Curious Mid-Eastern Response?

...or am I just not with it here? Let me say 1st that I'm an avowed hater of Yasser Arafat and pro-Israeli.


However, my confusion stems from Arafat blasting Israel for starting construction on a wall to separate Israel from Palestine, with the ultimate goal to keep out Palestinian terrorists and suicide boombers. Why would Arafat be upset by this? I would think he'd want the wall. If nothing else, you're separating two countries who abhor and hate each other.


Seems a very strange response to me - unless Arafat's been encouraging the suicide bombings all along as Israel constantly states? Is this nothing more than anti-Israeli Arabic double-talk? Or is this towel-headed terrorist just out and out retarded? I admit it, I'm lost here

i really dont know much about situation because its not my country and such, but just a general principle i was talking to someone about a while ago.


israel has the power there (duh), and there not afraid to use it.


if a really good, effective, dangerous palestinian leader emerged, he wouldnt last long.


arafat has lasted a long time.


sounds logical to me /images/smile.gif


brad

....thanks for helping me on this. As good a theory as any I can come up with /images/smile.gif

Let's see.....

the Muslims hate America. They hate Jews. They hate the Hundi. They hate Buddists. They hate Bahi. They hate most Christians. Doesn't that say something about Islam. Even the moderate Arabs are not condemming the uncivilized behavior of the Islamic extremists. The key to the Middle East rest soley in the hands of moderate Arabs. Until they do something positive, the bloodshead and hatred will continue. The Arabs permit hate to taught in their schools. It will take a generation to change thay. My guess is that the hatred is here to stay.

You might want to first consider what the PA has to say about the fence before speculating that it's opposition must stem from an impulse to murder. At least, that would be the smart thing to do.


I don't know about Arafat, but Palestinian criticism of the fence includes the following points: (1) it cuts into Palestinian territory and isolates 30,000 Palestinians from both Israel and the West Bank; (2) it further restricts the freedom of movement that, due to U.S.-Israeli policy, West Bank Palestinians require to survive, exacerbating current restrictions that have made about half of West Bank Palestinians poor; (3) it might serve as a model for the complete cantonization of the West Bank, carving the territory into isolated enclaves surrounded by occupying military forces, a model for a mass jail; (4) it's a further step away from a negotiated resolution of the conflict. As Gideon Samet noted in today's Ha'aretz, the fence represents "a populist alternative to any progress toward the diplomatic horizon."


The silver lining is that the fence is a partial admission that Sharon's "peace with security policy" of maintaining the occupation while demanding Palestinian quietude has failed. Sharon backed the fence reluctantly, taking heat from Israeli rightists that favor complete conquest of the West Bank and who fear the fence could lead to a permanent border. There wouldn't have been any need for it if recent IDF actions had succeeded in accomplishing their stated aims instead of simply pushing both sides further toward the abyss.

...unless you want to believe the suicide bombings of the last 2 days didn't happen.

However I'll humor you point by point:


"(1) it cuts into Palestinian territory and isolates 30,000 Palestinians from both Israel and the West Bank;"


and their point is what? Israel should continue facilitating the easy access of suicide bombers, condoned not just by towel-head terrorist Arafat, but the majority of Palestinians. Might I also add that thousands of Palestinians cheered in the streets as the WTC towers fell? Maybe that didn't happen either - silly, silly me.


"(2) it further restricts the freedom of movement that, due to U.S.-Israeli policy, West Bank Palestinians require to survive, exacerbating current restrictions that have made about half of West Bank Palestinians poor; "


and their point is what? Israel should continue facilitating the easy access of suicide bombers, condoned not just by towel-head terrorist Arafat, but the majority of Palestinians. Might I also add that thousands of Palestinians cheered in the streets as the WTC towers fell? Maybe that didn't happen either - silly, silly me.


"(3) it might serve as a model for the complete cantonization of the West Bank, carving the territory into isolated enclaves surrounded by occupying military forces, a model for a mass jail; "


and their point is what? Israel should continue facilitating the easy access of suicide bombers, etc, etc..........


"(4) it's a further step away from a negotiated resolution of the conflict."


on the contrary, it will bring about negotiations because there will be less suicide bombings in Israel (unless you want to continue to believe they aren't happening now). Ultimately, if they can't bomb Israel, the scumbag Palestinians will suicide bomb each other. When that finally happens, maybe, just maybe, there will be one sane person who will realize they are accomplishing nothing by these acts of terror. I doubt we'll see this in our lifeime.

"and their point is what? Israel should continue facilitating the easy access of suicide bombers, condoned not just by towel-head terrorist Arafat"


Try "condemned by Arafat." As in "Officials of Mr. Arafat's Palestinian Authority condemned the bombing," referring to yesterday's attack, as reported in today's New York Times, another in a long line of condemnations by Arafat and the PA. Your claim is typical of the refusal of Israeli chauvinists to get elementary facts right.


And the point is that most people agree that the collective punishment of millions of innocents for the crimes of a few is wrong. It's the same reason people tend to oppose terrorism in principle, instead of denouncing it when it happens to "our" side while applauding it when it happens to "theirs."


"Might I also add that thousands of Palestinians cheered in the streets as the WTC towers fell? Maybe that didn't happen either - silly, silly me."


"Thousands?" There are 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem. Why would thousands forfeit the basic national rights of millions?


Millions of Americans cheered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At least thousands still wave confederate flags. Many hundreds wear swatstikas and celebrate slavery and the holocaust and other atrocities that make 911 look tame by comparison. Does the celebration of bad things some Americans render the U.S. a fair target for military occupation? Bin Laden has argued that because some Americans support the bad things their government does, then all Americans are the just victims of terrorism. He'd be heartened that at least some Americans agree with his logic, even if they hypocritically apply it only to others.


And what of the condemnations of the 9/11 attacks issued by every single Palestinian organization including the PA, Fatah, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hamas, Workers Unions and Committees, Human Right Organizations (AlHaq, Law, Palestine Center for Human Rights), and numerous student associations, municipalities, mosques and churches? 1 million Palestinian students in the Occupied Territory, including Jerusalem, stood five minutes in silence to express their solidarity with the hundreds of American children who were injured by the attacks.


Do these demonstrations of sympathy, grief and solidarity not count in your book because you were ignorant of them or because you harbor a racist dislike of Palestinians?


"it will bring about negotiations because there will be less suicide bombings in Israel"


Oh yeah, a big fence will definitely thwart fanatics bent on suicide and mass murder. Hope they don't forget to fence off the coastline too. Maybe we can follow suit, and put gigantic airliner-proof fences around all of our tall buildings.


It's not terrorism that's preventing Israel from entering into the negotiations, which the PA begs for almost daily. The Sharon government suspended negotiations with the PA not because of suicide bombers but because of Palestinian responses to Israeli provocations, specifically armed resistance to Israel's repeated incusions into what's left of the Palestinian homeland. Israel's official position since the beginning of the intifada has been that no talks will proceed until some time -- Sharon himself has openly mused about ten or so years -- after all resistance to Israel's military occupation and colonization ceases. The recent wave of suicide bombings came later, only after thousands of Palestinian civilians were killed and seriously injured by IDF invaders.


The Sharon government has also repeadtedly refused to agree to a bilateral cease-fire. The Palestinians have observed numberous cease-fires only to see how they don't apply to the IDF. The last was in December, when the suicide bombings stopped but the IDF killed some 20 Palestinians. I am unaware of any statement by the Sharon government indicating it's willingness to resume negotiations if the suicide bombings stop. When they talk about "terrorists," they're including kids that throw rocks at tanks, Tianamen Square-style.

Everyone knows that Chris Alger backs Islamic terrorism. He believes that they are freedom fighters, and that the USA is a terrorist nation.

He is no different than a homicide bomber himself.

The recent IDF incursions DID accomplish their aim--which was to reduce terrorist bombings, not to eliminate them entirely (since that would probably be impossible).


There were more bombings prior to the operations than during them, and after the complete withdrawal the incidence of bombings again increased.


Maybe the threat of losing territory will force the Palestinian leadership to arrest the terrorist leaders and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. After all, they did just now take out a full-page ad calling for a halt to all suicide bombings, and the Palestinian leadership never did that before.


If the PA doesn't take the necessary actions, I hope Israel will squeeze them and occupy progressively more land until they do.


It is apparently a myth that it is Israel who is causing these attacks by the occupation. Historically, and ever since the inception of Israel, the Arabs have attacked Israel, long before the more recent occupations. Why have the Arabs attacked Israel? Primarily because Arabs are highly intolerant of any peoples or religions other than their own, especially those in their midst. The Islamic mindset desires a theocracy and for everyone to be following a system of religious laws called sharia. According to Islam, undoubtedly the most intolerant major religion in the world today, infidels are the enemy. Fortunately, not all Muslims are also militants. No Middle-Eastern Islamic country is a democracy, and they all hate Israel, the only democracy in the region. The more militant amongst them will never cease to attack Israel (as long as they are alive and out of jail, that is). So while I do favor a Palestinian state, let's not claim that it is solely the Israeli occupation which is causing these attacks--as above, Arabs/Palestinians have always attacked Israel. However, although the occupation is not causing these attacks, it may be aggravating the situation. Does this mean that Israel should withdraw? Under the current PA leadership, which obviously cannot or will not prevent its nasties from attacking Israel, and cannot or will not dismantle the terrorist organizations, one has to wonder if greater Palestinian lands would only provide a further springboard for attacks. Certain terrorist groups have announced their intention to disrupt any peace process because they will NOT accept any Palestinian state which is less than including ALL of Israel--in other words, they will not accept anything less than the total destruction of Israel. These groups should be WIPED OUT ASAP, and the PA reformed so Israel will have a reasonable partner for peace, and then reasonable borders for a Palestinian state drawn and recognized. After that, any further terror attacks should be quelled with an iron hand.

.....as always! Props to you sir!


Chris Alger is a pathetic, suicide bombing sympathizer, who believes Israel is the 2nd coming of the Nazis.

"Historically, and ever since the inception of Israel, the Arabs have attacked Israel, long before the more recent occupations. Why have the Arabs attacked Israel? Primarily because Arabs are highly intolerant of any peoples or religions other than their own, especially those in their midst."


Your first sentence is true. It is a myth that the enmity between the Palestinian Arabs and the Zionist settlers began with the creation of Israel. The Arabs opposed the Zionist settlement from the beginning and revolted violently, for example, in the 1930s well before the creation of Israel.


I don't believe your last sentence is true. Historically, Jews had a much better time of it in Islamic lands than in Christian lands. The Arabs were against Jewish settlement in their homeland precisely because it was their homeland, being settled by what they saw as a foreign occupying force, sponsored by an imperialist power in Europe.


Unfortunately, the rule of force has always been the deciding factor in Palestine/Israel. The Jews, basically ignoring the Arabs, chased the British out of mandate Palestine by force of arms and terror. (Terror attacks are very difficult to quell, as the mighty British found out.) The Palestinians would like to do the same to the Jews, but will never succeed with force of arms, so they are resorting to terror.


It's a sad, sad situation. Frankly, I can foresee no solution at all. Not with both parties seeing things in such black and white terms. Jewish children grow up hating the Palestinians, learning that they're not worthy of the land, dirty, disgusting people. Palestinian children are taught to hate the Zionist invaders, that they're worthy only of exile and slaughter.

I've been to Israel and saw first hand how Jews think about and treat the Arabs. It would be hard to come up with two more disgusting people on the face of the earth than Yassir Arafat and Arik Sharon.


Perhaps one day leaders will emerge who see the terrible injustices and errors that each side has committed and who will be willing to compromise. More likely, the Jews will gradually wear down the Palestinians who, like the Native Americans, will eventually be pushed aside, marginalized, reservationized, casinoized, disappeared.

M:...Primarily because Arabs are highly intolerant of any peoples or religions other than their own, especially those in their midst.


AF: I don't believe your last sentence is true. Historically, Jews had a much better time of it in Islamic lands than in Christian lands.


M: OK, but I am talking about today. Such things as Stars of David and Christian crosses, I believe, are not allowed to enter Saudi bArabia, for instance (you can't wear one when entering the country...just heard this on a radio talk show). Preaching Christianity is illegal in many Arab lands. Also, heard on the same radio show, Israelis do allow Palestinians in West Jerusalem to publicly worship as they see fit, but Palestinians in East Jerusalem do not allow Israelis there to do the same. All in all, Arab countries are extremely strict and intolerant of religions and customs other than their own today.


I agree that it is a sad, sad situatiion with no easy answers, if any at all, in sight

I apologize for the length, but you've got a lot of points working in there.


“The recent IDF incursions DID accomplish their aim--which was to reduce terrorist bombings, not to eliminate them entirely (since that would probably be impossible).

There were more bombings prior to the operations than during them, and after the complete withdrawal the incidence of bombings again increased.”


Certainly true (except for the “complete withdrawal” nonsense – the troops were back again and again days after the “complete withdrawal,” as they are today). We agree that there were (1) suicide bombings, then (2) the incursion that triggered predictable threats of more bombings, then (3) more bombings. You call this success because of the bombing respite during the incursion, but obviously the incursion merely shifted the bloodshed from random terror (by both sides) to full-scale combat, and then back to random terror as soon as the tanks and troops temporarily pulled back. Since this is exactly what the opponents of the incursion predicted, I’m not sure how you can call it a success. I note that you ignored my point about Sharon’s domestic political position becoming weaker instead of stronger after his alleged victory over the “terrorist infrastructure.”


“Maybe the threat of losing territory will force the Palestinian leadership to arrest the terrorist leaders and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure.”


Just what territory do the Palestinians have to lose? There isn’t an in inch of the West Bank, Gaza or Jerusalem that the Palestinians exercise full sovereignty (they have partial control over something like 17%), and every major Palestinian city has either been annexed outright or repeatedly invaded by Israel. The range of acceptable opinion is that the Palestinians should be given nothing (Likud) to being given defenseless isolated neighborhoods with no freedom of movement surrounded by troops and settlements (Labor/Barak/Clinton and probably, if he ever gets around to it, Bush).


Why is it that those that blame the PA for terrorism never bother to explain how it is supposed to arrest terrorists when Israel keeps killing the policemen that are supposed to do the arresting and destroying the offices in which they work?


And what “terrorist infrastructure?” The basic ingredients of suicide bombs consist of a couple of hundred dollars of explosives manufactured from household items. Just how much infrastructure is necessary for the continuation of this form of mass murder?


Israel’s objections to PA “support for terrorism” and it’s complaints about “terrorist infrastructure” only make sense when you realize that Israel defines terrorism as any force that gets in it’s way, and not just people that kill innocent civilians. According to Israel, a “terrorist” is anyone that forcefully resists Israel’s settlement of and unlawful use of force in the occupied territories. Accordingly, Israel is demanding the right to occupy and commit violence against any that resist, and that the Palestinian elected leadership act as Israel’s accomplice by rounding up resistors. When the PA points out that this would simply ignite civil war, mainstream commentators piously accuse the PA of condoning terrorism (by refusing to stop the suicide bombings and “other violence”), while Israel goes about assassinating, torturing and terrorizing, and destroying the infrastructure necessary for the sustenance of Palestinian civil society, the real target of Israel’s “war against terror.”


“After all, they did just now take out a full-page ad calling for a halt to all suicide bombings, and the Palestinian leadership never did that before.”


Arafat and other Palestinian leaders have repeatedly, forcefully and unequivocally denounced the suicide bombings. On Palestinian TV, on 28 March 2002, at 20:08 GMT, Arafat stated in Arabic:


"On this occasion, I would like once again to reiterate our condemnation of yesterday's operation in Netanya, in which a number of innocent Israeli civilians were killed and wounded. This operation constitutes a deviation from our policy and a violation of our national and human values. I affirm our commitment to working toward an immediate cease-fire, as we informed General Zinni. We highly value his efforts. We informed him that we are ready for the immediate implementation of the Tenet's work plan without conditions, and without prejudicing any of its articles. Also, we have informed him of our readiness to implement the Mitchell Report recommendations in cooperation with the four-way US-Russian-European-UN committee headed by Gen. Zinni."

On December 16, 2001, in a speech on the occasion of Id al-Fitr in Ramallah (Gaza Palestine Satellite Channel Television, in Arabic, on 16 December 2001 at 16:00 GMT) Arafat stated in Arabic:


"Today, I emphasize once again the complete and immediate halt to all armed operations. Once again, I call for a complete halt to all operations, especially suicidal operations, which we have always condemned. We will punish all those who carry out and mastermind such operations. This also applies to the firing of mortar shells, which have no objective but to provide an excuse for the Israeli attacks on us, our people, our children, and our women. Any violation of this decision will be considered an attempt to harm the higher national interests of our people and of our Arab nation."


(I cut and pasted the foregoing quotes from electronicintifada.com).


You might be technically correct about a “full-page ad,” although I’ve read several articles by Arafat in English repeating the points above, notably in the New York Times (which was widely reprinted in Arabic). But note how pathetic your argument is: Arafat isn’t doing enough to condemn suicide bombings because he only writes articles and makes speeches condemning them, when what would really do the trick is a full-page ad. This is the sort of nonsense that results from the ubiquitous anti-Palestinian propaganda one encounters in the U.S.


I’ll snip the bit about the “myth” you mentioned and respond separately. One thing you wrote is something of a howler:


“Certain terrorist groups have announced their intention to disrupt any peace process because they will NOT accept any Palestinian state which is less than including ALL of Israel--in other words, they will not accept anything less than the total destruction of Israel. These groups should be WIPED OUT ASAP, and the PA reformed so Israel will have a reasonable partner for peace, and then reasonable borders for a Palestinian state drawn and recognized.”


It’s interesting how you justify the “wiping out” Palestinians not for murder and terror but also for the political crime of refusing to accept Israel. You obviously wouldn’t accept the same verdict for Israelis that refuse to accept a Palestinian state. Can you imagine, for example, ever writing the flip side of the foregoing paragraph, something like the following:


“Likud and numerous right-wing Israeli parties have announced their intention to disrupt any peace process because they will NOT accept any Israeli state which is less than including ALL of Palestine --in other words, they will not accept anything less than the total destruction of Palestine. These groups should be WIPED OUT ASAP, and the Israeli political system reformed so the Palestinians will have a reasonable partner for peace, and then reasonable borders for a Palestinian state drawn and recognized.”


Unless you agree with this (I certainly don’t), then what you are saying it is acceptable for Israelis to express a broad range of opinion while all Palestinian must accept yours or be “WIPED OUT ASAP.” Your statement is not an extreme or even uncommon viewpoint within the acceptable range of U.S. opinion. It’s a first-rate example of how Americans are so brainwashed on this topic that even the starkest expressions of racism can be rendered without shame or embarrassment or even an indication by the speaker that he is conscious of their basic nature.

Despite trying to come on as a sober, objective analyst of the situation, you come all unraveled at the slightest pronging and reveal your true self : it is so amusing to see this happening on a poker forum!


Where's the face to go with it, Wogga?

I wouldn't feel safe eating in a restaurant and seeing you walk in. I would advise anyone to leave a disco ifI saw your car pull up. Any pregnant women should avoid you like the plague.


I'm surprised that you haven't been sent to the Cuban holding facility.

Mason likes racist posters like you. The black helicopters continue to circle your zionist conspiracy.

He's ben discredited for years as a Marxist-Leninist.

so the US didn't mine the harbor of el salvador (or was it nicarauga?).


yes or no.


this is not an opinion poll.


brad

you guys think anti-zionist = anti-american.


think about that.


also many american jews are anti-zionist .


think about that.


brad

CA:Why is it that those that blame the PA for terrorism never bother to explain how it is supposed to arrest terrorists when Israel keeps killing the policemen that are supposed to do the arresting and destroying the offices in which they work?


M: The PA has never shown any significant inclination to arrest the leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad or the al-Aqsa brigades--whether or not they had plenty of policemen. They didn't arrest them before the recent incursions and they won't now...the argument about the police force is primarily a distraction.


CA: And what “terrorist infrastructure?” The basic ingredients of suicide bombs consist of a couple of hundred dollars of explosives manufactured from household items. Just how much infrastructure is necessary for the continuation of this form of mass murder?


M: I think the term infrastructure here refers at least as much to the human element of these organizations as it does to their material components.


CA: Israel’s objections to PA “support for terrorism” and it’s complaints about “terrorist infrastructure” only make sense when you realize that Israel defines terrorism as any force that gets in it’s way, and not just people that kill innocent civilians. According to Israel, a “terrorist” is anyone that forcefully resists Israel’s settlement of and unlawful use of force in the occupied territories. Accordingly, Israel is demanding the right to occupy and commit violence against any that resist, and that the Palestinian elected leadership act as Israel’s accomplice by rounding up resistors. When the PA points out that this would simply ignite civil war, mainstream commentators piously accuse the PA of condoning terrorism (by refusing to stop the suicide bombings and “other violence”), while Israel goes about assassinating, torturing and terrorizing, and destroying the infrastructure necessary for the sustenance of Palestinian civil society, the real target of Israel’s “war against terror.”


M: I don't know exactly how Israel defines Palestinian terrorism, but I think we both would agree that such things as bus and birthday party bombings certainly fit anyone's definition of terrorism and that they must be must be stopped.


M: “After all, they did just now take out a full-page ad calling for a halt to all suicide bombings, and the Palestinian leadership never did that before.”


CA:Arafat and other Palestinian leaders have repeatedly, forcefully and unequivocally denounced the suicide bombings. On Palestinian TV, on 28 March 2002, at 20:08 GMT, Arafat stated in Arabic: "(snipped)"


You might be technically correct about a “full-page ad,” although I’ve read several articles by Arafat in English repeating the points above, notably in the New York Times (which was widely reprinted in Arabic). But note how pathetic your argument is: Arafat isn’t doing enough to condemn suicide bombings because he only writes articles and makes speeches condemning them, when what would really do the trick is a full-page ad. This is the sort of nonsense that results from the ubiquitous anti-Palestinian propaganda one encounters in the U.S.


M: I'm afraid you may be misunderstanding my point here. I'm not saying a full-page ad or denunciations of terrorism is what we would like to see--after all, Arafat has denounced such things many times but they still continue to occur--I'm just pointing out that the denunciation in print may signify a bit of a shift as to what degree the PA may think it in the Palestinians' best interest to refrain from provoking Israel further at this juncture. And also, as the world knows, talk is pretty cheap.


CA: I’ll snip the bit about the “myth” you mentioned and respond separately. One thing you wrote is something of a howler: “Certain terrorist groups have announced their intention to disrupt any peace process because they will NOT accept any Palestinian state which is less than including ALL of Israel--in other words, they will not accept anything less than the total destruction of Israel. These groups should be WIPED OUT ASAP, and the PA reformed so Israel will have a reasonable partner for peace, and then reasonable borders for a Palestinian state drawn and recognized.”


CA: It’s interesting how you justify the “wiping out” Palestinians not for murder and terror but also for the political crime of refusing to accept Israel.


M: No, I'm not talking about a "political crime" but rather very real crimes of plotting and carrying out terrorist attacks. Their irrevocably determined and publicly announced position to continue should only be further reason to destroy these groups. As a parallel, let's say a mass or serial murderer is caught here in the USA. If he were to publicly announce his eternal intention to kill again should he ever escape or be set free after a long prison term, that is damn good reason to never let him out or to kill him. Those organizations which are both opposed to any peace agreement and irrevocably committed to further violent terrorist attacks should be destroyed.


CA:You obviously wouldn’t accept the same verdict for Israelis that refuse to accept a Palestinian state. Can you imagine, for example, ever writing the flip side of the foregoing paragraph, something like the following:


“Likud and numerous right-wing Israeli parties have announced their intention to disrupt any peace process because they will NOT accept any Israeli state which is less than including ALL of Palestine --in other words, they will not accept anything less than the total destruction of Palestine. These groups should be WIPED OUT ASAP, and the Israeli political system reformed so the Palestinians will have a reasonable partner for peace, and then reasonable borders for a Palestinian state drawn and recognized.”


Unless you agree with this (I certainly don’t), then what you are saying it is acceptable for Israelis to express a broad range of opinion while all Palestinian must accept yours or be “WIPED OUT ASAP.”


M: I'm saying nothing of the sort regarding other Palestinians with dissenting viewpoints or even of those Palestinians/Arabs who might wish to engage Israeli forces in a real war. I'm speaking only of those who are plotting and executing terrorist attacks and are irrevocably committed to continue doing so in the future.


CA:Your statement is not an extreme or even uncommon viewpoint within the acceptable range of U.S. opinion. It’s a first-rate example of how Americans are so brainwashed on this topic that even the starkest expressions of racism can be rendered without shame or embarrassment or even an indication by the speaker that he is conscious of their basic nature.


M: Again, you appear to be misinterpreting my words. I don't think it has anything to do with racism and I don't see why you even bring that up. It has everything to do with certain groups and individuals committing horrible crimes against innocents in order to make political points. This is totally unacceptable in the civilized world IMO. It is not an act of war to target a child's birthday party for a bomb in order to make a political point; it is a pure act of terror.


If I do not respond to further posts of yours in the next few days it will be due to lack of computer access.

Nobody who knows anything about Noam Chomsky, even those that hate him, believe this. He's been a persistent critic of communism, particularly Marxism-Leninism and especially Stalinism for his entire life. I think the last self-description of his poltics that I read was something like "sort of an anarchist-socialist." He'd be difficult to specifically categorize even within these labels.

that may be so, but it doesn't change the fact that Chris Alger is a potential terrorist. Brad is bitter circumcised anti-Semite. Cyrus believes in a black helicopter Zionist conspiracy, and you are a mindless sheep.


Rumor has it that some of those listed above like sheep.

You're dealing with people who prefer their own version of facts, events and analysis. But, kudos for persistence and guts.


(..Can you imagine hearing a bad beat story from any of the bigots of this forum? Enough to give you an extra week in life from laughing.)

"Chris Alger is a potential terrorist. Brad is bitter circumcised anti-Semite. Cyrus believes in a black helicopter Zionist conspiracy."


What are you talking about?? A conspiracy means something secretive. Zionists, though, have never been shy about what their objectives were. Tnhey have been candid and very open about 'em.


Done any reading ever, my good man, besides the Washington Times?


I would suggest two or three books, all written by (perfectly circumsized) Jews, all respected historians, who also have served their country in many capacities, that describe in detail and provide all the historical evidence, which came out mainly in the 80s, about


* How the Zionists viewed their co-habitation with the natives, aka Palestinians, from the start.


* How the Zionists were adamant against any kind of peaceful co-existence with the Arabs. How they actively sought tension and war throughout.


* How the Israeli leadership always sought the protection of a superpower, irrespective of political ideology to achieve its aims. Britain, then Soviet Union, then France, then the U.S.


* How the Israelis routinely act against American interests but the American political establishment is paralyzed from the enormous clout of AIPAC and its offspring.


Etcetera. Etcetera.


It's not the Protocols of Zion, my good man! It's just things you obviously never knew. Are you scared to learn something you never knew ?

as someone who was an MIT student when he was there I have to say that you are 100% right. he admitted as much so there is really no dispute about this.


Pat

You were an MIT student? And you were there when Chomsky gave lectures? And he admitted that he was a communist??


I can't even count the ways you are lying, my good Pinocchio! (And to think that I'm a spiffy card counter, what.)

i did not say that. and he can admit that he is a "communist" without using the word as he has routinely advocated what i believe are communist positions. he is an admitted socialist who and a marxist. if you dont like the word "communist" ok i wont argue with you. so the points i made in my post two are true (unless you think i wasnt an MIT grad and if you dont you can look it up), whether you agree with me or not is your own burden. personally i find chomsky repugnant and to be an intellectual lightweight.


pat

Here's your original post, dear "MIT student" :


"[Title] Chomsky is a communist


[Text] as someone who was an MIT student when he was there I have to say that you are 100% right. he admitted as much so there is really no dispute about this."


The above is a very clear insinuation that you have first-hand evidence of Noam Chomsky admitting he's a communist.

Try to follow the logic here, and if that means mouthing the words as you're reading, that's alright too : Why do you say you were an MIT student if you haven't been to any of his lectures, or you haven't heard first-hand from someone that he heard Chomsky say he's a communist?


If none of the above applies, and if you haven't heard him or heard from someone who actually heard him, then saying that you're an MIT student is completely, stupidly irrelevant. Clear ? (No? Read the two paragraphs again, slowly.)


...You insist that you were an MIT student?? That's very interesting. (And, yes, I did notice you wrote 'student' instead of 'graduate' - we will have a guess as to that bit, a little later on, maybe.) Now, either the MIT doesn't give a shit anymore about grammar, spelling or syntax -- or you're a total fraud.


You go on to say, a bit flustered "personally i find chomsky repugnant and to be an intellectual lightweight." I challenge you to try and prove the lighweight bit, "pat". But if you do, I promise to severely embarass your ass!..

i wont waste my time anymore with this. but you should realize that there are many ways you can gain knowledge of someones views other than by lecture, especially when you are at a campus where the person teaches.


i am not sure what your point is about my "graduation." i was there when he was, and have since graduated. perhaps you should read this very slowly,and maybe you can get it.


as far as embarassing me, wasting my time with someone of your caliber will obviously lead to my embarassment. just not in the way you might think.


Pat