Where's your evidence? How about some examples? I'm bored with reading these meaningless statements that have no basis in reality, and which have no reference to the facts. There's too much flatulence being spouted on this message board at the moment.
They're just projecting their own racist hatred of Arabs. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the religious beliefs of either group but Israel's actions over the years have been nothing short of appalling.
Byrnzie, the only one speaking rubbish in this thread is YOU. all the anti Jew rhetoric and you can't be bothered with the facts of the double standard in the UN that says it's ok for Jews to be killed, but not ok for them to retaliate. that is rubbish.
Byrnzie, the only one speaking rubbish in this thread is YOU. all the anti Jew rhetoric and you can't be bothered with the facts of the double standard in the UN that says it's ok for Jews to be killed, but not ok for them to retaliate. that is rubbish.
Anti Jew rhetoric?
Firstly, I am not anti Jew, and if you'd care to produce one piece of evidence to the contrary I'll be grateful. If you take the time to check you'll see that all of my comments regarding Israel are aimed at the Israeli government.
Also, where is your evidence that the U.N says it's o.k for Jews to be killed?
Again you have spouted crap that has no basis in reality, and which has no reference to the facts. Why do you keep wasting everyone's time?
half the freaking resolutions that the US vetoed were resolutions basically condoning what the Palestinians are doing, if you'd bother to open your eyes up and read instead of just trying to skew a bunch of numbers to try to fit your agenda. all the garbage you've written in this thread is anti-Jew. you don't want to be seen as an anti-semite, then stop being one.
half the freaking resolutions that the US vetoed were resolutions basically condoning what the Palestinians are doing, if you'd bother to open your eyes up and read instead of just trying to skew a bunch of numbers to try to fit your agenda. all the garbage you've written in this thread is anti-Jew. you don't want to be seen as an anti-semite, then stop being one.
Really? So a resolution criticising the killing of U.N monitors by the Israel military was a resolution condoning what the Palestinians are doing?
A resolution criticising the illegal occupation is a resolution condoning what the Palestinians are doing?
A resolution asking for U.N peacekeepers to go into the West bank is a resolution condoning what the Palestinians are doing?
And a resolution putting forth a two state settlement is condoning what the Palestinians are doing?
Again, you make no sense. Why don't you calm down and think before you spout?
Oh, and someone who criticises the Israeli government and military isn't an anti-semite, just as someone who criticises the Bush Administration isn't anti-American.
Wait just for a sec, lemme see if I can understand where you're coming from. The entire world-that is what the UN represents, a government body representing all of the countries around the world-decides to condemn Israel, what over 30 times...and every time the US vetoes the resolution. It has often been the US and Israel against the ENTIRE world.
But every single time, for the past 40 years, every country around the world has been wrong and the US and Israel were in the right? interesting idea...
just becouse you are in a minority doesnt mean you are wrong
the world at one time was full of idolitry along comes one man abraham proclaims thire to be one G-D, now half the world believe in one G-D
there was a antisemitic blood liable that the jews need the blood of christian children to bake thire pass over motza, it is falls the jewish faith is the only faith that proclaims that you mumst not consume blood, so you see you can be in a minority and be right
just becouse you are in a minority doesnt mean you are wrong
the world at one time was full of idolitry along comes one man abraham proclaims thire to be one G-D, now half the world believe in one G-D
there was a antisemitic blood liable that the jews need the blood of christian children to bake thire pass over motza, it is falls the jewish faith is the only faith that proclaims that you mumst not consume blood, so you see you can be in a minority and be right
So you believe that anyone who criticises the Israeli government is anti-semitic? Strange that. Read this article about the present conflict between Israel and Lebanon. It's written by a Jewish Rabbi and should finally put an end to your spurious claims:
UN was proven to be useless when it comes to hostile situations, and I'm not just talking about the mid east. There are lots of self interests around there, lots of corruption incidents. If you want a proof that the UN is joke, you can find it in Africa, Srebrenica 1995, the latest attacks of Nasaralla on Isreal (the UN troops were sent there in order to help Lebanese army to take control over southeren Lebanon, disarm & dismiss the terrorists groups). You can check out the initial response of Anan to those attacks (NO condemnation to Nasaralla, only to Israel), his response about Hamas shooting missiles on Israeli town of Sderot (NO condemnation), or the latest story about his son involvement in several UN corruptions.
One more thing: I've noticed lots of you like to rely on Noam Chomsky's words. Well, you have to understand that this is a view of a VERY radical man (who has never lived here), and refering to his articals as the absolute truth or proof to something would be just like relying on words of a right wing extremist - its a bit absurd. If you *really* want to understand what's going on here, try not to turn to a biased info sources.
UN was proven to be useless when it comes to hostile situations, and I'm not just talking about the mid east. There are lots of self interests around there, lots of corruption incidents. If you want a proof that the UN is joke, you can find it in Africa, Srebrenica 1995, the latest attacks of Nasaralla on Isreal (the UN troops were sent there in order to help Lebanese army to take control over southeren Lebanon, disarm & dismiss the terrorists groups). You can check out the initial response of Anan to those attacks (NO condemnation to Nasaralla, only to Israel), his response about Hamas shooting missiles on Israeli town of Sderot (NO condemnation), or the latest story about his son involvement in several UN corruptions.
One more thing: I've noticed lots of you like to rely on Noam Chomsky's words. Well, you have to understand that this is a view of a VERY radical man (who has never lived here), and refering to his articals as the absolute truth or proof to something would be just like relying on words of a right wing extremist - its a bit absurd. If you *really* want to understand what's going on here, try not to turn to a biased info sources.
And why exactly is the U.N a joke? Which countries in the world have time and again prevented the U.N from acting by vetoing resolutions which it deems harmful to it's interests?
And if the U.N is such a joke, do you have any solutions, or alternatives to offer? Perhaps a world police organisation headed by the U.S which acts only in accordance with the wishes of the U.S administration and corporations, and which neutralizes anything which stands in it's way - Cuba, Chile, Haiti, Sadaam, Noriega, Gadaafi until he became our friend again - such as a country which becomes too nationalistic and independent, and not subservient to U.S business interests? (Anyone read 'Confessions of an economic hit-man?) Oh wait! We already have that! Shiit! :eek:
So Noam Chomsky is a VERY radical man? Please supply me with just ONE example of what you mean by this.
UN was proven to be useless when it comes to hostile situations, and I'm not just talking about the mid east. There are lots of self interests around there, lots of corruption incidents. If you want a proof that the UN is joke, you can find it in Africa, Srebrenica 1995, the latest attacks of Nasaralla on Isreal (the UN troops were sent there in order to help Lebanese army to take control over southeren Lebanon, disarm & dismiss the terrorists groups). You can check out the initial response of Anan to those attacks (NO condemnation to Nasaralla, only to Israel), his response about Hamas shooting missiles on Israeli town of Sderot (NO condemnation), or the latest story about his son involvement in several UN corruptions.
One more thing: I've noticed lots of you like to rely on Noam Chomsky's words. Well, you have to understand that this is a view of a VERY radical man (who has never lived here), and refering to his articals as the absolute truth or proof to something would be just like relying on words of a right wing extremist - its a bit absurd. If you *really* want to understand what's going on here, try not to turn to a biased info sources.
I agree: the UN had good results till the beginning of the '90s, in fact people started to talk about "new world order". Afterward, srebrenica, mogadiscio, the unability to stop traffiking of women in kosovo in the last two years, the innefficiency to have Israel following the UN stamtements against occupation, the wall/fence, etc., proved the inefficiency. I still think that the UNHCR and the world food programme are making a good job, as i've seen in war regions, where i worked as charity volunteer.
As a personal opinion, but it is just a personal opinion, i also don't like chomsky: he sounds a bit trivial to me. I understand that he might sound revolutionary in the USA, where they have less freedom to talk about certain topics.
But you're too much of one side: there was a permanent armed mission of the UN to control the south of lebanon. it was inneficient, but still there was something, don't say that the UN are AGAINST Israel and make just unilateral condemnation.
For the chronicles: yesterday a Israeli rocket hit a UN base in the south of lebanon, full of lebanesi refugees
I agree: the UN had good results till the beginning of the '90s, in fact people started to talk about "new world order". Afterward, srebrenica, mogadiscio, the unability to stop traffiking of women in kosovo in the last two years, the innefficiency to have Israel following the UN stamtements against occupation, the wall/fence, etc., proved the inefficiency. I still think that the UNHCR and the world food programme are making a good job, as i've seen in war regions, where i worked as charity volunteer.
As a personal opinion, but it is just a personal opinion, i also don't like chomsky: he sounds a bit trivial to me. I understand that he might sound revolutionary in the USA, where they have less freedom to talk about certain topics.
But you're too much of one side: there was a permanent armed mission of the UN to control the south of lebanon. it was inneficient, but still there was something, don't say that the UN are AGAINST Israel and make just unilateral condemnation.
For the chronicles: yesterday a Israeli rocket hit a UN base in the south of lebanon, full of lebanesi refugees
I didn't say the UN is against Israel, just that I think its a joke when it comes to deal with hostile situations. Other solutions? I really don't know. The whole idae of foreign soliders who are fighting for another country seems to be ridiculous to me. The only thing I can think of is sending divisions from ONE nation ACTIVE army forces - different nation in each rotation, but even that sounds lame for me...
The things I've said about Anan were a response to Byrnzie who asked for examples about anti-Israeli stands of the UN - nothing more.
And why exactly is the U.N a joke? Which countries in the world have time and again prevented the U.N from acting by vetoing resolutions which it deems harmful to it's interests?
And if the U.N is such a joke, do you have any solutions, or alternatives to offer? Perhaps a world police organisation headed by the U.S which acts only in accordance with the wishes of the U.S administration and corporations, and which neutralizes anything which stands in it's way - Cuba, Chile, Haiti, Sadaam, Noriega, Gadaafi until he became our friend again - such as a country which becomes too nationalistic and independent, and not subservient to U.S business interests? (Anyone read 'Confessions of an economic hit-man?) Oh wait! We already have that! Shiit! :eek:
So Noam Chomsky is a VERY radical man? Please supply me with just ONE example of what you mean by this.
UN: Puck78 and myself have already explained our opinions.
Noam Chomsky: The man himself define his views as radical ones. If you still want an example: A jew who supports others (Faurisson) who claim the holocaust did not happen = radical.
UN: Puck78 and myself have already explained our opinions.
Noam Chomsky: The man himself define his views as radical ones. If you still want an example: A jew who supports others (Faurisson) who claim the holocaust did not happen = radical.
Chomsky has admitted that his views/findings do not fit into the bounds of acceptable debate, and so are dismissed by those with vested interests as being on the fringe. Chomsky is much more widely known and appreciated outside of the U.S where the bounds of acceptable debate and opinion are so narrow. In fact he has often been decribed as the most important intellectual alive today.
You say that Chomsky supported Faurisson? You are wrong. Period.
Chomsky wrote the preface to a book of Faurissons in which Faurisson denied the holocaust. Chomsky's preface was an article on free speech, in which he rightly claimed that free speech means free speech for everyone. His preface also stated clearly that he disagreed with Faurissons beliefs. This subject was raised about 15 years ago by those seeking to attack Chomsky, because, like yourself, they were unable to dispute his actual writings.
Try harder.
Please produce just ONE example of how Chomsky is radical.
Chomsky has admitted that his views/findings do not fit into the bounds of acceptable debate, and so are dismissed by those with vested interests as being on the fringe. Chomsky is much more widely known and appreciated outside of the U.S where the bounds of acceptable debate and opinion are so narrow. In fact he has often been decribed as the most important intellectual alive today.
You say that Chomsky supported Faurisson? You are wrong. Period.
Chomsky wrote the preface to a book of Faurissons in which Faurisson denied the holocaust. Chomsky's preface was an article on free speech, in which he rightly claimed that free speech means free speech for everyone. His preface also stated clearly that he disagreed with Faurissons beliefs. This subject was raised about 15 years ago by those seeking to attack Chomsky, because, like yourself, they were unable to dispute his actual writings.
Try harder.
Please produce just ONE example of how Chomsky is radical.
I don't need to try harder. Faurisson wasn't just speeking his mind. He was a lecture who educated his students with lies about the holocaust, a person who had written articles & a book full with lies for the *masses*. It is called propaganda, not an opinion. And so what if all of it occured 15 years ago? Chomsky still hasn't changed his mind about it.
Another example: Chomsky find a difference between hurting a civilian (wrong) than hurting a solider (not so wrong). In many countries (and Israel is one of them), military service is an obligation for its civilians, therefore soliders are civilians as well. He claim to dislike definitions, but it seems he is paked with them, just like other black or white viewers are.
Another example: Chomsky find a difference between hurting a civilian (wrong) than hurting a solider (not so wrong). In many countries (and Israel is one of them), military service is an obligation for its civilians, therefore soliders are civilians as well. He claim to dislike definitions, but it seems he is paked with them, just like other black or white viewers are.
just for you to know: hurting a civilian and a soldier is different by international law, not by chomsky. Then, of course that both the situations are not nice.
I don't need to try harder. Faurisson wasn't just speeking his mind. He was a lecture who educated his students with lies about the holocaust, a person who had written articles & a book full with lies for the *masses*. It is called propaganda, not an opinion. And so what if all of it occured 15 years ago? Chomsky still hasn't changed his mind about it.
What do you mean "Chomsky still hasn't changed his mind about it"? As I said, Chomsky was defending the right of free speech. He wasn't defending Faurisson's views. Why are you harping on about this crap? I explained the situation to you above. You were wrong. Get over it.
I'm afraid that your second paragraph makes no sense.
just for you to know: hurting a civilian and a soldier is different by international law, not by chomsky. Then, of course that both the situations are not nice.
"..not by chomsky"? Please provide an example of this, because at the moment it seems to me that you are simply spouting guff with no grounds in reality and with no reference to the facts. Either that, or I'm just not understanding you.
What do you mean "Chomsky still hasn't changed his mind about it"? As I said, Chomsky was defending the right of free speech. He wasn't defending Faurisson's views. Why are you harping on about this crap? I explained the situation to you above. You were wrong. Get over it.
I'm afraid that your second paragraph makes no sense.
"A lecture who educated his students with lies about the holocaust, a person who had written articles & a book full with lies for the *masses* - It is called propaganda, not an opinion", hence, not a matter of "free speech". There is a BIG difference between saying "black people slavery did not happen" than teaching many students and other intellectuals to think that way in a university. Too bad Chomsky thinks both cases are the same. You see, he believes that things should be judged objectivity - black or white, right or wrong. Sorry, reality does not work that way, there are LOTS of gray areas. I guess that means his point of view is radical.
Anyway: radical or not - The man has *unique* *opinions*, therefore you shouldn't really take his words and turn them into facts.
"A lecture who educated his students with lies about the holocaust, a person who had written articles & a book full with lies for the *masses* - It is called propaganda, not an opinion", hence, not a matter of "free speech". There is a BIG difference between saying "black people slavery did not happen" than teaching many students and other intellectuals to think that way in a university. Too bad Chomsky thinks both cases are the same. You see, he believes that things should be judged objectivity - black or white, right or wrong. Sorry, reality does not work that way, there are LOTS of gray areas. I guess that means his point of view is radical.
Anyway: radical or not - The man has *unique* *opinions*, therefore you shouldn't really take his words and turn them into facts.
Free speech is free speech. There is not a rule book which says that some things can be said and some can't. If there were, then there would be no free speech. Chomsky attacked this guys views but defended his right to express them. It really is as simple as that. And to be honest, if that is the only criticism of Chomsky that you can bring to the table then I suggest that you re-evaluate your relationship with him. He doesn't bite. Trust me! http://www.chomsky.info/
I'm not saying that he has the answer to everything. To be honest, I have also learnt a great deal from reading the bile of such renowned purveyors of corporate ideology as the 'Daily Telegraph' in England, and by reading the 'Project for a new American century' - the neo-cons think tank website. But Chomsky is a good place to start as he simply sifts through the mire of official lies and half truths and presents the facts to us undiluted. This can sometimes amount to uncomfortable reading, but if the truth is what you're interested in then dive in. if you disagree with any of what he says then take the opportunity to train your critical faculties by attempting to disprove him.
See this is the stupid thing about anti-hate groups like the ADL.
Many holocaust historians don't believe the Nazi regime actually executed 6 million jews. They believe it was somewhere around 4.5 million and 1.5 million died possibly due to starvation or other environmental problems.
The ADL has deemed that anti-semitism, which violates free speech and ultimately hinders any investigation into the actual events. In Canada a claim like that can get you in jail for up to 2 years. Which is utterly rediculous. No one is being racist by questioning history.
Being a religiousless white male I take personal offense to a lot of the anti-hate movement. The system is designed to restrict my speech and my actions. If jew questions the holocaust, he is not being anti-semitic (obviously). Likewise if a black person calls another a nigger, they aren't being racist. It's all a bunch of self-righteous horseshit if you ask me.
Anyway, I can't talk about anti-hate cause I'll get banned. Sorry.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
See this is the stupid thing about anti-hate groups like the ADL.
Many holocaust historians don't believe the Nazi regime actually executed 6 million jews. They believe it was somewhere around 4.5 million and 1.5 million died possibly due to starvation or other environmental problems.
The ADL has deemed that anti-semitism, which violates free speech and ultimately hinders any investigation into the actual events. In Canada a claim like that can get you in jail for up to 2 years. Which is utterly rediculous. No one is being racist by questioning history.
Being a religiousless white male I take personal offense to a lot of the anti-hate movement. The system is designed to restrict my speech and my actions. If jew questions the holocaust, he is not being anti-semitic (obviously). Likewise if a black person calls another a nigger, they aren't being racist. It's all a bunch of self-righteous horseshit if you ask me.
Anyway, I can't talk about anti-hate cause I'll get banned. Sorry.
I would imagine that reading some of this holocaust denial bollocks, or anything equivalent, would be worthwile merely to get an insight into the minds of these twisted freaks. I mean, can you imagine reading a book written by a Ku Kluz Klan grand wizard? I bet it would be hilarious!
I would imagine that reading some of this holocaust denial bollocks, or anything equivalent, would be worthwile merely to get an insight into the minds of these twisted freaks. I mean, can you imagine reading a book written by a Ku Kluz Klan grand wizard? I bet it would be hilarious!
Well I've seen their website stormfront it's pretty crazy.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well I've seen their website stormfront it's pretty crazy.
What's that, the Klans website? Shiiit, I didn't think they'd be smart enough to design their own website. I'll take a look when I'm in the right mood.
What's that, the Klans website? Shiiit, I didn't think they'd be smart enough to design their own website. I'll take a look when I'm in the right mood.
It's by the former head dude Don Black or whatever, it's total Nazi stuff, they discuss on their forum ways to promote white supremecy without using violence. The KKK used violence and were routed out, this new method is through propaganda.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's by the former head dude Don Black or whatever, it's total Nazi stuff, they discuss on their forum ways to promote white supremecy without using violence. The KKK used violence and were routed out, this new method is through propaganda.
They even have computer games where you run around as a white dude killing black people, mexicans, etc... the game is called "Ethnic Cleansing" really sick stuff.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
They even have computer games where you run around as a white dude killing black people, mexicans, etc... the game is called "Ethnic Cleansing" really sick stuff.
Are you not able to switch sides in this game so you can kill the clowns? If so, I'm buying it!
Are you not able to switch sides in this game so you can kill the clowns? If so, I'm buying it!
I'm not sure, I heard you can, but I think that is a different game.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"The most politically incorrect video game ever made. Run through the ghetto blasting away various blacks and spics in an attempt to gain entrance to the subway system, where the jews have hidden to avoid the carnage. Then, if YOU'RE lucky.... you can blow away jews as they scream "Oy Vey!", on your way to their command center."
Comments
They're just projecting their own racist hatred of Arabs. Honestly, I couldn't care less about the religious beliefs of either group but Israel's actions over the years have been nothing short of appalling.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmgphotos/4731512142/" title="PJ Banner2 by Mister J Photography, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1135/4731512142_258f2d6ab4_b.jpg" width="630" height="112" alt="PJ Banner2" /></a>
Anti Jew rhetoric?
Firstly, I am not anti Jew, and if you'd care to produce one piece of evidence to the contrary I'll be grateful. If you take the time to check you'll see that all of my comments regarding Israel are aimed at the Israeli government.
Also, where is your evidence that the U.N says it's o.k for Jews to be killed?
Again you have spouted crap that has no basis in reality, and which has no reference to the facts. Why do you keep wasting everyone's time?
Really? So a resolution criticising the killing of U.N monitors by the Israel military was a resolution condoning what the Palestinians are doing?
A resolution criticising the illegal occupation is a resolution condoning what the Palestinians are doing?
A resolution asking for U.N peacekeepers to go into the West bank is a resolution condoning what the Palestinians are doing?
And a resolution putting forth a two state settlement is condoning what the Palestinians are doing?
Again, you make no sense. Why don't you calm down and think before you spout?
Oh, and someone who criticises the Israeli government and military isn't an anti-semite, just as someone who criticises the Bush Administration isn't anti-American.
the world at one time was full of idolitry along comes one man abraham proclaims thire to be one G-D, now half the world believe in one G-D
there was a antisemitic blood liable that the jews need the blood of christian children to bake thire pass over motza, it is falls the jewish faith is the only faith that proclaims that you mumst not consume blood, so you see you can be in a minority and be right
So you believe that anyone who criticises the Israeli government is anti-semitic? Strange that. Read this article about the present conflict between Israel and Lebanon. It's written by a Jewish Rabbi and should finally put an end to your spurious claims:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10585
Can you please produce an example to support your statement?
One more thing: I've noticed lots of you like to rely on Noam Chomsky's words. Well, you have to understand that this is a view of a VERY radical man (who has never lived here), and refering to his articals as the absolute truth or proof to something would be just like relying on words of a right wing extremist - its a bit absurd. If you *really* want to understand what's going on here, try not to turn to a biased info sources.
And why exactly is the U.N a joke? Which countries in the world have time and again prevented the U.N from acting by vetoing resolutions which it deems harmful to it's interests?
And if the U.N is such a joke, do you have any solutions, or alternatives to offer? Perhaps a world police organisation headed by the U.S which acts only in accordance with the wishes of the U.S administration and corporations, and which neutralizes anything which stands in it's way - Cuba, Chile, Haiti, Sadaam, Noriega, Gadaafi until he became our friend again - such as a country which becomes too nationalistic and independent, and not subservient to U.S business interests? (Anyone read 'Confessions of an economic hit-man?) Oh wait! We already have that! Shiit! :eek:
So Noam Chomsky is a VERY radical man? Please supply me with just ONE example of what you mean by this.
I agree: the UN had good results till the beginning of the '90s, in fact people started to talk about "new world order". Afterward, srebrenica, mogadiscio, the unability to stop traffiking of women in kosovo in the last two years, the innefficiency to have Israel following the UN stamtements against occupation, the wall/fence, etc., proved the inefficiency. I still think that the UNHCR and the world food programme are making a good job, as i've seen in war regions, where i worked as charity volunteer.
As a personal opinion, but it is just a personal opinion, i also don't like chomsky: he sounds a bit trivial to me. I understand that he might sound revolutionary in the USA, where they have less freedom to talk about certain topics.
But you're too much of one side: there was a permanent armed mission of the UN to control the south of lebanon. it was inneficient, but still there was something, don't say that the UN are AGAINST Israel and make just unilateral condemnation.
For the chronicles: yesterday a Israeli rocket hit a UN base in the south of lebanon, full of lebanesi refugees
www.amnesty.org.uk
I didn't say the UN is against Israel, just that I think its a joke when it comes to deal with hostile situations. Other solutions? I really don't know. The whole idae of foreign soliders who are fighting for another country seems to be ridiculous to me. The only thing I can think of is sending divisions from ONE nation ACTIVE army forces - different nation in each rotation, but even that sounds lame for me...
The things I've said about Anan were a response to Byrnzie who asked for examples about anti-Israeli stands of the UN - nothing more.
UN: Puck78 and myself have already explained our opinions.
Noam Chomsky: The man himself define his views as radical ones. If you still want an example: A jew who supports others (Faurisson) who claim the holocaust did not happen = radical.
Chomsky has admitted that his views/findings do not fit into the bounds of acceptable debate, and so are dismissed by those with vested interests as being on the fringe. Chomsky is much more widely known and appreciated outside of the U.S where the bounds of acceptable debate and opinion are so narrow. In fact he has often been decribed as the most important intellectual alive today.
You say that Chomsky supported Faurisson? You are wrong. Period.
Chomsky wrote the preface to a book of Faurissons in which Faurisson denied the holocaust. Chomsky's preface was an article on free speech, in which he rightly claimed that free speech means free speech for everyone. His preface also stated clearly that he disagreed with Faurissons beliefs. This subject was raised about 15 years ago by those seeking to attack Chomsky, because, like yourself, they were unable to dispute his actual writings.
Try harder.
Please produce just ONE example of how Chomsky is radical.
I don't need to try harder. Faurisson wasn't just speeking his mind. He was a lecture who educated his students with lies about the holocaust, a person who had written articles & a book full with lies for the *masses*. It is called propaganda, not an opinion. And so what if all of it occured 15 years ago? Chomsky still hasn't changed his mind about it.
Another example: Chomsky find a difference between hurting a civilian (wrong) than hurting a solider (not so wrong). In many countries (and Israel is one of them), military service is an obligation for its civilians, therefore soliders are civilians as well. He claim to dislike definitions, but it seems he is paked with them, just like other black or white viewers are.
www.amnesty.org.uk
I'm afraid that your second paragraph makes no sense.
"..not by chomsky"? Please provide an example of this, because at the moment it seems to me that you are simply spouting guff with no grounds in reality and with no reference to the facts. Either that, or I'm just not understanding you.
"A lecture who educated his students with lies about the holocaust, a person who had written articles & a book full with lies for the *masses* - It is called propaganda, not an opinion", hence, not a matter of "free speech". There is a BIG difference between saying "black people slavery did not happen" than teaching many students and other intellectuals to think that way in a university. Too bad Chomsky thinks both cases are the same. You see, he believes that things should be judged objectivity - black or white, right or wrong. Sorry, reality does not work that way, there are LOTS of gray areas. I guess that means his point of view is radical.
Anyway: radical or not - The man has *unique* *opinions*, therefore you shouldn't really take his words and turn them into facts.
Free speech is free speech. There is not a rule book which says that some things can be said and some can't. If there were, then there would be no free speech. Chomsky attacked this guys views but defended his right to express them. It really is as simple as that. And to be honest, if that is the only criticism of Chomsky that you can bring to the table then I suggest that you re-evaluate your relationship with him. He doesn't bite. Trust me!
http://www.chomsky.info/
I'm not saying that he has the answer to everything. To be honest, I have also learnt a great deal from reading the bile of such renowned purveyors of corporate ideology as the 'Daily Telegraph' in England, and by reading the 'Project for a new American century' - the neo-cons think tank website. But Chomsky is a good place to start as he simply sifts through the mire of official lies and half truths and presents the facts to us undiluted. This can sometimes amount to uncomfortable reading, but if the truth is what you're interested in then dive in. if you disagree with any of what he says then take the opportunity to train your critical faculties by attempting to disprove him.
Many holocaust historians don't believe the Nazi regime actually executed 6 million jews. They believe it was somewhere around 4.5 million and 1.5 million died possibly due to starvation or other environmental problems.
The ADL has deemed that anti-semitism, which violates free speech and ultimately hinders any investigation into the actual events. In Canada a claim like that can get you in jail for up to 2 years. Which is utterly rediculous. No one is being racist by questioning history.
Being a religiousless white male I take personal offense to a lot of the anti-hate movement. The system is designed to restrict my speech and my actions. If jew questions the holocaust, he is not being anti-semitic (obviously). Likewise if a black person calls another a nigger, they aren't being racist. It's all a bunch of self-righteous horseshit if you ask me.
Anyway, I can't talk about anti-hate cause I'll get banned. Sorry.
I would imagine that reading some of this holocaust denial bollocks, or anything equivalent, would be worthwile merely to get an insight into the minds of these twisted freaks. I mean, can you imagine reading a book written by a Ku Kluz Klan grand wizard? I bet it would be hilarious!
Yeah dude check your PM's again...
Well I've seen their website stormfront it's pretty crazy.
What's that, the Klans website? Shiiit, I didn't think they'd be smart enough to design their own website. I'll take a look when I'm in the right mood.
It's by the former head dude Don Black or whatever, it's total Nazi stuff, they discuss on their forum ways to promote white supremecy without using violence. The KKK used violence and were routed out, this new method is through propaganda.
They even have computer games where you run around as a white dude killing black people, mexicans, etc... the game is called "Ethnic Cleansing" really sick stuff.
Are you not able to switch sides in this game so you can kill the clowns? If so, I'm buying it!
I'm not sure, I heard you can, but I think that is a different game.
"The most politically incorrect video game ever made. Run through the ghetto blasting away various blacks and spics in an attempt to gain entrance to the subway system, where the jews have hidden to avoid the carnage. Then, if YOU'RE lucky.... you can blow away jews as they scream "Oy Vey!", on your way to their command center."
official game website:
http://www.resistance.com/ethniccleansing/catalog.htm
Sweet freaking mother of God what's next on this earth?
This should just not be allowed period. The game should be removed from shelves immediately.
The programmers, advertisers, and marketers should also be fined.
Man people will do *anything* for a buck these days...
....now if the gov't would stop wasting all our money endlessly for wars we might not have to consider this shock value path to survival...