Christopher Hitchens Dead At Age 62

[Archaix]

I don't see you or your ilk condemning it.

I'm not sure I have an 'ilk', and besides, not condemning something doesn't mean I support it. You'd know that if you weren't frustrated by things like 'logic', and 'good sense'.

If they don't promise to treat the Israelis right,then they shouldn't have a state.

They'd be more likely to treat Israelis right if the Israelis stopped messing them about.

No,I'm pointing out the hypocrisy that you and others who share your mindset have.

That's a 'yes', isn't it?

I looked for a thread on this story In The News because that's where it belongs,I didn't see your post because you put the story where it didn't belong.

Your Awards thread wasn't political but that didn't stop you vomiting all over that forum like a mad fool.

His sensationalism on Bill Clinton and his calling Henry Kissinger a war criminal (and I have absolutely no love whatsoever for Kissinger) were both intellectually dishonest

Have you read his books/articles on those subjects? How were they dishonest?

[Truth Teller]

I'm not sure I have an 'ilk'

You do.

and besides, not condemning something doesn't mean I support it.

Again ,the liberalism that I knew growing up in the 1960s and 1970s wouldn't look the other way.

They'd be more likely to treat Israelis right if the Israelis stopped messing them about.

I used to believe that fairy tale,then I met both Israelis and people who have been to Israel and found out their side of the story.

Then ,through independent ,impartial research,I fond the Israeli side of the story to be accurate.

The fact is Israelis have tried more than once to compromise with Palestinians ,but Palestinians say "no ",ask GF, he saw it firsthand.

That's a 'yes', isn't it?

Pointing out one's hypocrisy and slandering soemone are two vastly different things.

Your Awards thread wasn't political but that didn't stop you vomiting all over that forum like a mad fool.

That one was a hard to classify,it fit Politcal Debate better than the other catagories,though it wasn't strictly political.

Not the same thing here.

Have you read his books/articles on those subjects?

Read the Clinton book ,saw a documentary on Kissinger that Hutchins participated in.

How were they dishonest?

The best way to answer that is to start by saying what I liked about Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens' essay on Winston Churchill should be read by everyone,he was careful to state the difference between fact and opinon.

One part of it actually got me my first band on DA,Dogberry and I were arguing about Churchill and Hitchens said he found evidence that suggested that through intelligence Churchill knew about Pearl Harbor in advance but didn't tell FDR because Churchill wanted the US in the war ASAP.

Now,Hitchens added he couldn't prove that,that if it did happen Churchill probably destroyed the evidence,but in his book on Clinton, Hitchens simply said he believed rumors abiout Clinton were fact and that is intellectually dishonest.

I have no love for either Henry Kissenger or his policy in Vietnam,but to blatantly call Kissenger a war criminal is insane.

My first ban came when I told Dogberry I didn't know if Churchill witheld info about Pearl Harbor from FDR or not,but that I wouldn't put it past Churchill to do something like that.

Dogberry and I got in a heated argument about that ,I told Dogberry to go fuck himself,and got my first ban.

And I agree with Hitchens overall premise about Churchill which is :Churchill was a drunk,a horrible person,a racist,unpopular with the working class outside of the war,and a all-around asshole.

But,Churchill was right about Hitler ,and Churchill was right about Hitler before the rest of the world was.

Hitchens' work on Clinton and Kissenger isn't up to that same standard.

[Archaix]

You do.

Then who are they? What ilk?

Again ,the liberalism that I knew growing up in the 1960s and 1970s wouldn't look the other way.

I grew up in a country where they instructed children to listen before saying something stupid. Read my post again.

I used to believe that fairy tale,then I met both Israelis and people who have been to Israel and found out their side of the story.

Then ,through independent ,impartial research,I fond the Israeli side of the story to be accurate.

The fact is Israelis have tried more than once to compromise with Palestinians ,but Palestinians say "no ",ask GF, he saw it firsthand.

What about settlements policy and revisionist history/heritage industry, then? Oh wait, you’re too biased to even think of that, I remember now.

When I grew up people examined their own prejudices and didn’t lie about doing ‘research’, though.

Pointing out one's hypocrisy and slandering soemone are two vastly different things.

You’re calling me a sexist or someone willing to permit sexism, which is patently not true and is thus slander.

To prove that isn’t what you’re doing, either
1) Quote me being sexist.
2) Explain how not commenting on sexism makes me permissive of sexism.

That one was a hard to classify,it fit Politcal Debate better than the other catagories,though it wasn't strictly political

That’s what I thought. You’re a hypocrite.

I have no love for either Henry Kissenger or his policy in Vietnam,but to blatantly call Kissenger a war criminal is insane.

It’s an opinion, isn’t it? Just not one you share. As for Clinton, you’d have to be more specific about what rumours.

[Manstein]

A shame he died at a relatively young age. I truly enjoyed his rhetoric. It's hard to peg him as a "liberal", since his views constantly evolved throughout his life. Being a dedicated Marxist, he actually viewed Liberals as dangerous accommodationists.


He seemed hell bent on attacking religion later in his life. I think much of this stemmed from what he perceived to be the imminent threat of Islam. This somehow morphed into an all-out assault on Christianity as well. Interestingly enough, he was pro-life and felt it was inconsistent on the part of secular humanists to support abortion on demand. In his eyes, it made little sense for the human species to wantonly destroy its offspring for the sake of expediency.


I enjoyed his debate with William Lane Craig on the existence of God. He was thumped pretty bad by Craig (at one point Hitchens is blatantly stalling because Craig has him in a bad position), but it is still great listening to him speak. Very articulate and captivating as a speaker.

Here is a little clip from part of the debate.

[Truth Teller]

Then who are they? What ilk?

For starters ,the "Israel can do nothing right" crowd.

Read my post again.

I have ,and stand by my original conclusions.

What about settlements policy

I don't agree with the settlements,but how does that justify the terrorism of Palestinians?

and revisionist history/heritage industry

What does that mean?

I have produced quotes of Ben-Gurion wanting to share with the Arabs, and for doing so have been dismissed by many of your ilk as either a liar or a propagandist.

then? Oh wait, you’re too biased to even think of that, I remember now.

And you're too biased to objectively look at the other side of the story.

When I grew up people examined their own prejudices

Orignally ,I had pretty much the same viewpoint you had.

and didn’t lie about doing ‘research’, though.

Please produce proof that I didn't do reserach by reading all views on the issue ,and by talking to either Israelis or people who have visited Israel.

Please,inform me how I "lied"?

You’re calling me a sexist or someone willing to permit sexism, which is patently not true and is thus slander.

I've yet to hear you take any stand on any human rights violations in any ME nation except Israel.

I don't think Israel is a perfect nation,I also don't agree with all of their actions.

But,Israel is a much more humane than any other ME nation,especially to women and to sexual minorties.

Bill Maher was right when he said nothig good will come out of the ME until women and sexual minorties are treated humanely there and that will come about only after a sexual revolution.

1) Quote me being sexist.

I can't quote you on the subject pro or con because you've said nothing at all about it,which tells me it isn't a high priority for you,again,that's vastly different from the liberalsim I knew in the 1960s and 1970s.

That’s what I thought. You’re a hypocrite.

No,I said it fit Politcal Debate better than of the other threads,it didn't fully fit any of them.

As for Clinton, you’d have to be more specific about what rumours.

Hitchens often called Clinton a "rapist " when there's no proof whatsoever of that,just politicallly motivated heresay.

[lily]

A shame he died at a relatively young age. I truly enjoyed his rhetoric. It's hard to peg him as a "liberal", since his views constantly evolved throughout his life. Being a dedicated Marxist, he actually viewed Liberals as dangerous accommodationists.


He seemed hell bent on attacking religion later in his life. I think much of this stemmed from what he perceived to be the imminent threat of Islam. This somehow morphed into an all-out assault on Christianity as well. Interestingly enough, he was pro-life and felt it was inconsistent on the part of secular humanists to support abortion on demand. In his eyes, it made little sense for the human species to wantonly destroy its offspring for the sake of expediency.


I enjoyed his debate with William Lane Craig on the existence of God. He was thumped pretty bad by Craig (at one point Hitchens is blatantly stalling because Craig has him in a bad position), but it is still great listening to him speak. Very articulate and captivating as a speaker.

Here is a little clip from part of the debate.

^ Good clip, thanks for sharing that.

I'm sorry for not replying to a few posts. I was away from home for 5 days and didn't have much time online. I'm going to try to get back to a couple things that Archaix and GF said, once I'm done with some other stuff I have to do.

[lily]

You're right in that it does explain it, but it only does so in a cover-all-bases kind of way. We now know that humanity emerged from the Palaeolithic about 10,000 years ago and cared for animals, cared for sick members of their own societies and (much later) created the first cities like Ur and Uruk without the merest nod to the Abrahamic God. The Egyptian Empire existed independently for thousands of years until Greeks and the Romans took it over, and lived without reference to Him. They broke pretty much every commandment, yet only suffered punishment at the supposed advent of Moses -and that was for slavery of God's elect.

You could argue quite soundly that every one of these people got their punishment/correction in the afterlife, but it doesn't sound convincing to me that God shows up a million years into the development of one type of primate, to one select group of them to obey Him. Does that also mean that their ancestors are grandfathered into the system, and aren't sent to hell? Or are they sent to hell anyway, for not abiding by something they couldn't possibly know?

Our discussion got way off topic, but I wanted to give a quick reply. The people who lived before the days of Jesus or Moses were saved in the same way everyone else is - by grace, through faith... the difference, of course, is that they just didn't know God's name. How can they have faith in a God they never heard about? The bible addresses that in Romans 1:20 - which basically says that all people have some knowledge of God, just by observing creation itself. God knows our hearts, so even a person on some remote island somewhere who never heard the Gospel can still be reconciled to God in their heart.

There are, although I think the point still stands that humans are naturally (as in, through the course of evolution) animals that generally only choose one mate, are sociable and band together to form societies, and have a capacity to concieve of abstract things like shame, regret and grief. I think it's more likely that religion is an attempt to canalise/standardise human behaviour, rather than a deity being the instigator of it. For one thing, humans naturally develop religions, but independently never concieve of the same diety.

I think many people would disagree with your point that humans naturally choose one mate. I think a lot of men, if they could, would rather have numerous mates....so I don't know if I agree with you on that point. As for the other things you said, it may be true that human beings have realized it is for their own good to band together, and be sociable, etc. But if what you're implying is that human beings are naturally good, then I have to disagree. I would say that human beings are a combination of good and bad. The 'good' comes from our God-given conscience, and our capacity to love (since we are created in God's image, and God is love)... but humans also have that selfish side, the side that causes people to do things that are illegal or immoral, and all one has to do is look at the world around us to see that human beings in general are a very messed up bunch. Yes, there IS good. But there are also way too many people who ignore or disbelieve in natural law, which is that objective moral standard rooted in God, the lawgiver.

Btw, have you ever read the book, 'Mere Christianity' by C.S Lewis? If you haven't, I HIGHLY recommend it. I always tell people, don't let the name put you off, it is a very interesting book about what we were just talking about (and more.) Go check it out at a library if you don't want to buy it.

I agree that's interesting, but I think it's significant that these tribes rationalise killing into 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' acts; they've created their own moral code that still places a value on human life, even if that's different from our own. I think this strengthens my own argument, but you might disagree. As for the Chinese -I'm no expert on infantice incidents, but it's by no means the majority of people doing it, and it's more likely to be down to gigantic and awful social, economic and political pressure to do so -I doubt any of them feel 'good' for what they've done. I'm not justifying it, of course, but I do doubt that Chinese infanticide is purely because of a broken moral compass.

About the tribes- I don't think it's that they 'created their own moral code' - I think they simply were a bit off the mark. If they understand that murder is wrong, but they just don't consider killing disabled babies or children "murder", then they are still acknowledging the standard, they're just wrong about who is and isn't a valuable human being, worthy of life. That was not worded very well, but I hope I got my point across.

As for the Chinese, I don't know what goes on inside the heart of someone who is capable of infanticide, but I get the feeling that there is a numbness there... when people have hardened hearts, they are capable of just about anything. But I think I'm repeating myself here, so I'll stop rambling.

I don't think humans have the capacity for absolute moral relativism, though, and in my opinion tying yourself to something so obvious constructed like Christianity isn't going to help. You can either be afraid of absolute moral relativism or you can acknowledge that it was never really a threat in the first place.

I wasn't ever privy to those moral relativism threads and I doubt I can access them now because of the wipe a month back. Sorry if I'm re-hashing arguments put forward already,

I'm not sure what you mean by 'absolute moral relativism'? That sounds like an oxymoron, iyam. Did you mean complete moral relativism? If so, then I agree that human beings don't have the capacity for that, but probably for different reasons. I don't think human beings can live out complete moral relativism, because - unless one is a sociopath - most people intuitively know that some things are truly right, or truly wrong. Torturing and murdering your innocent, unarmed mother, for no reason, is wrong. Period. People like to say they believe in moral relativism, but I don't think they really do. And I think a lot of people haven't really thought it through. But again, we're WAY off topic here.

That's certainly true, but it's more or less a carrot & stick approach, isn't it? Not to mention the void of moral relativism that awaits if you let go.

But to be clear: if you're sure of your religion that's fine by me (in as much as you would care anyway if it wasn't). There's always a chance that the in-built tendency to be religious, which is prevalent in almost all human societies throughout history, is there for a reason. There's the slimmest chance the Bible's true. In as far as it makes people feel safe, and you don't indoctrinate/declare jihad on others, personal belief is acceptable to me. And that, by the way, is where Hitchens and I differ.

Good debating with you.

If by 'carrot and stick approach' you mean motivation by reward or punishment, then that's basically the same thing we talked about before. No, I don't agree that it's that... I don't think about a punishment or reward when I do certain things. As I said before, I obey God because I LOVE God, and because I know that God knows infinitely more than I do, and I have learned to trust God. So for me it's about love and trust, and a conscious choice, of my own volition, to surrender to God - not just because I will get a "reward" or a punishment if I do certain things. There's more to be said about this, but I'll leave it at that for now.

And good debating with you too. You kind of remind me of cellularsociety (who no longer posts here). He was smart yet humble and civil, which can be a rare thing on this site.

[Archaix]

For starters ,the "Israel can do nothing right" crowd.

I never said or implied that Israel can do nothing right -just that it largely doesn't want to. It wants the best for the Jews and everyone else can go hang -it's a nationalist state of the 19th and 20th centuries, not a 'modern state' at all. If anyone else tried it they'd be criticised the world over, but they're treated as a special case and an important ally against a fictional tide of Middle East terrorists.

I don't agree with the settlements,but how does that justify the terrorism of Palestinians?

Settlement policy doesn't justify terrorism, and I wouldn't ever argue that terrorism is justified anyway. But it does undermine the idea that Israel is serious about peace, and rightfully makes people angry. Like I said a while ago (to you!):

The Palestinians want their homeland. They shouldn’t kill for it, but on the other hand they shouldn’t have to kill for it. The Israelis shouldn’t be there in the first place, but they shouldn’t be made to leave now they’re there. That’s my attitude.

I want social progress in Palestinian communities, but that has no bearing on the fact that Palestinians have the right to live in their own country, and that Israelis aren’t special and shouldn’t be given special treatment to the detriment of others. Mind you, I think social progress probably would be easier if they lived in Israel

What does that [revisionist history and heritage industry] mean?

Are you kidding? I wrote about this two whole months ago in a debate you were supposedly 'involved' in. I'll repost it here because otherwise I doubt you'll read it at all otherwise.

Despite your [ganjafreebird's] irrelevant ‘biological’ connections to the land (as I say again, no one inherits land, and no land is racially tied to people), [Israeli heritage policy] at least deserves some attention.

The archaeology of Israel is in an appalling state. It’s poorly recorded, excavation teams are badly co-ordinated, and archaeologists regularly manipulate the data to promote their politics. In a recent article** by Andrew Patterson on the state of Islamic archaeology in Israeli universities, he found that on many sites “The upper levels of a site, often containing the remains of a destroyed Palestinian village, can even be removed without record to enable the researchers to get at the ‘real’ [Jewish] archaeology” (Patterson 2005, 859). He also makes the point that Arabic settlements without Jewish origin are usually omitted, citing specifically the ancient capital of Ramla (ibid, 863). Of course, the real aim is to promote Jewish history and legitimacy in the area, and reduce the Palestinian evidence, and thus Palestinian legitimacy. One prominent Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar explained her approach thus: “Quite naturally, every opportunity is taken to relate archaeological evidence to the biblical text” (cited in Bartlett 1997, 8***), and the Israeli (award-winning!) archaeologist Israel Finkelstein has “relied on an uncritical application of the biblical story to interpret his archaeological observations” (ibid, 9). Further to this, heritage sites in Israel have been particularly selective: “Selected periods of Israel's past have been presented to the public, while others have been largely ignored due either to lack of interest or to their political implications. The Islamic history of Israel, spanning a millennium, is seldom illustrated at archaeological sites.” (Killebrew 1999, 30****).

It’s that kind of bad, selective attitude that’s affected the so-called ‘Kingdom of David’ finds (if it’s even his kingdom, if he really existed, if he really existed and communicated with God, etc etc…). If it is that, the kingdom was much smaller than the bible suggests. And the evidence, I believe, consists of a number of sites that all show the sites of contemporaneous, ambitious renovations at several sites (including Jerusalem) at a particular point in time. Of course, Mazat jumped straight to convenient assumptions:

Originally Posted by Mazat
"A comparison of this latest finding with city walls and gates from the period of the First Temple, as well as pottery found at the site, enable us to postulate with a great degree of assurance that the wall that has been revealed is that which was built by King Solomon in Jerusalem in the latter part of the tenth century B.C.E."

So that’s the state of your archaeology, right off the bat –not even a patch on proper Western archaeological practice. Working with the evidence like this in any American or British university or field team would be enough to get you laughed out of the profession.

Then again, I don’t know why I’m expecting a racist such as yourself to change your mind.

...** Full reference Harvard-style is Patterson, A (2005) ‘Politics and narratives: Islamic
archaeology in Israel’ Antiquity 79, 858-864.
*** Full reference Harvard-style is Bartlett, JR (1997) ‘What Has Archaeology to do with The Bible –or Vice Versa?’ in JR Bartlett (ed) Biblical Archaeology and Interpretation, 1-19. London: Routledge.
**** Full reference Harvard-style is AE Killebrew (1999) ‘From Canaanites to Crusaders: the presentation of archaeological sites in Israel’ Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 3: 1-2: 17-32.

Oh, and by the way -that's what actual research looks like.

I have produced quotes of Ben-Gurion wanting to share with the Arabs, and for doing so have been dismissed by many of your ilk as either a liar or a propagandist.

Wanting to share stolen property with the owners is not sharing, you complete fool.

Please produce proof that I didn't do reserach by reading all views on the issue ,and by talking to either Israelis or people who have visited Israel.

Please,inform me how I "lied"?

You claim to have done research and have shown no evidence have ever having done so, or being capable of performing it to any meaningful standard?

I've yet to hear you take any stand on any human rights violations in any ME nation except Israel.

I'm not obliged to, and in any case that doesn't mean I support human rights violations, you utter tool.

I don't think Israel is a perfect nation,I also don't agree with all of their actions...But,Israel is a much more humane than any other ME nation,especially to women and to sexual minorties.

So? That isn't part of the issue either!

Bill Maher was right when he said nothig good will come out of the ME until women and sexual minorties are treated humanely there and that will come about only after a sexual revolution.

Then stop fuelling reactionaries and extremists by allowing Palestinians to settle properly and make their way in the world like other people. The western sexual revolution happened between and after wars, not in the middle of them.

Hitchens often called Clinton a "rapist " when there's no proof whatsoever of that,just politicallly motivated heresay.

Can I have that it his words, and sourced? Sorry, but I've learned to distrust what you say.

[Šñøü†ê®]

I never said or implied that Israel can do nothing right -just that it largely doesn't want to. It wants the best for the Jews and everyone else can go hang -it's a nationalist state of the 19th and 20th centuries, not a 'modern state' at all. If anyone else tried it they'd be criticised the world over, but they're treated as a special case and an important ally against a fictional tide of Middle East terrorists.

Exactly! Get ready to be smeared by Teller and his ilk for stating the obvious though!

[Archaix]

How can they have faith in a God they never heard about? The bible addresses that in Romans 1:20 - which basically says that all people have some knowledge of God, just by observing creation itself. God knows our hearts, so even a person on some remote island somewhere who never heard the Gospel can still be reconciled to God in their heart.

That's true. What Romans goes on to say is that because everyone apparently has knowledge of God "they are without excuse", implying that these people are not just not-ignorant, but punishable in the afterlife. This doesn't sound true or sensible to me.

I think many people would disagree with your point that humans naturally choose one mate. I think a lot of men, if they could, would rather have numerous mates....so I don't know if I agree with you on that point.

Most-to-all societies across the world and across history have been monogamous, in the sense that most humans choose one partner to be with (even if they're not faithful). Marrying more than one spouse, when it does happen in history, is a right reserved by powerful people [invariably men], proving in the distinction that this is the norm for 'normal people'. As I believe religions are man-made, I think the fact that the most popular and enduring religions are monogamous shows that that's what appeals to people; religions need to appeal to what people want in order to survive, after all.

As for the other things you said, it may be true that human beings have realized it is for their own good to band together, and be sociable, etc. But if what you're implying is that human beings are naturally good, then I have to disagree. I would say that human beings are a combination of good and bad. The 'good' comes from our God-given conscience, and our capacity to love (since we are created in God's image, and God is love)... but humans also have that selfish side, the side that causes people to do things that are illegal or immoral, and all one has to do is look at the world around us to see that human beings in general are a very messed up bunch. Yes, there IS good. But there are also way too many people who ignore or disbelieve in natural law, which is that objective moral standard rooted in God, the lawgiver.

I'm not arguing that people are inherently 'good', because I don't accept the dichotomy between 'good' and 'bad' behaviour. People are naturally sociable and exist in societies, and any attempt to erode this tendency (e.g., through excessively encouraging selfishness or destroying communities) will cause serious psychological problems, and all the problems that fall off the back of that. Similarly, people are naturally violent (not merely 'bad'), and we should recognise that impulse too if we're to contain it.

Btw, have you ever read the book, 'Mere Christianity' by C.S Lewis? If you haven't, I HIGHLY recommend it. I always tell people, don't let the name put you off, it is a very interesting book about what we were just talking about (and more.) Go check it out at a library if you don't want to buy it.

Thanks, I will. I have a bit of a problem with Lewis' Christianity but I've never read anything by him specifically discussing it. It might take a while for me to get round to it though while I pull myself out of a mountain of Christmas books. I'll make a thread of it in Literature when I have, and we'll discuss it then.

If they [the child-murdering tribes] understand that murder is wrong, but they just don't consider killing disabled babies or children "murder", then they are still acknowledging the standard, they're just wrong about who is and isn't a valuable human being, worthy of life. That was not worded very well, but I hope I got my point across.

I think they do, but they don't concieve of murder in the same way as you and I. In the same way that people disagree on what is and what is not life in abortion debates, really -neither side is really wrong or right, it's a perception of what 'life' is. I personally think it's significant that we have no human societies that kill blindly, without rules.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'absolute moral relativism'? That sounds like an oxymoron, iyam. Did you mean complete moral relativism?...People like to say they believe in moral relativism, but I don't think they really do. And I think a lot of people haven't really thought it through. But again, we're WAY off topic here.

Well, I believe that morals can be relative and cannot be universal. The world might agree that there should be no murder, but will never agree on get-out clauses. I don't believe people cannot be absolutely (or completely) morally relativist, however, because everyone settles on something unless -like you said- they're a sociopath.

No, I don't agree that it's that... I don't think about a punishment or reward when I do certain things. As I said before, I obey God because I LOVE God, and because I know that God knows infinitely more than I do, and I have learned to trust God. So for me it's about love and trust, and a conscious choice, of my own volition, to surrender to God - not just because I will get a "reward" or a punishment if I do certain things. There's more to be said about this, but I'll leave it at that for now.

I don't doubt that you do, but you don't think there is any alternative (unless I have your position all wrong). The 'stick' is only possible if you do not love, or at the very least the threat of futility if it's all wrong.

And good debating with you too. You kind of remind me of cellularsociety (who no longer posts here). He was smart yet humble and civil, which can be a rare thing on this site.

Thanks, I appreciate that. A common complaint about this forum is that it's politically polarised, but I think that the main problem is that there's no trust or decency between those who're (broadly) on the right and (broadly) on the left. We'll lead by example, I'm sure...

[Truth Teller]

I never said or implied that Israel can do nothing right -just that it largely doesn't want to.

Wow,what a difference .

It wants the best for the Jews

Can anyone blame them?

but they're treated as a special case and an important ally against a fictional tide of Middle East terrorists.

What is "fictional" about ME terrorism?

I wouldn't ever argue that terrorism is justified anyway.

You're sure insinuating it.

But it does undermine the idea that Israel is serious about peace

And I would argue that choosing Hamas as their representive undermines the idea that the Palestinians want peace.

And it's not only me making that argument,Mona Eltahawy said the same thing and she does favor a Palestinian state and does have sympathy for the Palestinians.

and rightfully makes people angry.

And Palestinians choosing Hamas(and firing rockets into Israel) rightfully makes people in Israel angry.

Oh, and by the way -that's what actual research looks like.

Yeah ,fuck reading books written from all viewpoints and talking to people who have actually been there and seen it firsthand.

Wanting to share stolen property with the owners is not sharing, you complete fool.

Isn't it hypocritical for you to claim to be a "socialist" while being opposed to sharing with "the Jews"?

You claim to have done research and have shown no evidence have ever having done so, or being capable of performing it to any meaningful standard?

GUIDO RETURNS INCOGNITO ALERT!

[Archaix]

Wow,what a difference

We're talking about a country founded on outright, calculated theft and ethnic supremacy, which (in the eyes of some zionists, including Ganja) cannot be defined as 'Israel' if another race/ethnicity lives in any great numbers in it. That's wrong, no matter how much you moan that the people they've stolen it from were no good (and that's both subjective and a generalisation). If you can't see that, you're no worse than the people that stole it in the first place, and those people were horrible racists and nationalists.

On the other hand, the people that live in Israel to day are not their parents and grandparents, and perhaps live on land which they did not steal but was nontheless stolen. I've never said they should give it back, because the crime was not theirs and people whose land it was are likely dead. But there should be some deeper acknowledgement of this, and the criminality of it, that does not come across from Israel. If we stamped out all the Bible-heritage bullshit, and racist polities that divide Palestinian and Jew, Israel would do good for once.

Can anyone blame them?

You (deliberately?) miss the point: much of that land once belonged to someone else. The country that occupies Palestine owes something to the people it forced to leave, and the people now marginalised within it's borders.

What is "fictional" about ME terrorism?

I didn't say that. I said that the perception of a 'tide' of Middle Eastern terrorists occupying the surrounding area is 'fictional'. Surely you're not this stupid/mendacious?

You're sure insinuating it.

Another lie. We should start keeping track of them.

And I would argue that choosing Hamas as their representive undermines the idea that the Palestinians want peace.

Again, another symptom caused by Israel's xenophobic policies.

Yeah ,fuck reading books written from all viewpoints and talking to people who have actually been there and seen it firsthand.

I won't class this as a lie, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. For one thing, I don't think you know what a book is (especially not if you've tried to "fuck" it). Only a simpleton could take one side so willingly.

Isn't it hypocritical for you to claim to be a "socialist" while being opposed to sharing with "the Jews"?

No, it isn't. And I ask you again: how is Israel socialist?

GUIDO RETURNS INCOGNITO ALERT!

Whoops, another lie.

[Cyclone Ranger]

You're confusing it with all the other countries in the Mideast, which actually are based on ethnic supremacism. Israel, on the other hand, is the only nation in the entire region that legally enforces equal rights for all its citizens.

Nor is it based in any way on calculated theft, particularly since it's always given back land to any neighbor that makes a just peace with it; ie, the Sinai, Gaza, etc.

[Archaix]

You're confusing it with all the other countries in the Mideast, which actually are based on ethnic supremacism.

Really? All of them? What about Qatar? The UAE? Oman?

Perhaps you refer to Israel's immediate neighbours, like Syria, whose government has for decades exploited Palestinians and their cause to legitimise brutality at home (those refugees are now speaking against the government). Or maybe you're referring to Jordan, which recently stripped nearly 3,000 Palestinians of Jordanian nationality -but hey, citizenship doesn't mean much. It's not as though without it anything bad can happen:

Without nationality, individuals and families find it difficult to exercise their citizenship rights, including obtaining health care; finding work; owning property; traveling; and sending their children to public schools and universities.

Or perhaps you mean the torture-practicing, child-labour using country of Lebanon, which forces Palestinians to live in:

overcrowded and often squalid conditions in 12 official refugee camps. Nearly 422,000 registered Palestinian refugees faced discriminatory laws and regulations, denying them the right to inherit property, work in around 20 professions and other basic rights

But if Israel hadn't expelled them or made their them vulnerable to their old Arab enemies...

Israel, on the other hand, is the only nation in the entire region that legally enforces equal rights for all its citizens.

I disagree. And don't just take my word for it -take the word of international law expert, global and international studies expert and former UN rapporteur for Palestinian human rights Richard Falk on the matter:

The list of discriminatory laws [in Israel], the dual administration of settlements and Palestinians, the checkpoint treatment of Palestinians, the settler only roads, the non-protection of Palestinians living under occupation, the midnight abusive arrests of children certainly suggest a pattern of inhuman acts even to an uninformed mind!...The RToP [Russell Tribunal on Palestine] divides its rationale for finding guilty of committing the crime of apartheid into three main parts: (1) race as defining identity in Israel/Palestine relations (tribunal agrees that race in the international definition of the crime should be interpreted broadly to include ethnic and national character); (2) inhuman acts (specified in relation to Israeli treatment of Palestinians, as integral to the crime, particularly "colonisation and appropriation of Palestinian land" and coercive fragmentation of the Palestinian community in "different physical spaces"; (3) a systematic and institutionalised regime as pervading the subjugation of the Palestinian people (preferential treatment of Jews, dual legal arrangements, restrictions on residence and mobility, deportations and house demolitions are elements in what the tribunal calls "Israel's institutionalised regime of domination".

Nor is it based in any way on calculated theft, particularly since it's always given back land to any neighbor that makes a just peace with it; ie, the Sinai, Gaza, etc.

I see, so Israel gives land back to nations that hate Palestinians and continues to dismiss people in it's own territory where it wants nice new Jews-only zones. Got it. No theft there.

[Guido]

I didn't say that. I said that the perception of a 'tide' of Middle Eastern terrorists occupying the surrounding area is 'fictional'. Surely you're not this stupid/mendacious?

As a matter of fact, he really is that stupid/mendacious -- that and a lot more, as you'll quickly find out if you continue to try to have an intelligent conversation with him.

[Truth Teller]

So? That isn't part of the issue either!

You wouldn't say that if you were either a woman or a sexual(or religious) minority in any of those countries.

Then stop fuelling reactionaries and extremists by allowing Palestinians to settle properly and make their way in the world like other people.

Then Palestinians should stop teaching hatred against Jews in their schools and stop joining groups like Hamas (which does nothing but increase Israeli resolve) and agree to reasonable safeguards the Israelis want.

The western sexual revolution happened between and after wars, not in the middle of them.

One could say that in the US the sexual revolution began with the prohibtion era and gradually increased bit by bit up to the 1960s.

And that was during two wars,and as I remember there was a war in the 1960s too(remember "make love ,not war"?).

But you're missing Maher's real point.

Two nights ago, I was talking about the outgoing year with a friend who is an academian ,and Lara Logan came up.

I told my freind that Logan says pro-Mubarak people attacked her to discredit the revolution (and from the start evidence has pointed to that).

My friend said he has no doubt that indeed was the motivation behind the attack ,but for them to attack her (and other women) that way shows that Egypt really has a culture that degrades women.


And that any culture that he has ever known of that degrades women like that, is a culture that is sexually represseed.

When my friend said that,I thought of what Bill Maher said that no revolution will ever be sucessfull without a sexual revolution to go along with it and realized that Maher is right (again).

Look at the United States ,in the US we saw empowerment amongst all minorities only when there was a sexual revoution happening alongside it.

Can I have that it his words, and sourced? Sorry, but I've learned to distrust what you say.

If you mean Maher, here goes:

http://www.zeropartypolitics.com/201...an-sexual.html


And I'll add that I don't agree with Maher on everything he says there either.

Maher shouldn't have said "Muslim men" ,it is against Islam for a man to touch another man's wife(Logan is married) ,so those sorry excuses for men who attacked her were not real Muslims by any means.

I'm as against religious bigotry as I am any other kind of bigotry,as I always say to jwreck (for one) the issue in the ME is not religion,it is a issue of culture.

And Israel is almost the only nation in that region that shares of the cultural values of the West ,especially in regards to women and (for lack of a better term) sexual liberation.

Anyway,Maher's overall point about culture (and how a sexual revolution affects cutlure for the better) is indeed correct.

[Truth Teller]

We're talking about a country founded on outright, calculated theft and ethnic supremacy, which (in the eyes of some zionists, including Ganja) cannot be defined as 'Israel' if another race/ethnicity lives in any great numbers in it. That's wrong, no matter how much you moan that the people they've stolen it from were no good (and that's both subjective and a generalisation). If you can't see that, you're no worse than the people that stole it in the first place, and those people were horrible racists and nationalists.

On the other hand, the people that live in Israel to day are not their parents and grandparents, and perhaps live on land which they did not steal but was nontheless stolen. I've never said they should give it back, because the crime was not theirs and people whose land it was are likely dead. But there should be some deeper acknowledgement of this, and the criminality of it, that does not come across from Israel. If we stamped out all the Bible-heritage bullshit, and racist polities that divide Palestinian and Jew, Israel would do good for once.

How about Israel gives Gaza to the Palestinians ,in return Palestinians agree to safegaurds that insure Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

You (deliberately?) miss the point: much of that land once belonged to someone else.

Namely the UK,they gave it up after WWII.

Again, another symptom caused by Israel's xenophobic policies.

Yeah ,it's all Israel's fault.

For one thing, I don't think you know what a book is (especially not if you've tried to "fuck" it).

Only a simpleton could take one side so willingly.

Am I the only one who sees irony here^?

No, it isn't. And I ask you again: how is Israel socialist?

I would say a Kibbutz is as socialist as anything else in this world is.

[optimus]

Lots of use of the word "ilk" in this thread.

[Archaix]

You wouldn't say that if you were either a woman or a sexual(or religious) minority in any of those countries.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot you are the white knight of all women everywhere, and know the opinions of thousands of people you've never met. That's right, you go ahead and put words into their mouths -like so many men haven't exploited them already. 1 lie point to the hypocrite.

Then Palestinians should stop teaching hatred against Jews in their schools and stop joining groups like Hamas (which does nothing but increase Israeli resolve) and agree to reasonable safeguards the Israelis want.

Another sweeping generalisation, a disregard for the reasons people join Hamas, another failure in your life to say anything meaningful. It's almost tragic.

One could say that in the US the sexual revolution began with the prohibtion era and gradually increased bit by bit up to the 1960s...And that was during two wars,and as I remember there was a war in the 1960s too(remember "make love ,not war"?).

I disagree. There was sexual revolution in the UK, which avoided war. And, in any case, sexual revolution cannot really happen if there isn't a proper government in place to constitutionalise civil rights and enforce their protection. Also, the sexual revolution in the west came during times of economic prosperity and increasingly affluent societies -two attributes you could not ascribe to the fractured Palestinian areas, which languishes in an environment that encourages ignorance, extremism and criminality.

Yet you'll overlook all of this because, unlike any sensible left-winger who believes environment affects society, you take the contrary view and think they're racist, sexist conservatives who have put themselves in such a position and need to be kept so.

In short, you're a reactionary. And not a very good one.

Egypt really has a culture that degrades women.

What the fuck? We're not talking about Egypt, but Palestine/Israel. Or are you bringing it up because you think all "brown people are the same" or something?

If you mean Maher, here goes

No, I don't. I meant the quotes about Hitchens, of course.

And Israel is almost the only nation in that region that shares of the cultural values of the West ,especially in regards to women and (for lack of a better term) sexual liberation.

Which is precisely why they're in the news this week, then.

So, you are that wilfully ignorant. I bet your 'research' also suffered from this selectivity. Oh wait, you didn't do any!

How about Israel gives Gaza to the Palestinians ,in return Palestinians agree to safegaurds that insure Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

...because that's a sucky deal for anyone with any brain or moral stance whatsoever?

Namely the UK,they gave it up after WWII.

It was a mandate granted after a former power (Turkey) occupied the land. Britain messed up and caved into zionist terrorism, which quickly brutalised...wait for it!...all the Palestinian people they could find!. That was a nice, Old Testament touch.

Yeah ,it's all Israel's fault.

Israel caused it, but the fault of terrorism is the terrorist. I've already explained this to you, so you already know this is my position. 1 more lie point.

Am I the only one who sees irony here^?

Yeah, because you're a moron.

I would say a Kibbutz is as socialist as anything else in this world is.

What, a commune of one race is socialist? You can leave it, along with your blessed racist, illegal state. That isn't socialism -that's fascism.

[Archaix]

Lots of use of the word "ilk" in this thread.

Oh yeah, I have an ilk now. We're thinking of touring the States, maybe release a few singles...