A Different Type of war in the Middle East

dayan

sliverstain wrote:

THe US and UK invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan is expansionism.

Tell me where Islamist terorists are doing the same?

Fascist? How so? I don't know of any Islamic nations that have ever gotten into bed with fascist states...but guess what, I know of a few Western and Zionist ones.

Whats this we bullshit?

"I aint got no quarrel with no vietcong."

The US and UK only still have soldiers in these countries because without them there the people who are now slaughtering innocent people in the hopes of plunging these countries into civil war would take over (I am of course talking about Al Queda and co.) It isn't expansionism because they have no intention of ruling these countries indefinitely. You should be less loose with your terms.

The Baath party is fascist. They controlled Iraq and still control Syria. They are basically people that adapted Nazism for use in the Arab world. Furthermore, I didn't say they were in bed with fascists, I said they are fascists.

I assume you live in a western liberal country, therefore whether you like it or not the US and UK are fighting for your future. If you think so highly of the Islamists and so little of the West why don't you go live with them? I wonder how long it would be before you changed your tune.

Byrnzie

dayan wrote:

I read this yesterday I think. It is a piece on the current conflict written by the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, who is solidly on the left. It is too long (3 pages) to copy and paste, but it is a fantastic piece. He wrote it after coming to Israel during the current conflict.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/magazine/06israel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Solidly on the left, but still capable of blinding himself to realities. This article describes his trip to Israel, and he describes various meetings with Israeli officials and military men. He also describes the fact that rockets are being fired at Israel and talks of how terrible this is for the Israelis who are at the receiving end. He says that:

"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."

This particular passage has the intention of making the reader pity the poor, innocent Israeli artillerymen - "an army that is more friendly than it is martial.." - and the entire article reads about the same way. This is a classic example of someone not being able to see the wood for the trees. If Henry Levy had also visited Lebanon during his travels then perhaps his article would have aquired a certain element of credibility. Surprising from someone with such supposed pedigree.

dayan

Byrnzie wrote:

Solidly on the left, but still capable of blinding himself to realities. This article describes his trip to Israel, and he describes various meetings with Israeli officials and military men. He also describes the fact that rockets are being fired at Israel and talks of how terrible this is for the Israelis who are at the receiving end. He says that:

"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."

This particular passage has the intention of making the reader pity the poor, innocent Israeli artillerymen - "an army that is more friendly than it is martial.." - and the entire article reads about the same way. This is a classic example of someone not being able to see the wood for the trees. If Henry Levy has also visited Lebanon during his travels then perhaps his article would have aquired a certain element of credibility. Surprising from someone with such supposed pedigree.

Do you see what you just did? Do you? You can't deny that this guy is on the left so you say that he must be brainwashed because he says something that you don't like and don't want to be true. Honestly, who is it that is close minded and dogmatic and unwilling to see the situation as it is?

Byrnzie

dayan wrote:

Do you see what you just did? Do you? You can't deny that this guy is on the left so you say that he must be brainwashed because he says something that you don't like and don't want to be true. Honestly, who is it that is close minded and dogmatic and unwilling to see the situation as it is?

'Solidly on the left' was your description. I was paraphrasing you. You can now cease patting yourself on the back for a moment. And, as for brainwashed, that again is your wording, not mine. And as for 'seeing the situation as it is', are you saying that you see the situation as it is, as opposed to, myself, for example? You really must be very proud of yourself.

dayan

Byrnzie wrote:

'Solidly on the left' was your description. I was paraphrasing you. You can now cease patting yourself on the back for a moment. And, as for brainwashed, that again is your wording, not mine. And as for 'seeing the situation as it is', are you saying that you see the situation as it is, as opposed to, myself, for example? You really must be very proud of yourself.

Solidly on the left, but still capable of blinding himself to realities.
This is a classic example of someone not being able to see the wood for the trees.

These were your words. Solidly on the left may have been my phrasing but it is nevertheless true. Maybe not brainwashed, but you still say that he must be blind to the situation, even though he is actually there in person, because he sees things differently than you do. I will concede that perhaps the reality is not as I see it (though I don't believe this), but the fact remains that here you have a brilliant and left-leaning philosopher, one of the stars of modern French philosophy, who is writing about a situation he is witnessing with his own eyes, and you label him as blind to reality because you don't like the conclusions he comes to.

Byrnzie

dayan wrote:

Solidly on the left, but still capable of blinding himself to realities.
This is a classic example of someone not being able to see the wood for the trees.

These were your words. Solidly on the left may have been my phrasing but it is nevertheless true. Maybe not brainwashed, but you still say that he must be blind to the situation, even though he is actually there in person, because he sees things differently than you do. I will concede that perhaps the reality is not as I see it (though I don't believe this), but the fact remains that here you have a brilliant and left-leaning philosopher, one of the stars of modern French philosophy, who is writing about a situation he is witnessing with his own eyes, and you label him as blind to reality because you don't like the conclusions he comes to.

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.

In fact, this article really is an undiluted pile of dog shit. For example, he writes:

"And then, finally, Shimon Peres. More than ever I did not want to end this journey without going, as I do each time, to visit Peres — the country’s elder statesman. I met him in the company of Daniel Saada, an old friend and founding member of the French progressive organization SOS Racisme, who has now settled in Israel and become a diplomat as well as a friend of Peres. Shimon, as everyone here calls him, is now 82 years old. But he hasn’t lost any of his handsomeness. Or the look of a prince-priest of Zionism. He still has the same face, all forehead and mouth, that emphasizes the melodious authority of his voice. And I even have the impression, at times, that he has adopted a few of the mannerisms of his old rival Yitzhak Rabin: a slight bitterness in his smile, a gleam in his eyes, a way of carrying himself and, sometimes, of shading his words.. . .
Shimon, a young man who is 82 years old, has had a dream. His invincible dream has lasted, in fact, for 30 years; the present impasse, far from discouraging him, seems mysteriously to stimulate him. So I listen to him. I listen to this Wise Man of Israel explain to me that his country must simultaneously “win this war,” foil this “quartet of evil” made up by Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah and clear the way for “paths of speech and dialogue” that will, one day, lead the Middle East somewhere. And as I listen to him, and let myself be lulled by his oft-repeated, indefinite prophecies, I find that, today, for some reason, those prophecies have a new coefficient of obviousness and force. I, too, catch myself imagining the glory of a Jewish state that would dare, at the same time, almost in the same gesture and with the same movement, to deliver two things at once: to some, alas, war; to others, a real declaration of peace that would be recognized as such and accepted."

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.

acutejam

sliverstain wrote:

THe US and UK invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan is expansionism.

Tell me where Islamist terorists are doing the same?

Somalia, Pakistan (Kashmir), Malaysia, Indonesia, Phillipines, Denmark, Sweden, France, Spain, UK, Canada, US

rebornFixer

acutejam wrote:

Somalia, Pakistan (Kashmir), Malaysia, Indonesia, Phillipines

Sudan, Sri Lanka, India ... Past examples include Iran, Yemen ...

RockinInCanada

acutejam wrote:

Somalia, Pakistan (Kashmir), Malaysia, Indonesia, Phillipines, Denmark, Sweden, France, Spain, UK, Canada, US

Yep as a Canadian I cannot express my disgust with the vast amount of Islamic fundanutalism here in my borders...give me a break....you make it sound as if they are on the verge of a coup....

rebornFixer

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Yep as a Canadian I cannot express my disgust with the vast amount of Islamic fundanutalism here in my borders...give me a break....you make it sound as if they are on the verge of a coup....

Yeah, I think including the Western countries on that list was a bit of a stretch ... We haven't been overrun just yet.

RockinInCanada

reborncareerist wrote:

Yeah, I think including the Western countries on that list was a bit of a stretch ... We haven't been overrun just yet.

I dont think fundanutalism has made a blimp (or for that matter a boom ) in Canada.....

rebornFixer

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

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.

Abuskedti

reborncareerist wrote:

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.

rebornFixer

Abuskedti wrote:

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.

acutejam

reborncareerist wrote:

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!

dayan

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

shiraz

dayan wrote:

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

dayan

shiraz wrote:

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?)

Byrnzie

dayan wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

shiraz wrote:

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.