A Different Type of war in the Middle East

Byrnzie

dayan wrote:

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 You present articles from such renowned websites as 'Confederate Yankee', and an article attacking Chomsky which was withdrawn by the editor of the paper in which it was initially printed because it was proven to be a fabrication.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.

sliverstain

^^^^^^^^^^^^

What that man said. Yet again!

Byrnzie

dayan wrote:

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.

dayan

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

Why even argue with you if you'll do it for me.

dayan

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

dayan

Byrnzie wrote:

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).

Byrnzie

dayan wrote:

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'.

Byrnzie

dayan wrote:

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.

dayan

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

dayan wrote:

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."

dayan

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.

Byrnzie

dayan wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

dayan wrote:

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.

dayan

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

dayan

Byrnzie wrote:

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.