Time to Recognize State Terror

Archive - Caveat Emptor!

Moderator: Super Moderators

User avatar
Fan
Lady with a
Posts: 5306
Joined: 05-09-2011 02:18 PM
Contact:

Post by Fan » 12-12-2012 11:31 AM

HB3 wrote: Oh, I'm sure there's many claims for just that. But when it comes to hatin' Jews, that well predates modern Israel.
as far as I can tell you are the only one talking about hating Jews. Criticizing Israel does not equate to hating Jews.

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 12-12-2012 11:34 AM

HB3 wrote: Right, well, there was a lot more back and forth with a "territory" like Jerusalem. I've heard that argument from paleo-conservatives, that they were just asking for trouble for insisting Israel be in that particular location, rather than, say, New Jersey or Hamburg or something. But the situation isn't quite analogous to your Russian hypothetical -- it wasn't just "Russia," but the League of Nations, Britain, and the UN that shaped and authorized the modern State of Israel.
I understand. The UN has also given time to the Iroquois, regarding Iowa. And I hear the people of Argentina, Uruguay, Iceland, and Tuvalu also think Iowa should be 'returned', and have 'authorized' it. The people of Cedar Rapids remain unconvinced.

I also understand that Israel can only properly be right where it is. It's a conundrum. If it's there, it will be under these conditions, and there will be girls in San Diego who want to see America fall.

So, it becomes a matter of priorities.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 12-12-2012 11:35 AM

Fan wrote: as far as I can tell you are the only one talking about hating Jews. Criticizing Israel does not equate to hating Jews.
I think HB3 refers to the OP here...
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 12-12-2012 11:45 AM

Fan wrote: as far as I can tell you are the only one talking about hating Jews. Criticizing Israel does not equate to hating Jews.


I've gotta turn this around and note that this another of those weird paleoconservative or paleolibertarian arguments. That is, they're the only ones saying "criticizing Israel" equals "being called anti-Semitic."

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 12-12-2012 11:49 AM

Well, I'll admit it seems to me as if the debate has been framed to consist of full supporters of Israel versus haters of Israel. There can be no rational dissent. Heck, if I said I couldn't care less about the outcome, one way or the other, there is a segment of partisans who would call me anti-Semitic. It's evidence of a deeper (religious) investment in the outcome.

I realize this is a tactic, or a strategy vector in the Israeli/Arab war - a full spectrum dominance thing. I can respect that, even as I criticize without hate.
Last edited by SquidInk on 12-12-2012 11:51 AM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 12-12-2012 11:51 AM

SquidInk wrote: I understand. The UN has also given time to the Iroquois, regarding Iowa. And I hear the people of Argentina, Uruguay, Iceland, and Tuvalu also think Iowa should be 'returned', and have 'authorized' it. The people of Cedar Rapids remain unconvinced.

I also understand that Israel can only properly be right where it is. It's a conundrum. If it's there, it will be under these conditions, and there will be girls in San Diego who want to see America fall.

So, it becomes a matter of priorities.


Yes, history is a story of colonialism and conquest, and yeah, it's too late now.

I guess I'd say I'd rather give money to Israel rather than, say, Egypt, but I can fully see the argument of not giving money to anyone. Priorities: I'd still take the annoying late-night television programs, and I'm not a fan of Jewish liberalism. Jewish influence in Communism, "red diaper babies," blah blah blah. Look at a guy like Mayor Bloomberg. A total fool. There's a guy who clearly conceives of his policies and political philosophy as an expression of his tribal experience -- we know this, because he talks about it incessantly.
Last edited by HB3 on 12-12-2012 12:02 PM, edited 1 time in total.

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 12-12-2012 11:54 AM

SquidInk wrote: Well, I'll admit it seems to me as if the debate has been framed to consist of full supporters of Israel versus haters of Israel. There can be no rational dissent. Heck, if I said I couldn't care less about the outcome, one way or the other, there is a segment of partisans who would call me anti-Semitic. It's evidence of a deeper (religious) investment in the outcome.

I realize this is a tactic, or a strategy vector in the Israeli/Arab war - a full spectrum dominance thing. I can respect that, even as I criticize without hate.


Possibly, but I've never seen anyone equate "criticism of Israel" with "anti-Semitism" -- I think it's a canard. "Desire to see Israel wiped off the map" might arguably be equated with anti-Semitism, though. Is that what they mean by "criticism of Israel"?

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 12-12-2012 12:06 PM

It's a disturbing thought that man hungers for genocide along with good comedy. But that may indeed be the case.

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 12-12-2012 12:12 PM

HB3 wrote: Oh, I'm sure there's many claims for just that. But when it comes to hatin' Jews, that well predates modern Israel.
The Rape of Nanking, like the Holocaust itself is not a claim - it really happened. As much as it disgusts me to say it, until we have a defining crescendo of evil in the middle east, the debacle simply comes across as a bunch of zealots blowing each other up while fighting over a capital. Such is the irrational stupidity of war.

Like the attack on Pearl Harbor, the events of 9/11 were arguably the crescendo in question - and political leverage was gained there against the Arabs. However, too many saw this as a false crescendo, and indeed the 'evidence' is a little opaque in comparison to Nanking, Pearl Harbor, Auschwitz, etc.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 12-12-2012 12:15 PM

HB3 wrote: It's a disturbing thought that man hungers for genocide along with good comedy. But that may indeed be the case.
It's good to be well rounded.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 12-12-2012 12:17 PM

SquidInk wrote: The Rape of Nanking, like the Holocaust itself is not a claim - it really happened. As much as it disgusts me to say it, until we have a defining crescendo of evil in the middle east, the debacle simply comes across as a bunch of zealots blowing each other up while fighting over a capital. Such is the irrational stupidity of war.

Like the attack on Pearl Harbor, the events of 9/11 were arguably the crescendo in question - and political leverage was gained there against the Arabs. However, too many saw this as a false crescendo, and indeed the 'evidence' is a little opaque in comparison to Nanking, Pearl Harbor, Auschwitz, etc.


You mean you aren't eager to see "Holocaust denial" equated w/ the "truther movement"? :D

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 12-12-2012 12:30 PM

HB3 wrote: You mean you aren't eager to see "Holocaust denial" equated w/ the "truther movement"? :D
:D

eh... no.

Luckily, subsequent generations, including ours, were able to speak directly with our parents & grandparents, and learn many truths about WW2. I doubt such clarity will be realized regarding the 'Islamic' attack on NYC any time soon. It's too bad, actually. It would be great to move forward and act with confidence.
Last edited by SquidInk on 12-12-2012 12:32 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 12-12-2012 12:39 PM

I don't understand how people can say 9/11 was used to demonize Islam, when the opposite happened -- that's precisely when the government, the Bush government mind you, adopted the nothing-to-do-with-Islam, "religion of peace" language. And subsequently we have phenomena like the funding of the "Arab Spring," Obama's Cairo speech, government importation of Somalian refugees, coverups of obvious jihadi attacks (Major Hassan, etc.) and on and on and on. This is the actual location of the taboo in American society -- not "criticism of Israel," which is, after all, a favorite hobby of both the progressive left and the paleo-conservative right.

And what's the point of this? Simply that there is, to return to the original post, a curious lack of awareness and a curious double-standard that suggest other factors are in play than what's being stated. I've always suggested a psychoanalytic interpretation. There are others, of course, even spiritual ones, if you want to get right down to it. I guess I focus on the psychological because the left is always congratulating itself on its psychological acumen.

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5865
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 12-12-2012 12:54 PM

You are correct in your observation that Bush went way out of his way to say this was not about Islam, just before he spearheaded an 11 year combat mission across half a dozen Islamic nations. But the whole time, he said whatever he said. Then along came Obama and the 'apology tour' - apology for what?

The rest of your comment is pretty thought provoking as well. I'd note the paleoconservatives (like Buchanan?), are actually considered anti-Semitic. And many conservatives, like Mel Gibson, famously, do harbor a tinge of the hate. I think this is rooted deep in the Christian Church, but I would have to remind myself of the scriptures & theories involved. It's pretty convoluted. Progressives are pretty blatantly rooting for 'Palestine', so is that anti-semitic? Is the OP anti-Semitic, or just ridiculous, junvenile and insulting?
Last edited by SquidInk on 12-12-2012 12:59 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 12-12-2012 12:59 PM

It must be that any kind of "totalizing" system, religious or political, has an appeal to the modern liberal as a relief from the anxiety that is an intrinsic part of his existence. This is the point of William Barrett in his book on Existentialism, "Irrational Man." The liberated ego is wracked with anxiety, horror, insecurity, precisely to the extent that he's been "liberated" from the normalizing precepts of his past. So if he can no longer believe in these precepts, where can he find some? An obvious candidate would be the culture of the "Other." This explains the curious phenomenon of western feminists arguing in favor of practices they would find abhorrent within their own culture, but acceptable within an exoticized culture outside, removed, and even opposed to their own.

It would also explain the entrenched hostility to Israel, since Judaism represents the foundations of the civilizational order they long to escape from. And now, having escaped, they shiver, terrified, in the void of their own making. Sucks when you get what you wish for! How ironic that the only thing that would calm the terror of a liberated modern would be, oh, I don't know, a totalitarian political order dominating every aspect of existence.

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government Pre-2007”