, explain the basics behind some of the violence. Simple enough: the United States was in a cold war with the Soviet Union, with two opposing ideologies fighting for hegemony. Both countries viewed it necessary - in the name of capitalism/communism to convert "proxy" or "satellite" nations to their side. The "domino effect" was a fear held by these two states, stating that if one country were to fall into the hands of the enemy state, those around it would fall to the same pressure, too. So, as the United States wished to uphold its values and contain those of its enemy, the US GOVERNMENT saw the defense of a democratic Vietnam as critical to the containment of communism, and the spread of a more free ideology. To help, encourage, and rescue countries from something deemed diabolical, is not inherently wrong/unethical. There were two sides in Vietnam. The fact that there was a side more ideologically aligned with the United States meant that there was something to fight for; there were grounds for invasion. The United States has the right to come to the aid of those that ask for help. HOWEVER, the question then becomes a humanitarian one: how much bloodshed should be allotted until the conflict because immoral, overdone, or hopeless? This, I cannot answer because I do not know enough. I can only say that eventually the American home front decided against the continuation of the war.

So, no, I do not condemn America for trying to defend its principles abroad. I will also respect American military action when its home is directly assaulted. But I will not respect aggressive actions made hastily. As such, I would probably condemn Americans for their efforts in those various examples you gave (which for most I honestly don't know anything about -___-), including the invasion of Iraq (on suspicion of WMDs). I am believer in negotiation, and I consider myself a pacifist. But I will not condemn America for that which we stand and strive for: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What the hell does Hamas stand for? What has it done to prove this stance? And what has it NOT done?

Third-world usually refers to Africa. And I can tell you that America is the last person to blame for sub-Saharan Africa development stagnation. Thanks to my very essential growth course in economics, i've learned that there are dozens and dozens of reasons as to why most third-world countries (LCD's less developed countries, etc.) fail to climb out of poverty. And none of them have to do with Americans "suppressing their growth."

"Yeah, the World Bank and the U.S. military are all about upholding justice."

Yeh, i'd say that a goal of reducing world-wide poverty (World Bank) - a mission the United States is part of - is a means to uphold justice in a fashion. You don't think so? D: And I'd also think that Americans risking their lives participating with the W.H.O as part of the U.N in treating Ebola patients in the heart of a contaminated Africa is a means to "uphold justice."

"So, to condense, you're saying here that it's only legitimate to be black and white in condemnation of Israel's and America's enemies. That to your mind the Israeli-Arab conflict is set in a Star Wars moral universe in which the state of Israel is a force for light fighting against the darkness of Islam. Oh dear."

No, I definitely try to look at it in balance. Who do you think is responsible for the Gaza conflict in July/August 2014?

I do not view Arabs as fanatical religious ideologues. I view militant Islamist states as such. And those exist.

So, what should America do, 300 years later, to "expiate the historical crime perpetrated against the red man?" I don't think the natives really care anymore, the way Hamas cares for Israel and Palestine.

"Anti-Muslimism."

I say - along with this 98-year-old expert on Middle East/Oriental history/conflict - reality. Honestly, this response of yours is SO liberal its insane.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 11:32:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 3:11:10 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/12/2014 1:27:32 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...


He answered the question by forcing it out of her. The connection between MSA and terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah is that both groups carry the same twisted values (jew hating in a nutshell). They both want the same thing, it's just that one of them has the means to carry out their goals in accordance with these so-called "values."

A while ago I made a thread regarding cultural autonomy. She may have freedom of speech here, but there is no way we could allow evil thoughts like that to spread in a country like ours (US). I feel like people like her would be the ones to plant homegrown terrorists.

Well, certainly anyone can play Mr. Horowitz's game here. Will you sir condemn the Pilgrim Fathers, Founding Fathers, pioneers, et al., who are revered for creating this country but who also practiced slavery and genocide? Yes or no, will you unequivocally and categorically disavow and condemn the neocon, right-wing ideology and agenda (an agenda that in fact cost the lives of as many as a million human beings in the course of the unprovoked U.S. invasion/occupation of Iraq) that David Horowitz represents? Will you condemn the heavy-handed, hegemonic, repressive, and downright terroristic behavior of the state of Israel? Probably not, yet you simplistically see menace and evil in a woman whose worldview includes a recognition of the imperialism of the West and the injustices perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people and who's therefore disinclined to jump at the chance to pass Mr. Horowitz's litmus test by condemning organizations that are opposed to American and Israeli hegemony. Lol!

I can lol even louder if you compare what the American/Israel did to them, compare to what they have done it themselves.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 3:41:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 10:27:31 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 9/15/2014 12:40:42 AM, charleslb wrote:

You cite all the gruesome details but decidedly ignore the context of the situation ...

There quite simply was no extenuating context or situation that justified the Vietnam War, the invasion of Panama, the first Gulf War, the 2003 invasion/occupation of Iraq, et al., only dishonest moralistic narratives designed to make the public think that the unwarranted aggressions of its leaders were legitimate actions to make the world safe for decent people.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 3:45:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 10:20:02 PM, ben2974 wrote:

And yes, I will eventually read finkelstein's book.

Here's a free downloadable copy. It's in PDF format, you can read it on your tablet or phone, or if you have some other kind of device that can't open PDF files you can easily convert it to a different format. Don't say that I never gave you anything.

https://filetea.me...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 7:10:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 6:23:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/12/2014 3:54:11 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Danios's Law:
As a Muslim person becomes more prominent, the probability of anti-Muslim bigots linking that Muslim to Hamas* approaches 1.
*Or some other extremist group


There is a difference between criticism of the state of Israel, it legitimacy, or Zionism and "Anti-Semitism". Aren't Middle-Eastern Arabs Semites anyway?
Not sure why the desire to make all non-Jews have a guilt complex.

Same logic as white guilt.

Not exactly. White guilt is imo justified. Well, maybe not guilt as an end in itself or simply as a ruse accompanying collective punishment. White guilt as I understand the concept (apart from the hyperbolic sense in which it is employed by the right) simply means understanding and recognizing the historical reality of genocide, enslavement, forced assimilation, war, cultural destruction, and economic catastrophe inflicted on people of color by Western powers. Accompanying this understanding it is necessary to apply that knowledge (in as measured a way as possible) to an attempt to empathize with marginalized peoples, to recognize the origin of these destructive behaviors, to attempt to modify ourselves and check our behaviors and instincts in light of this, and to rectify as much as possible these historical injustices.

Now, more to the point of the OP, while I do agree that criticism of one imperialist power doesn't necessarily equate to support for the destruction of an ethno-religious group, it seems difficult not to understand the sentiment involved in some groupings of the two. That isn't to say that these groupings are always indicative of an actually existing reality but that it's patently obvious that seeing anti-Semitism in certain anti-Israeli propositions isn't as easy to sweep under the rug by simply labeling them as some sort of resentiment.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 7:11:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 7:10:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/12/2014 6:23:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/12/2014 3:54:11 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Danios's Law:
As a Muslim person becomes more prominent, the probability of anti-Muslim bigots linking that Muslim to Hamas* approaches 1.
*Or some other extremist group


There is a difference between criticism of the state of Israel, it legitimacy, or Zionism and "Anti-Semitism". Aren't Middle-Eastern Arabs Semites anyway?
Not sure why the desire to make all non-Jews have a guilt complex.

Same logic as white guilt.

Not exactly. White guilt is imo justified. Well, maybe not guilt as an end in itself or simply as a ruse accompanying collective punishment. White guilt as I understand the concept (apart from the hyperbolic sense in which it is employed by the right) simply means understanding and recognizing the historical reality of genocide, enslavement, forced assimilation, war, cultural destruction, and economic catastrophe inflicted on people of color by Western powers. Accompanying this understanding it is necessary to apply that knowledge (in as measured a way as possible) to an attempt to empathize with marginalized peoples, to recognize the origin of these destructive behaviors, to attempt to modify ourselves and check our behaviors and instincts in light of this, and to rectify as much as possible these historical injustices.

Now, more to the point of the OP, while I do agree that criticism of one imperialist power doesn't necessarily equate to support for the destruction of an ethno-religious group, it seems difficult not to understand the sentiment involved in some groupings of the two. That isn't to say that these groupings are always indicative of an actually existing reality but that it's patently obvious that seeing anti-Semitism in certain anti-Israeli propositions isn't as easy to sweep under the rug by simply labeling them as some sort of resentiment.

Sh't, guess that was post # 10,000.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 7:37:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 10:20:02 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 9/14/2014 4:30:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/14/2014 11:26:32 AM, ben2974 wrote:


After reading "Crisis of Islam" by Bernard Lewis, it has come to my understanding that those of most Muslims nations struggle to keep up with the modernizing world precisely because of Islam itself. In this case religion has inhibited Arab-Muslim progress.

Bernard Lewis whispering in Dick Cheney's ear is the reason we went to the Iraq War.

And no, I do not think that the ends always justify the means, especially if it means destroying a nation in the process.

And yes, I will eventually read finkelstein's book.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 6:20:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 3:41:58 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/15/2014 10:27:31 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 9/15/2014 12:40:42 AM, charleslb wrote:

You cite all the gruesome details but decidedly ignore the context of the situation ...

There quite simply was no extenuating context or situation that justified the Vietnam War, the invasion of Panama, the first Gulf War, the 2003 invasion/occupation of Iraq, et al., only dishonest moralistic narratives designed to make the public think that the unwarranted aggressions of its leaders were legitimate actions to make the world safe for decent people.

http://www.debate.org...
Apparently, for you, war is never justified (is never good).

Your link to Finkelstein's text doesn't seem to work. In the meantime, have you taken the time to read A Case For Israel?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 6:33:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:20:30 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 9/15/2014 3:41:58 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/15/2014 10:27:31 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 9/15/2014 12:40:42 AM, charleslb wrote:

You cite all the gruesome details but decidedly ignore the context of the situation ...

There quite simply was no extenuating context or situation that justified the Vietnam War, the invasion of Panama, the first Gulf War, the 2003 invasion/occupation of Iraq, et al., only dishonest moralistic narratives designed to make the public think that the unwarranted aggressions of its leaders were legitimate actions to make the world safe for decent people.

http://www.debate.org...
Apparently, for you, war is never justified (is never good).



Your link to Finkelstein's text doesn't seem to work. In the meantime, have you taken the time to read A Case For Israel?

Is it any good? What is your review of the book?

Here is another link whilst you wait... https://www.youtube.com...
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 7:08:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:33:47 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:20:30 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 9/15/2014 3:41:58 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/15/2014 10:27:31 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 9/15/2014 12:40:42 AM, charleslb wrote:

You cite all the gruesome details but decidedly ignore the context of the situation ...

There quite simply was no extenuating context or situation that justified the Vietnam War, the invasion of Panama, the first Gulf War, the 2003 invasion/occupation of Iraq, et al., only dishonest moralistic narratives designed to make the public think that the unwarranted aggressions of its leaders were legitimate actions to make the world safe for decent people.

http://www.debate.org...
Apparently, for you, war is never justified (is never good).



Your link to Finkelstein's text doesn't seem to work. In the meantime, have you taken the time to read A Case For Israel?

Is it any good? What is your review of the book?

Here is another link whilst you wait... https://www.youtube.com...

There are 32 chapters - or accusations made against Israel. Each of these accusations is listed with an "accusation" (what is Israel accused of), followed by quotes from "the accusers" (usually prominent anti-Israel politicians/academics/scholar/you-name-its speaking for these accusations), and then "the proof," which is the section devoted by Dershowitz to analyze and finally debunk these accusations against Israel.

It is indeed a very well written book, and every chapter i've read so far is convincing. It is true, I am somewhat bias for Israel; however, given the quality of the writing and the research/analysis, it is hard to deny the evidence given. In the end, it seems one is only able to disagree with the message of this book if one disagrees with the facts themselves.

By the way, i'm not done with this book at all, and it will take me a while to do so (college .__.). I'm on chapter 12 (12th accusation).
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 2:42:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 6:33:47 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/16/2014 6:20:30 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 9/15/2014 3:41:58 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/15/2014 10:27:31 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 9/15/2014 12:40:42 AM, charleslb wrote:

You cite all the gruesome details but decidedly ignore the context of the situation ...

There quite simply was no extenuating context or situation that justified the Vietnam War, the invasion of Panama, the first Gulf War, the 2003 invasion/occupation of Iraq, et al., only dishonest moralistic narratives designed to make the public think that the unwarranted aggressions of its leaders were legitimate actions to make the world safe for decent people.

http://www.debate.org...
Apparently, for you, war is never justified (is never good).



Your link to Finkelstein's text doesn't seem to work. In the meantime, have you taken the time to read A Case For Israel?

Is it any good? What is your review of the book?

Here is another link whilst you wait... https://www.youtube.com...

Try this one, it's currently working, https://anonfiles.com...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 3:51:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 2:45:04 AM, fazz wrote:
This file is for Ben, right?

Well, of course anyone is welcome to download the book.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 12:38:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 2:33:54 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/12/2014 1:27:32 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...


He answered the question by forcing it out of her. The connection between MSA and terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah is that both groups carry the same twisted values (jew hating in a nutshell). They both want the same thing, it's just that one of them has the means to carry out their goals in accordance with these so-called "values."

A while ago I made a thread regarding cultural autonomy. She may have freedom of speech here, but there is no way we could allow evil thoughts like that to spread in a country like ours (US). I feel like people like her would be the ones to plant homegrown terrorists.

At first, I thought you are just paranoid... but when I watched your video - oh my..

Agree.

I only take issue with the title of this thread. This isn't typical of Muslim culture, but only representative of one radical portion of Muslim culture that also subscribes to the Hitler Youth movement.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 12:42:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 3:11:10 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/12/2014 1:27:32 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...


He answered the question by forcing it out of her. The connection between MSA and terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah is that both groups carry the same twisted values (jew hating in a nutshell). They both want the same thing, it's just that one of them has the means to carry out their goals in accordance with these so-called "values."

A while ago I made a thread regarding cultural autonomy. She may have freedom of speech here, but there is no way we could allow evil thoughts like that to spread in a country like ours (US). I feel like people like her would be the ones to plant homegrown terrorists.

Well, certainly anyone can play Mr. Horowitz's game here. Will you sir condemn the Pilgrim Fathers, Founding Fathers, pioneers, et al., who are revered for creating this country but who also practiced slavery and genocide? Yes or no, will you unequivocally and categorically disavow and condemn the neocon, right-wing ideology and agenda (an agenda that in fact cost the lives of as many as a million human beings in the course of the unprovoked U.S. invasion/occupation of Iraq) that David Horowitz represents? Will you condemn the heavy-handed, hegemonic, repressive, and downright terroristic behavior of the state of Israel? Probably not, yet you simplistically see menace and evil in a woman whose worldview includes a recognition of the imperialism of the West and the injustices perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people and who's therefore disinclined to jump at the chance to pass Mr. Horowitz's litmus test by condemning organizations that are opposed to American and Israeli hegemony. Lol!

The real eye-opener in the video was when Mr. Horowitz went further than just asking about her stance on condemning Hamas, but actually asked her if she also subscribed to a particular ideology involving rounding up all Jews in Israel so that they wouldn't need to be hunted down globally, i.e. make genocide easier.

That would be akin to going beyond just condemning the Founding Fathers, and asking whether or not you would support racially motivated dehumanization of non-whites due to the supremacy of the white race.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 12:43:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 1:27:32 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...


He answered the question by forcing it out of her. The connection between MSA and terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah is that both groups carry the same twisted values (jew hating in a nutshell). They both want the same thing, it's just that one of them has the means to carry out their goals in accordance with these so-called "values."

A while ago I made a thread regarding cultural autonomy. She may have freedom of speech here, but there is no way we could allow evil thoughts like that to spread in a country like ours (US). I feel like people like her would be the ones to plant homegrown terrorists.

This video is not representative of Muslim culture. That would be like saying that David Koresh is representative of Christian culture.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 1:51:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 12:42:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:11:10 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/12/2014 1:27:32 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...


He answered the question by forcing it out of her. The connection between MSA and terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah is that both groups carry the same twisted values (jew hating in a nutshell). They both want the same thing, it's just that one of them has the means to carry out their goals in accordance with these so-called "values."

A while ago I made a thread regarding cultural autonomy. She may have freedom of speech here, but there is no way we could allow evil thoughts like that to spread in a country like ours (US). I feel like people like her would be the ones to plant homegrown terrorists.

Well, certainly anyone can play Mr. Horowitz's game here. Will you sir condemn the Pilgrim Fathers, Founding Fathers, pioneers, et al., who are revered for creating this country but who also practiced slavery and genocide? Yes or no, will you unequivocally and categorically disavow and condemn the neocon, right-wing ideology and agenda (an agenda that in fact cost the lives of as many as a million human beings in the course of the unprovoked U.S. invasion/occupation of Iraq) that David Horowitz represents? Will you condemn the heavy-handed, hegemonic, repressive, and downright terroristic behavior of the state of Israel? Probably not, yet you simplistically see menace and evil in a woman whose worldview includes a recognition of the imperialism of the West and the injustices perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people and who's therefore disinclined to jump at the chance to pass Mr. Horowitz's litmus test by condemning organizations that are opposed to American and Israeli hegemony. Lol!

The real eye-opener in the video was when Mr. Horowitz went further than just asking about her stance on condemning Hamas, but actually asked her if she also subscribed to a particular ideology involving rounding up all Jews in Israel so that they wouldn't need to be hunted down globally, i.e. make genocide easier.

That would be akin to going beyond just condemning the Founding Fathers, and asking whether or not you would support racially motivated dehumanization of non-whites due to the supremacy of the white race.

Yes, by assuming that a Muslim needs to disavow being okay with genocide Mr. Horowitz inadvertently implied the Islamophobic premises from which some of his views stem, i.e. he revealed his own bigotry and in fact ironically discredited himself.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.