I dont think fundanutalism has made a blimp (or for that matter a boom ) in Canada.....
I actually really admire how the Canadian Muslim community has (for the most part) tried to combat extremism by preaching tolerance ... This place could be a good model for other countries.
I actually really admire how the Canadian Muslim community has (for the most part) tried to combat extremism by preaching tolerance ... This place could be a good model for other countries.
I think the further and longer west they live, the more they believe the misinformation about their own people.
I really don't see extremism, with the exception of the word used for it, as a bigger problem for Muslims than any other group.
I think the further and longer west they live, the more they believe the misinformation about their own people.
I really don't see extremism, with the exception of the word used for it, as a bigger problem for Muslims than any other group.
What misinformation? That killing people with bombs is wrong? That violent expansion of one's religious ideology is wrong? That diversity of views is a good thing? There are factions of Islam that believe in violence as a way to spread their ideology, whether you want to deny it or not. I am kind of disgusted that you missed my point .... ALL people are capable of respecting their fellow man's differences. The fact that both Muslims and Christians can together decry violent ideologies is a source of hope for me.
Yeah, I think including the Western countries on that list was a bit of a stretch ... We haven't been overrun just yet.
Well, artistic lisc please -- was a great effect, no? But "invade for expansionism" might be an army rolling in, or mass immigration as a voting block. I recall the muslim community had effectively blocked Netanyahu from speaking a few years back -- but you're right, all those folks arrested back in June was it -- that's right, they couldn't find any point of similarity....
And I think that's a really cool thing, come one come all, move on in, vote together, try and change our policies and priorites, it's your right to immigrate to western countries and try and make a difference.
Can the same be said... well then, bring on the carrot and the stick!
And yeah, they haven't "won" yet, but their design is plain to see, no?
But ok, I'll give you Canada -- you can't have US, UK, France, Denmark, Spain, Sweden -- violence alive and kickin there!
1.He's in Israel in person. He's not visted Lebanon 'in person'.
2. I'm not saying he must be blind to the situation 'because he see's things differently' than me. I'm saying he appears to be blind to the wider picture because he has done nothing but speak to Israeli officials in Israel.
3. I don't know much about Bernard Henry Levy other than from his t.v series on the history of ideas in the 20th century, which I still have on tape somewhere. I approached the article with few preconceived ideas about him. Basically, I couldn't give a fuck about him. I read the article and the conclusion I have come to is that he's a bit of a prick. The article is totally one-sided and overly sentimental. I've read more incisive opinions here on this message board. As I said above, surprising from someone with such supposed pedigree.
This guy really is a prize cock. Anybody who can write such drivel and call himself a serious philosopher really is a fucking joke. I'm surprised that he didn't just take out Shimon Peres' cock and put it in his mouth. He must surely have been dying to. I'll certainly give it to you Dayan, you have a great ability of digging up some quality shit from the internet.
I didn't dig anything up. It was in the NY Times, or don't you read the most widely circulated and influential paper in America? The fact that he isn't in Lebanon doesn't mean that what he has to say about Israel is invalid. I'm sure if he was in Lebanon he'd paint a moving picture of that country as well. The point is that your view of Israel is one-sided (and mostly wrong). As for his desires with regard to Shimon Peres, I had a teacher once who was called gay in front of the entire school. Besides the fact that it is bigoted and disgusting to use homosexuality as an insult, he noted that often those that do so are often unsure about their exactly where they stand. You might want to clear that up and stop using "gay" as a dirty word.
I didn't dig anything up. It was in the NY Times, or don't you read the most widely circulated and influential paper in America? The fact that he isn't in Lebanon doesn't mean that what he has to say about Israel is invalid. I'm sure if he was in Lebanon he'd paint a moving picture of that country as well. The point is that your view of Israel is one-sided (and mostly wrong). As for his desires with regard to Shimon Peres, I had a teacher once who was called gay in front of the entire school. Besides the fact that it is bigoted and disgusting to use homosexuality as an insult, he noted that often those that do so are often unsure about their exactly where they stand. You might want to clear that up and stop using "gay" as a dirty word.
Chomsky doesn't live in Israel nor in Lebanon, but Byrnzie doesn't think for a sec his thoughts and point of views are invalid. Hmmm... I wonder why
Chomsky doesn't live in Israel nor in Lebanon, but Byrnzie doesn't think for a sec his thoughts and point of views are invalid. Hmmm... I wonder why
Because Byrnzie will swallow whole any opinion that conforms to his own world view and reject all others out of hand. Chomsky, by the way, aside from having no first hand knowledge, is a brilliant linguist and has absolutely no expertise in politics, and yet since the sixties people on the far left have been taking him seriously because he says what he wants to hear regardless of how unfounded and ridiculous it may be. (And anyone who calls themselves a true liberal should be ashamed to use him as a reference. This is a man that said that the Cambodian genocide was just run of the mill revolutionary violence. I wonder if he would have said the same thing if the revolutionaries hadn't been on the left?)
I didn't dig anything up. It was in the NY Times, or don't you read the most widely circulated and influential paper in America? The fact that he isn't in Lebanon doesn't mean that what he has to say about Israel is invalid. I'm sure if he was in Lebanon he'd paint a moving picture of that country as well. The point is that your view of Israel is one-sided (and mostly wrong). As for his desires with regard to Shimon Peres, I had a teacher once who was called gay in front of the entire school. Besides the fact that it is bigoted and disgusting to use homosexuality as an insult, he noted that often those that do so are often unsure about their exactly where they stand. You might want to clear that up and stop using "gay" as a dirty word.
I didn't say that what he has to say is invalid. I said that what he had to say was a crock of shit. As for accusing him of being gay, I didn't. I said that his description of Shimon Perez made it sound like he wanted to take his cock into his mouth. He might prefer to fuck animals for all I care.
Chomsky doesn't live in Israel nor in Lebanon, but Byrnzie doesn't think for a sec his thoughts and point of views are invalid. Hmmm... I wonder why
That's right. Because I base my opinions about particular articles on the contents of those particular articles. The article posted above was a completely bigoted, and one sided joke.
Because Byrnzie will swallow whole any opinion that conforms to his own world view and reject all others out of hand. Chomsky, by the way, aside from having no first hand knowledge, is a brilliant linguist and has absolutely no expertise in politics, and yet since the sixties people on the far left have been taking him seriously because he says what he wants to hear regardless of how unfounded and ridiculous it may be. (And anyone who calls themselves a true liberal should be ashamed to use him as a reference. This is a man that said that the Cambodian genocide was just run of the mill revolutionary violence. I wonder if he would have said the same thing if the revolutionaries hadn't been on the left?)
Unlike yourself, right? The desperation of both you and Shiraz on this board has been laughable. You present articles from such renowned websites as 'Confederate Yankee', and an article attacking Chomsky which was withdrawn by the editor of the paper in which it was initially printed because it was proven to be a fabrication. You two really are desperate to sell your pro Israeli government spiel to everyone on this board that you'll sink to any depths to achieve this. Having failed to present a vaild criticism of Chomsky, despite prolonged effort, you then resort to stating that "This is a man that said that the Cambodian genocide was just run of the mill revolutionary violence." Again, another lie. I'm afraid that you both became incredibly boring a few weeks back. As I mentioned a week or two ago, lies, fabrication and personal insults about board members - as opposed to reference to facts - is very tedious.
The world's greatest empires progress through this sequence:From bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; courage to liberty;liberty to abundance;abundance to selfishness; selfishness to complacency;complacency to apathy;apathy to dependence;dependency back again into bondage
Because Byrnzie will swallow whole any opinion that conforms to his own world view and reject all others out of hand. Chomsky, by the way, aside from having no first hand knowledge, is a brilliant linguist and has absolutely no expertise in politics, and yet since the sixties people on the far left have been taking him seriously because he says what he wants to hear regardless of how unfounded and ridiculous it may be.
Oh, and as for Chomsky having no first hand knowledge. Try learning something about Chomsky. If you do then you'll notice that he has travelled extensively throughout the world over the past 40 years whilst commenting on U.S foreign policy. You say that he has no expertise in politics? Please give me an example of a political commentator that you respect who does have expertise in politics. And then explain to me how you define this 'expertise'.
You then state that what Chomsky has to say has been unfounded and ridiculous? Please provide an example. A valid example this time, if you can. And if you can manage to source your example from something other then 'The Anti-Chomsky reader' I'll be impressed.
I didn't say that what he has to say is invalid. I said that what he had to say was a crock of shit. As for accusing him of being gay, I didn't. I said that his description of Shimon Perez made it sound like he wanted to take his cock into his mouth. He might prefer to fuck animals for all I care.
That's right. Because I base my opinions about particular articles on the contents of those particular articles. The article posted above was a completely bigoted, and one sided joke.
Bigoted in what way? Because it had something good to say about Israel? The only bigot I see around here is the guy throwing around homophobic hate, and that would be you.
Unlike yourself, right? The desperation of both you and Shiraz on this board has been laughable. You present articles from such renowned websites as 'Confederate Yankee', and an article attacking Chomsky which was withdrawn by the editor of the paper in which it was initially printed because it was proven to be a fabrication. You two really are desperate to sell your pro Israeli government spiel to everyone on this board that you'll sink to any depths to achieve this. Having failed to present a vaild criticism of Chomsky, despite prolonged effort, you then resort to stating that "This is a man that said that the Cambodian genocide was just run of the mill revolutionary violence." Again, another lie. I'm afraid that you both became incredibly boring a few weeks back. As I mentioned a week or two ago, lies, fabrication and personal insults about board members - as opposed to reference to facts - is very tedious.
It's kinda funny how you do everything you accuse us of doing in this very post. I have never presented an article from Confederate Yankee, nor did I present even one article on Chomsky. You might try not accusing people of things they haven't done before you start talking about our "lies." As for Chomsky's comments on Cambodia, he absolutely did make them and you either don't know that (which is forgivable) or you do know that but choose to ignore it because it's convenient for you (unforgivable).
It's kinda funny how you do everything you accuse us of doing in this very post. I have never presented an article from Confederate Yankee, nor did I present even one article on Chomsky. You might try not accusing people of things they haven't done before you start talking about our "lies." As for Chomsky's comments on Cambodia, he absolutely did make them and you either don't know that (which is forgivable) or you do know that but choose to ignore it because it's convenient for you (unforgivable).
Please provide an example of where Chomsky stated that 'the Cambodian genocide was just run of the mill revolutionary violence'.
I have never presented an article from Confederate Yankee, nor did I present even one article on Chomsky.
You supported the statements made in the article from 'Confederate Yankee' regarding the alledged fabrication of the massacre at Quana in Lebanon, and you supported the comments in favour of the article from the Guardian which was critical of Chomsky, and which was proven to be full of misrepresentations and fabrications. If you want me to I'll go to the trouble of providing evidence.
You supported the statements made in the article from 'Confederate Yankee' regarding the alledged fabrication of the massacre at Quana in Lebanon, and you supported the comments in favour of the article from the Guardian which was critical of Chomsky, and which was proven to be full of misrepresentations and fabrications. If you want me to I'll go to the trouble of providing evidence.
Find what I actually said and then I'll respond. Until you do that I'll disinclined to waste more time on you.
Bigoted in what way? Because it had something good to say about Israel? The only bigot I see around here is the guy throwing around homophobic hate, and that would be you.
This is just one excerpt of what the article has to say about Israel. The whole article reads in pretty much the same way. Simply put, it says little about Israel. It merely describes his experiences in Israel, and Israeli government officials and military men in a tedious, overly descriptive, and adulatory manner, bordering on sycophancy:
"Up north again, near the Lebanese border, I travel from Avivim to Manara, where the Israelis have set up, in a crater 200 yards in diameter, an artillery field where two enormous batteries mounted on caterpillar treads bombard the command post and rocket launchers and arsenals in Marun al-Ras on the other side of the border. Three things here strike me. First, the extreme youth of the artillerymen: they are 20 years old, maybe 18. I notice their stunned look at each discharge, as if every time were the first time; their childlike teasing when their comrade hasn’t had time to block his ears and the detonation deafens him; and then at the same time their serious, earnest side, the sobriety of people who know they’re participating in an immense drama that surpasses them — and know, too, they may soon pay a steep price in blood and life. Second, I note the relaxed — I was about to say unrestrained and even carefree — aspect of the little troop. It reminds me of reading about the joyful scramble of those battalions of young republicans in Spain described, once again, by Malraux: an army that is more friendly than it is martial; more democratic than self-assured and dominating; an army that, here, in any case, in Manara, seems to me the exact opposite of those battalions of brutes or unprincipled pitiless terminators that are so often described in media portraits of Israel."
I'm tired of this. If you want to inform yourself on some of Chomsky's less favorable positions you should go ahead and do so, but I'm not going to serve it up for you to simply reject out of hand as you have everything else that doesn't serve your point of view. Peace.
Find what I actually said and then I'll respond. Until you do that I'll disinclined to waste more time on you.
O.k. I apologise again. I keep getting you mixed up with Jsand, Shiraz, and Puck78. You didn't post articles from the above websites. I retract that part of my statement above. However, I noticed that regarding the article from 'Confederate Yankee' regarding the alledged staging of the massacre at Quana, you posted in defence of the article on that particular thread.
I'm tired of this. If you want to inform yourself on some of Chomsky's less favorable positions you should go ahead and do so, but I'm not going to serve it up for you to simply reject out of hand as you have everything else that doesn't serve your point of view. Peace.
Fine. If your not prepared to quote Chomsky then quit making comments about him and putting words in his mouth which he never spoke. Provide sources and quotations when referring to his statements.
O.k. I apologise again. I keep getting you mixed up with Jsand, Shiraz, and Puck78. You didn't post articles from the above websites. I retract that part of my statement above. However, I noticed that regarding the article from 'Confederate Yankee' regarding the alledged staging of the massacre at Quana, you posted in defence of the article on that particular thread.
And I've noticed that we now have video evidence that scenes were staged at Qana for the benifit of the press. I'm not saying that innocent people didn't die there. I'm saying that Hezbollah is fucking cynical and sick in how it exploits those deaths, and I would hope that you can at least agree on that.
This is just one excerpt of what the article has to say about Israel. The whole article reads in pretty much the same way. Simply put, it says little about Israel. It merely describes his experiences in Israel, and Israeli government officials and military men in a tedious, overly descriptive, and adulatory manner, bordering on sycophancy:
"Up north again, near the Lebanese border, I travel from Avivim to Manara, where the Israelis have set up, in a crater 200 yards in diameter, an artillery field where two enormous batteries mounted on caterpillar treads bombard the command post and rocket launchers and arsenals in Marun al-Ras on the other side of the border. Three things here strike me. First, the extreme youth of the artillerymen: they are 20 years old, maybe 18. I notice their stunned look at each discharge, as if every time were the first time; their childlike teasing when their comrade hasn’t had time to block his ears and the detonation deafens him; and then at the same time their serious, earnest side, the sobriety of people who know they’re participating in an immense drama that surpasses them — and know, too, they may soon pay a steep price in blood and life. Second, I note the relaxed — I was about to say unrestrained and even carefree — aspect of the little troop. It reminds me of reading about the joyful scramble of those battalions of young republicans in Spain described, once again, by Malraux: an army that is more friendly than it is martial; more democratic than self-assured and dominating; an army that, here, in any case, in Manara, seems to me the exact opposite of those battalions of brutes or unprincipled pitiless terminators that are so often described in media portraits of Israel."
I actually think this quote is very important. From what people like you say about Israel one gets the impression that you really do think of the IDF as "battalions of brutes or unprincipled pitiless terminators." This is a different and I would say correct, perspective. I have many friends currently serving in the IDF both in the active service and the reserves, and they are all sweet and kind and gentle people who fight because they feel they must in order to defend their homes and families.
Comments
I dont think fundanutalism has made a blimp (or for that matter a boom
I actually really admire how the Canadian Muslim community has (for the most part) tried to combat extremism by preaching tolerance ... This place could be a good model for other countries.
I think the further and longer west they live, the more they believe the misinformation about their own people.
I really don't see extremism, with the exception of the word used for it, as a bigger problem for Muslims than any other group.
What misinformation? That killing people with bombs is wrong? That violent expansion of one's religious ideology is wrong? That diversity of views is a good thing? There are factions of Islam that believe in violence as a way to spread their ideology, whether you want to deny it or not. I am kind of disgusted that you missed my point .... ALL people are capable of respecting their fellow man's differences. The fact that both Muslims and Christians can together decry violent ideologies is a source of hope for me.
Well, artistic lisc please -- was a great effect, no? But "invade for expansionism" might be an army rolling in, or mass immigration as a voting block. I recall the muslim community had effectively blocked Netanyahu from speaking a few years back -- but you're right, all those folks arrested back in June was it -- that's right, they couldn't find any point of similarity....
And I think that's a really cool thing, come one come all, move on in, vote together, try and change our policies and priorites, it's your right to immigrate to western countries and try and make a difference.
Can the same be said... well then, bring on the carrot and the stick!
And yeah, they haven't "won" yet, but their design is plain to see, no?
But ok, I'll give you Canada -- you can't have US, UK, France, Denmark, Spain, Sweden -- violence alive and kickin there!
I didn't dig anything up. It was in the NY Times, or don't you read the most widely circulated and influential paper in America? The fact that he isn't in Lebanon doesn't mean that what he has to say about Israel is invalid. I'm sure if he was in Lebanon he'd paint a moving picture of that country as well. The point is that your view of Israel is one-sided (and mostly wrong). As for his desires with regard to Shimon Peres, I had a teacher once who was called gay in front of the entire school. Besides the fact that it is bigoted and disgusting to use homosexuality as an insult, he noted that often those that do so are often unsure about their exactly where they stand. You might want to clear that up and stop using "gay" as a dirty word.
Chomsky doesn't live in Israel nor in Lebanon, but Byrnzie doesn't think for a sec his thoughts and point of views are invalid. Hmmm... I wonder why
Because Byrnzie will swallow whole any opinion that conforms to his own world view and reject all others out of hand. Chomsky, by the way, aside from having no first hand knowledge, is a brilliant linguist and has absolutely no expertise in politics, and yet since the sixties people on the far left have been taking him seriously because he says what he wants to hear regardless of how unfounded and ridiculous it may be. (And anyone who calls themselves a true liberal should be ashamed to use him as a reference. This is a man that said that the Cambodian genocide was just run of the mill revolutionary violence. I wonder if he would have said the same thing if the revolutionaries hadn't been on the left?)
I didn't say that what he has to say is invalid. I said that what he had to say was a crock of shit. As for accusing him of being gay, I didn't. I said that his description of Shimon Perez made it sound like he wanted to take his cock into his mouth. He might prefer to fuck animals for all I care.
That's right. Because I base my opinions about particular articles on the contents of those particular articles. The article posted above was a completely bigoted, and one sided joke.
Unlike yourself, right? The desperation of both you and Shiraz on this board has been laughable. You present articles from such renowned websites as 'Confederate Yankee', and an article attacking Chomsky which was withdrawn by the editor of the paper in which it was initially printed because it was proven to be a fabrication. You two really are desperate to sell your pro Israeli government spiel to everyone on this board that you'll sink to any depths to achieve this. Having failed to present a vaild criticism of Chomsky, despite prolonged effort, you then resort to stating that "This is a man that said that the Cambodian genocide was just run of the mill revolutionary violence." Again, another lie. I'm afraid that you both became incredibly boring a few weeks back. As I mentioned a week or two ago, lies, fabrication and personal insults about board members - as opposed to reference to facts - is very tedious.
What that man said. Yet again!
Oh, and as for Chomsky having no first hand knowledge. Try learning something about Chomsky. If you do then you'll notice that he has travelled extensively throughout the world over the past 40 years whilst commenting on U.S foreign policy. You say that he has no expertise in politics? Please give me an example of a political commentator that you respect who does have expertise in politics. And then explain to me how you define this 'expertise'.
You then state that what Chomsky has to say has been unfounded and ridiculous? Please provide an example. A valid example this time, if you can. And if you can manage to source your example from something other then 'The Anti-Chomsky reader' I'll be impressed.
Why even argue with you if you'll do it for me.
Bigoted in what way? Because it had something good to say about Israel? The only bigot I see around here is the guy throwing around homophobic hate, and that would be you.
It's kinda funny how you do everything you accuse us of doing in this very post. I have never presented an article from Confederate Yankee, nor did I present even one article on Chomsky. You might try not accusing people of things they haven't done before you start talking about our "lies." As for Chomsky's comments on Cambodia, he absolutely did make them and you either don't know that (which is forgivable) or you do know that but choose to ignore it because it's convenient for you (unforgivable).
Please provide an example of where Chomsky stated that 'the Cambodian genocide was just run of the mill revolutionary violence'.
You supported the statements made in the article from 'Confederate Yankee' regarding the alledged fabrication of the massacre at Quana in Lebanon, and you supported the comments in favour of the article from the Guardian which was critical of Chomsky, and which was proven to be full of misrepresentations and fabrications. If you want me to I'll go to the trouble of providing evidence.
Find what I actually said and then I'll respond. Until you do that I'll disinclined to waste more time on you.
This is just one excerpt of what the article has to say about Israel. The whole article reads in pretty much the same way. Simply put, it says little about Israel. It merely describes his experiences in Israel, and Israeli government officials and military men in a tedious, overly descriptive, and adulatory manner, bordering on sycophancy:
"Up north again, near the Lebanese border, I travel from Avivim to Manara, where the Israelis have set up, in a crater 200 yards in diameter, an artillery field where two enormous batteries mounted on caterpillar treads bombard the command post and rocket launchers and arsenals in Marun al-Ras on the other side of the border. Three things here strike me. First, the extreme youth of the artillerymen: they are 20 years old, maybe 18. I notice their stunned look at each discharge, as if every time were the first time; their childlike teasing when their comrade hasn’t had time to block his ears and the detonation deafens him; and then at the same time their serious, earnest side, the sobriety of people who know they’re participating in an immense drama that surpasses them — and know, too, they may soon pay a steep price in blood and life. Second, I note the relaxed — I was about to say unrestrained and even carefree — aspect of the little troop. It reminds me of reading about the joyful scramble of those battalions of young republicans in Spain described, once again, by Malraux: an army that is more friendly than it is martial; more democratic than self-assured and dominating; an army that, here, in any case, in Manara, seems to me the exact opposite of those battalions of brutes or unprincipled pitiless terminators that are so often described in media portraits of Israel."
O.k. I apologise again. I keep getting you mixed up with Jsand, Shiraz, and Puck78. You didn't post articles from the above websites. I retract that part of my statement above. However, I noticed that regarding the article from 'Confederate Yankee' regarding the alledged staging of the massacre at Quana, you posted in defence of the article on that particular thread.
Fine. If your not prepared to quote Chomsky then quit making comments about him and putting words in his mouth which he never spoke. Provide sources and quotations when referring to his statements.
And I've noticed that we now have video evidence that scenes were staged at Qana for the benifit of the press. I'm not saying that innocent people didn't die there. I'm saying that Hezbollah is fucking cynical and sick in how it exploits those deaths, and I would hope that you can at least agree on that.
I actually think this quote is very important. From what people like you say about Israel one gets the impression that you really do think of the IDF as "battalions of brutes or unprincipled pitiless terminators." This is a different and I would say correct, perspective. I have many friends currently serving in the IDF both in the active service and the reserves, and they are all sweet and kind and gentle people who fight because they feel they must in order to defend their homes and families.