Liberty, the Sword of Islam, and the BBC [Archive]

The Fool

16th January 2004, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Probably you haven't read what I wrote. I want people to start debating what Skeptic posted, instead you started hitting each other. Where is the racist remark in his post BTW. Do you mean what he said about the Catholic School? If this is a lie then it's posted to cause false impressions so his motives might be characterized as racist but is it a lie?

Or Are the Muslims right to be offended by titles like that? That's a nice topic for a discussion that we will never going to have...
I realise this is a waste time pointing out the blatantly obvious to you.
Exactly what was the poinbt of this statement?

"No word on the possible effect of such names on the sensitivities of the infidels, I mean jews and christians"

It is nothing more than trolling, racist trolling. The problem with "skeptic" is that his racist trolling stirs up a lot of the simpler posters like tony, the mass of ignorant born followers who love to jump on a muslim bash when they see one. It also stirs up the Israeli apologists like yourself who see all critisism of israeli foreign policy as racism yet either participate in or apologise for blatant racist attacks on Palestinians

But of course, as this is not racism towards jews, you don't give a damn....

And TONY please look up the term racism and racist....It deals with people's beliefs that other people are different....In my view there is one race of humans on this planet, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, using your stupid apologist definition racism is not physically possible. Now I think that as one of the few people who have had racist posts deleted from this forum you should keep your mouth shut.

Nikk

16th January 2004, 06:02 PM

Mycroft

16th January 2004, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Three items from the "Jewish News" of this week:

1). The CIA and NSA formally released a report concluding that the israeli attack on the USS Liberty, in 1967, was a case of mistaken identity; the pilots didn't know they were attacking an american ship.

It won’t make a bit of difference. Those that want to bash Israel over the Liberty incident won’t be satisfied by anything.
Originally posted by Skeptic
2). In December, a California Catholic high school team changed its name from "The Crusaders" to "The Lions", in order not to offend Muslims. In the meantime, a few miles away in Orange County, the sandlot "Muslim Football League" announced that its new year's game will feature two teams name "The Intifada" and "The Sword of Islam".

(No word on the possible effect of such names on the sensitivities of the infidels, I mean jews and christians).

3). The BBC's reaction to the infamous Tom Paulin claim that settlers "should be shot" was the following: "a polemical, knockabout style ruffled feathers in the US, where the Jewish question is notoriously sensitive".

Political correctness and cultural sensitivity only go in one direction, everyone knows that.

Jocko

16th January 2004, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

I realise this is a waste time pointing out the blatantly obvious to you.
Exactly what was the poinbt of this statement?

"No word on the possible effect of such names on the sensitivities of the infidels, I mean jews and christians"

It is nothing more than trolling, racist trolling. The problem with "skeptic" is that his racist trolling stirs up a lot of the simpler posters like tony, the mass of ignorant born followers who love to jump on a muslim bash when they see one. It also stirs up the Israeli apologists like yourself who see all critisism of israeli foreign policy as racism yet either participate in or apologise for blatant racist attacks on Palestinians

But of course, as this is not racism towards jews, you don't give a damn....

And TONY please look up the term racism and racist....It deals with people's beliefs that other people are different....In my view there is one race of humans on this planet, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, using your stupid apologist definition racism is not physically possible. Now I think that as one of the few people who have had racist posts deleted from this forum you should keep your mouth shut.

It's official. Fool has gone completely off the runway. I've never seen someone's veins pop on the internet like that, not since Victor D took off. Call me a literalist, but since the root of the word "racism" is "race," I imagine that should settle the issue all around, and blowing it further out of proportion is just so much screaming.

Funny, I'm SURE I heard somewhere they speak some variant of English in Australia, so I really don't understand the vocabulary problem in play here.

The Fool

16th January 2004, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

It's official. Fool has gone completely off the runway. I've never seen someone's veins pop on the internet like that, not since Victor D took off. Call me a literalist, but since the root of the word "racism" is "race," I imagine that should settle the issue all around, and blowing it further out of proportion is just so much screaming.

Funny, I'm SURE I heard somewhere they speak some variant of English in Australia, so I really don't understand the vocabulary problem in play here.
Lol... Is this just a filler post while you wait for your next original thought to be PM'd to you?

Grammatron

16th January 2004, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Lol... Is this just a filler post while you wait for your next original thought to be PM'd to you?

It's an amazing retort and all, but you have yet to show where in this thread Skeptic made a racist comment.

The Fool

17th January 2004, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by Grammatron

It's an amazing retort and all, but you have yet to show where in this thread Skeptic made a racist comment.
Just the usual and constant application of his usual stull, The "all x are Y" stuff that The trolls lose to produce and the apologists politely applaud from the sidelines.

The basic problem is that "skeptic" believes all Arabs are bloodthirsty and only live to kill Jew. He justifies this racist hatred from his past experiences of Arabs. I'm guessing there are probably arabs who's racist attitudes are due to past experiences with skeptic. If I was an Arab, a muslim or both I would read this board with some concern. The most obnoxious level of blatant generalising racist statements are not only made but are actively defended by a broad range of neo-cons and zionists. We now also have an arabic kook that likes to speak in support of terrorists. The Neo-cons and zionists erupt in merryment as they point out his stupidity...they should try looking in the mirror for more sources of humor.

Cleopatra

17th January 2004, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by Nikk

Well that's free speech for you. Indisciplined, erratic sometimes offensive. The British tradition of venemous satire and polemic goes back several centuries. You don't like it? Tough. That applies to Muslims too of course.

Oh, to save you asking, I would have given Kilroy Silk his programme back.

I'd totally agree with you if Paulin's comment was made while addressing a British audience but he was addressing an Arabic audience who has a different approach to " venemous satire and polemic". It makes the whole issue totally different in my opinion.

17th January 2004, 05:00 AM

This is so excellent. Another Jews/Moslems/Arabs/PC/Unfairness debate. If only we could work guns in!!!!!!

Originally posted by Tony

Gawd dammit you're so fcuking ignorant, ISLAM IS NOT A RACE, PALESTINAINS ARE NOT A RACE. Speaking the truth about said cultures is not racism anymore than speaking out against communism is racism. But you have already shown to be obstinately devoted to that idea, aka a bigot, so it's not like you are going to understand now.

Tony (are we speaking again?) the left has co-opted the word "racist" as a term to quell debate. If any group is critisized (except americans or white people) the perpetrators are "racist" like that really has any meaning anymore. We have all seen the incessent drumbeat of this inappropriate usage applied to all enemies of the progressive left.

What this translates to is shorthand opprobrium for any discussion of the pets of liberals. Very sad, very manipulative, very illiterate.

Skeptic, do you have a link?

Jocko

17th January 2004, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Lol... Is this just a filler post while you wait for your next original thought to be PM'd to you?

Sorry, my mistake, I thought English was spoken there and you understood the idea of a root concept behind words. It seems "Racist" and "bigoted" mean completely different things where you live, i.e., anything Fool disagrees with.

And "lol" yourself, you're swinging at shadows and anything that moves here as your PC paranoia moves up into gears I never knew existed. Watching how you comport yourself is very educational, with certain similarities to the degeneration of an untreated schizophrenia patient. You know, hearing things that aren't there (racism).... get the picture?

Fascinating.

Jocko

17th January 2004, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Just the usual and constant application of his usual stull, The "all x are Y" stuff that The trolls lose to produce and the apologists politely applaud from the sidelines.

The basic problem is that "skeptic" believes all Arabs are bloodthirsty and only live to kill Jew. He justifies this racist hatred from his past experiences of Arabs. I'm guessing there are probably arabs who's racist attitudes are due to past experiences with skeptic. If I was an Arab, a muslim or both I would read this board with some concern. The most obnoxious level of blatant generalising racist statements are not only made but are actively defended by a broad range of neo-cons and zionists. We now also have an arabic kook that likes to speak in support of terrorists. The Neo-cons and zionists erupt in merryment as they point out his stupidity...they should try looking in the mirror for more sources of humor.

Boy, I know we've established that your English skills are shaky at best, but this diatribe doesn't answer the original question Grammatron posed (and indeed many others, including I, have posed in the past with similar results):

It's an amazing retort and all, but you have yet to show where in this thread Skeptic made a racist comment.

So how about you take your heart medication and actually find a freakin' "racist" statement, you obnoxious bully? You never gave me one, so how about obliging Grammatron? You're the one making the claim, and that means you have to provide proof. So get busy.

Grammatron

17th January 2004, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Just the usual and constant application of his usual stull, The "all x are Y" stuff that The trolls lose to produce and the apologists politely applaud from the sidelines.

The basic problem is that "skeptic" believes all Arabs are bloodthirsty and only live to kill Jew. He justifies this racist hatred from his past experiences of Arabs. I'm guessing there are probably arabs who's racist attitudes are due to past experiences with skeptic. If I was an Arab, a muslim or both I would read this board with some concern. The most obnoxious level of blatant generalising racist statements are not only made but are actively defended by a broad range of neo-cons and zionists. We now also have an arabic kook that likes to speak in support of terrorists. The Neo-cons and zionists erupt in merryment as they point out his stupidity...they should try looking in the mirror for more sources of humor.

And yet you do not answer the question. In fact, your response is a lie at best. I hereby challenge you to find a post where on this thread...in fact I am going to take a risk and challenge you to find a post by Skeptic that says "all Arabs are bloodthirsty and only live to kill Jew." Please, prove me wrong.

The Fool

17th January 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

And yet you do not answer the question. In fact, your response is a lie at best. I hereby challenge you to find a post where on this thread...in fact I am going to take a risk and challenge you to find a post by Skeptic that says "all Arabs are bloodthirsty and only live to kill Jew." Please, prove me wrong.
sheesh, ask me a hard one why don't you....

you want an example of skeptics belief that all arabs are bloodthirsty and only live to kill jews...ok will 2 minutes of my time and a search on skeptics posts for "bloodthirsty and arabs" got me this one from the first thread I checked.

"That might have something to do with being 600,000 among 150,000,000 bloodthirsty Arabs who want you dead."

This is his vision of Israel.... a small band of people surrounded by 150,000,000 bloodthirsty savages who all want to kill them..

so whats next? do you want an example to cover the word "savages"? Thats another two minutes work that I'm not prepared to do for you....I suggest you open your eyes and do your own searching rather than doing the usual (look the other way and whistle a happy tune....)

The Fool

17th January 2004, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

Boy, I know we've established that your English skills are shaky at best, but this diatribe doesn't answer the original question Grammatron posed (and indeed many others, including I, have posed in the past with similar results):

[b]

So how about you take your heart medication and actually find a freakin' "racist" statement, you obnoxious bully? You never gave me one, so how about obliging Grammatron? You're the one making the claim, and that means you have to provide proof. So get busy.

Sorry doofus, see my replies to Grammatron, I'm not going to waste my time entertaining both of you with the same stuff...

you are right about the bully bit...I don't mean to bully you but when you act this naughty its difficult not to spank you.

The Fool

17th January 2004, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Ed
This is so excellent. Another Jews/Moslems/Arabs/PC/Unfairness debate. If only we could work guns in!!!!!!

Tony (are we speaking again?) the left has co-opted the word "racist" as a term to quell debate. If any group is critisized (except americans or white people) the perpetrators are "racist" like that really has any meaning anymore. We have all seen the incessent drumbeat of this inappropriate usage applied to all enemies of the progressive left.

What this translates to is shorthand opprobrium for any discussion of the pets of liberals. Very sad, very manipulative, very illiterate.

Skeptic, do you have a link?
Hmmmmmm...so do you think there are racist statements posted on this forum ed? Are you a card carrying member of the "I see nothing" club?

So what about it ed, am I imagining racist statements? Did your friend tony have stuff deleted by hal because it was racist or because it was "speaking the truth about cultures"....

Is describing palestinians as bloodthirsty and savages racism or "speaking the truth about cultures"
Would describing Israelis as bloodthirsty and savages be anti-semitism or "speaking the truth about cultures"

I've not seen you as someone who ignores obnoxious posting...

Grammatron

17th January 2004, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

sheesh, ask me a hard one why don't you....

you want an example of skeptics belief that all arabs are bloodthirsty and only live to kill jews...ok will 2 minutes of my time and a search on skeptics posts for "bloodthirsty and arabs" got me this one from the first thread I checked.

"That might have something to do with being 600,000 among 150,000,000 bloodthirsty Arabs who want you dead."

This is his vision of Israel.... a small band of people surrounded by 150,000,000 bloodthirsty savages who all want to kill them..

so whats next? do you want an example to cover the word "savages"? Thats another two minutes work that I'm not prepared to do for you....I suggest you open your eyes and do your own searching rather than doing the usual (look the other way and whistle a happy tune....)

You called them savages and the example you provided won't cut it. Firstly it does not cover ALL Arabs as you asserted -- and you have yet to show a racist comment. Secondly I want to see the context if there is any. Thirdly, and most importantly, some Jews are Arabs thus it would impossible for Skeptic to call them bloodthirsty.

The Fool

17th January 2004, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

You called them savages and the example you provided won't cut it. Firstly it does not cover ALL Arabs as you asserted -- and you have yet to show a racist comment. Secondly I want to see the context if there is any. Thirdly, and most importantly, some Jews are Arabs thus it would impossible for Skeptic to call them bloodthirsty.
There is no point to this Grammatron. You cannot see what you will not see. I'm not going to play the same stupid games with you any more.

Pathetic....have a good look at yourself.

geni

17th January 2004, 05:02 PM

well looking a Skeptic's post I have say

1)It happen 17 years before I was born. Get over it. It's 2003 all that matters is the situation now.

2) who cares

3) the guy should be sacked

now back to your regualy sceduled thread

Grammatron

17th January 2004, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

There is no point to this Grammatron. You cannot see what you will not see. I'm not going to play the same stupid games with you any more.

Pathetic....have a good look at yourself.

Great debating skills sir. I am impressed how you avoid a question by telling me I can't see invisible things. Of course every time you want to restart this discussion by using facts you are welcome to do so, until then remember you are entering skeptic’s forum where people do not see things that are not there.

The Fool

17th January 2004, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

Great debating skills sir. I am impressed how you avoid a question by telling me I can't see invisible things. Of course every time you want to restart this discussion by using facts you are welcome to do so, until then remember you are entering skeptic’s forum where people do not see things that are not there.
Your ability to selectively ignore racism is breathtaking....

Can you give me an example of what you regard as a racist statement?

Are these racist statements?

Palestinians are savages.
Blacks are fat and lazy.
whites are drunks and wife beaters..

Here's one that I would like to see if you think is anti-semitic..

"Ah, Judaism, the religion of peace and progress. If by "progress" you mean 10th-century Judea and by "peace" totalitarian rule over anybody who isn't Jewish."

is that anti-semitic?

How about "jews are murderous land thieves" is that anti-semitic?

So can YOU give me an example of something (anything) that passes your test of what is a racist statement?

Troll

17th January 2004, 06:57 PM

There is no point to this Fool. You can only see what you want to see. I'm not going to play the same stupid games with you any more.

Pathetic....have a good look at yourself.

Wow, such little editing to be had there and look at how it completely alters the whole thing.

Let's try that again.

Your ability to selectively choose racism is breathtaking....

Can you give me an example of what you regard as a non-racist statement?

How's the witch hunt going?

You know, the most obvious racist comments are the ones you use as examples, and even then you have needed corrected in the past to make them such. Yes you scored a point on Jocko once, but I had to just ask to verify it while you had a ton of posts that were unsubstaniated claims. So you're welcome for the assist there. I know we all need a little reality to help us out at times and I was glad to provide it for you.

Now go back into the woods and get ready to cry wolf again at a later time.:p

Grammatron

17th January 2004, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Your ability to selectively ignore racism is breathtaking....

Can you give me an example of what you regard as a racist statement?

Are these racist statements?

Palestinians are savages.
Blacks are fat and lazy.
whites are drunks and wife beaters..

Here's one that I would like to see if you think is anti-semitic..

"Ah, Judaism, the religion of peace and progress. If by "progress" you mean 10th-century Judea and by "peace" totalitarian rule over anybody who isn't Jewish."

is that anti-semitic?

How about "jews are murderous land thieves" is that anti-semitic?

So can YOU give me an example of something (anything) that passes your test of what is a racist statement?

Let's review the things you just said and apply the appropriate lable:

Palestinians are savages. -- Not racist as there's no Palestinian race.

Blacks are fat and lazy. -- Racist as blacks are a race.

whites are drunks and wife beaters.. -- Racist as whites are a race.

jews are murderous land thieves -- Not racist.

You see? Very simple.

The Fool

17th January 2004, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Troll

You know, the most obvious racist comments are the ones you use as examples
so you've changed your mind have you? I spent quite a while with you while you defended such statements as non racist. Are you coming around Troll? Is the obvious starting to soak in?

Troll

17th January 2004, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

so you've changed your mind have you? I spent quite a while with you while you defended such statements as non racist. Are you coming around Troll? Is the obvious starting to soak in?

No. I still believe you're a sensationalist and that your comments themselves were not racist coming from you as you weakly tried to make a point.

Or do you think Texans are gay and blacks are lazy?

See I asked Jocko and got an answer. I'm asking you now. If you don't believe it then I'm right and your comments weren't racist, just sensationalitic. I only stated that your's are obvious because of your attempt.

thanks for playing

The Fool

17th January 2004, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

Let's review the things you just said and apply the appropriate lable:

Palestinians are savages. -- Not racist as there's no Palestinian race.

Blacks are fat and lazy. -- Racist as blacks are a race.

whites are drunks and wife beaters.. -- Racist as whites are a race.

jews are murderous land thieves -- Not racist.

You see? Very simple.

simplistic is probably more appropriate. The old "they are not a race" argument has been used by racists and thier apologists for a long long time. Its main flaw is easily demonstrated by switching the target of the statement around...

Palestinians are savages...not racist
blacks are savages...racist
Palestinians are savages...not racist
blacks are savages...racist

The belief that those people that live over in that other country are savages......damn, don't know if thats racist or not...are they black? well, they are pretty dark...dark enough? don't know, maybe I could try a color chart like they give out at the paint stores. Hang on, they have slitty eyes...that should do for a determination....

In my opinion there is one race in this planet, Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Racism is the belief that all those "other people" are...(insert something nasty). XXXX are savages is a racist statement
Trying to defend this statement is only going to make you look like an idiot.

Race is an arbitrary distinction, People are people and grossly offensive generalisations directed towards people is racism pure and simple....

you left out my anti semitic example....

is it anti-semitic or not in your opinion?

The Fool

17th January 2004, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Troll

No. I still believe you're a sensationalist and that your comments themselves were not racist coming from you as you weakly tried to make a point.

Or do you think Texans are gay and blacks are lazy?

See I asked Jocko and got an answer. I'm asking you now. If you don't believe it then I'm right and your comments weren't racist, just sensationalitic. I only stated that your's are obvious because of your attempt.

thanks for playing
Are you saying that I can post statements like "Blacks are lazy" in order to upset someone but its NOT racist if I don't believe it to be true? Are you suggesting that the racists on this board that tell us that Arabs are bloodthirsty savages actually deep down don't believe it to be true?
The longer you post on this board the more confusing you become... Yet again you have made a blatant contradiction of a previous position. You really need to work on a consistant position...This "only if you believe it" patch up job is a joke.

Troll

17th January 2004, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Are you saying that I can post statements like "Blacks are lazy" in order to upset someone but its NOT racist if I don't believe it to be true? Are you suggesting that the racists on this board that tell us that Arabs are bloodthirsty savages actually deep down don't believe it to be true?
The longer you post on this board the more confusing you become... Yet again you have made a blatant contradiction of a previous position. You really need to work on a consistant position...This "only if you believe it" patch up job is a joke.

well you better hope I'm saying you can post it and not be a racist because you don't believe it, because you have posted it several times and by your standards that means you're confessing your racist beliefs.

See if I defend you again, you racist pig.:p

Mr Manifesto

17th January 2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Troll

well you better hope I'm saying you can post it and not be a racist because you don't believe it, because you have posted it several times and by your standards that means you're confessing your racist beliefs.

See if I defend you again, you racist pig.:p

Whoa! Easy on the sauce, there, pal! That's got to last you until your next welfare check. You don't want to get into the furniture polish again.

Troll

17th January 2004, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Whoa! Easy on the sauce, there, pal! That's got to last you until your next welfare check. You don't want to get into the furniture polish again.

that the best you have to offer the topic? Wait. Let me rephrase that slightly.

That is the best you have to offer. You have my deepest sympathies.

Jocko

17th January 2004, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

There is no point to this Grammatron. You cannot see what you will not see. I'm not going to play the same stupid games with you any more.

Pathetic....have a good look at yourself.

It never fails to amaze me, Fool, how you can run away so fast with that tail between your legs. One would think the aerodynamics would slow you down a little.

The Fool

17th January 2004, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Troll

well you better hope I'm saying you can post it and not be a racist because you don't believe it, because you have posted it several times and by your standards that means you're confessing your racist beliefs.

See if I defend you again, you racist pig.:p
I was attempting to gain some understanding of what the apologists regard as a racist statement. You seem to be putting your membership at risk here son.... Disagreeing with Grammatron and saying that Jocko got "a point scored on him"....carefull, they will confiscate your pom poms and you will be out of the cheersquad....

Otther

17th January 2004, 11:14 PM

Fool, is the statement "Floridians are savages" racist?
What about "hockey players are stupid idiots"?

you left out my anti semitic example.... Well, I'm not familiar with this board quoting system so I guess it's possible he edited his post, which could somehow edit the quoted part of his post that you quoted. But whatever the case he wrote "jews are murderous land thieves -- Not racist."

Troll

18th January 2004, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

I was attempting to gain some understanding of what the apologists regard as a racist statement. You seem to be putting your membership at risk here son.... Disagreeing with Grammatron and saying that Jocko got "a point scored on him"....carefull, they will confiscate your pom poms and you will be out of the cheersquad....

Well then ask one of the apologists. Geez, dude, how much help do you need me to give you?:p

The Fool

18th January 2004, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Otther
Fool, is the statement "Floridians are savages" racist?
What about "hockey players are stupid idiots"?

Well, I'm not familiar with this board quoting system so I guess it's possible he edited his post, which could somehow edit the quoted part of his post that you quoted. But whatever the case he wrote "jews are murderous land thieves -- Not racist."
Hi Otther.
The hypothetical statement I used on anti-semitism was.

Ah, Judaism, the religion of peace and progress. If by "progress" you mean 10th-century Judea and by "peace" totalitarian rule over anybody who isn't Jewish.

I would be interested in knowing if the cheersquad think this is an anti-semitic statement... This will lead, if they answer, to further questions to try to figure out what they see as the difference between anti-semitism and racism. My view is that anti-semitism is just an example of common old racism.

Regarding your questions. Basically No I don't think your examples are always racist, they are crap if said seriously but not necessarily racist. The main reason why goes to the perception of "race" that humans have... If a number of Cubans were on this board ranting that floridans were savages then I would call it racism. It would be, in that case, a generalisation made out of ignorance or out of a desire to belittle another society based on racial stereotypes They are making conclusions about people based on a racial stereotype they have created , thats racism.

Now I personally dislike hockey....I find it boring. I could conclude that you are an idiot if you play hockey. I would be an Idiot to conclude that, but it is not based on a racial stereotype. I also know of no societies of hockey players living anywhere in the world.

Grammatron

18th January 2004, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Hi Otther.
The hypothetical statement I used on anti-semitism was.

Ah, Judaism, the religion of peace and progress. If by "progress" you mean 10th-century Judea and by "peace" totalitarian rule over anybody who isn't Jewish.

I would be interested in knowing if the cheersquad think this is an anti-semitic statement... This will lead, if they answer, to further questions to try to figure out what they see as the difference between anti-semitism and racism. My view is that anti-semitism is just an example of common old racism.

Regarding your questions. Basically No I don't think your examples are always racist, they are crap if said seriously but not necessarily racist. The main reason why goes to the perception of "race" that humans have... If a number of Cubans were on this board ranting that floridans were savages then I would call it racism. It would be, in that case, a generalisation made out of ignorance or out of a desire to belittle another society based on racial stereotypes They are making conclusions about people based on a racial stereotype they have created , thats racism.

Now I personally dislike hockey....I find it boring. I could conclude that you are an idiot if you play hockey. I would be an Idiot to conclude that, but it is not based on a racial stereotype. I also know of no societies of hockey players living anywhere in the world.

I will answer your question but first I must again point out to you that you are not using the word racism correctly. I can only conclude that it's either because you do not know what that word means or you want to give it meaning it does not deserve. Whatever the case may be, I am including a real definition from Webster's dictionary just for you. Racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

Now as for your example "Ah, Judaism, the religion of peace and progress. If by "progress" you mean 10th-century Judea and by "peace" totalitarian rule over anybody who isn't Jewish. " is not an anti-semitic statement simply because it's not referring to any person or people but a religion itself. I don't know of a word that would describe someone who is against a religion.

The Fool

18th January 2004, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by Grammatron

I will answer your question but first I must again point out to you that you are not using the word racism correctly. I can only conclude that it's either because you do not know what that word means or you want to give it meaning it does not deserve. Whatever the case may be, I am including a real definition from Webster's dictionary just for you. Racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

"a belief that race is the primary determination of human traits"

"Bloodthirstyness" is a trait that has been attempted to be pinned on some people.

Who has it attempted to be pinned on? Arabs... Not terrorists but Arabs. If you are an Arab, you are apparently bloodthirsty. I think this is fairly clear so far....

Now can it be argued that "Arabs" or "palestinians" are not a race? well, if you want to determine if someone is an Arab, or a Palestinian you need to use racial differences to decide. There are no blood tests avaiable, we are all one species. The determination is clearly what customs, religion and lifestyle are typical of the group of people.

Racists believe that these differences can be used to decide if you are "bloodthirsty" You do not have to do or say anything...just be something...be an Arab, or a palestinian

To claim that racial stereotypes directed at palestinians is not Racism because "palestinian" is not a race is simply semantics. To say Asians are inscrutable is racist, so is saying Chinese are inscrutable, so is saying Vietnamese are inscrutable....
In the case of the tired old Israeli palestinian racism debate directing the same old racial stereotypes at Palestinians is no different from directing the same old racial stereotypes at anyone else...It is unacceptable.

On a skeptic board I am amazed at how mush support there is for stupid racial stereotypes.

Now as for your example " ]Ah, Judaism, the religion of peace and progress. If by "progress" you mean 10th-century Judea and by "peace" totalitarian rule over anybody who isn't Jewish. " is not an anti-semitic statement simply because it's not referring to any person or people but a religion itself. I don't know of a word that would describe someone who is against a religion.
[/b]
Should I tell all the anti-semites that they can slag Judaism all they want because its a religion?What religion people are is the most common source of stereotyping and hate rants....

Its just more of the same old thing...Those people over there who are different to "Us" are inferior because they are all XXXX........ Racism, pure and simple.

davefoc

18th January 2004, 04:27 AM

A few comments on the topics that Skeptic started this thread with:

Skeptic said:1). The CIA and NSA formally released a report concluding that the israeli attack on the USS Liberty, in 1967, was a case of mistaken identity; the pilots didn't know they were attacking an american ship.

(Not that that will stop AUP & co. from keeping the faith in the eeeeeeebil zionist konspiracy to disagree with them on this issue.)

There is strong evidence that the attack was not an accident. Many of the original crew are convinced it was not an accident and given the US government's attempts to cover up the incident from the beginning it is not unreasonable to be skeptical of reports from the US government on the issue.

Still for me the evidence is even stronger that it was an accident, but if one doesn't share that view (as apparently AUP doesn't according to skeptic here) I don't see this as evidence that the person has an agenda to find an eeeeebil zionist conspiracy. It just seems like an issue that reasonable people can disagree on.

Skeptic said:2). In December, a California Catholic high school team changed its name from "The Crusaders" to "The Lions", in order not to offend Muslims. In the meantime, a few miles away in Orange County, the sandlot "Muslim Football League" announced that its new year's game will feature two teams name "The Intifada" and "The Sword of Islam".

(No word on the possible effect of such names on the sensitivities of the infidels, I mean jews and christians).

The league defended the use of the names by saying that they had non-antisemitic, non anti-Israel connotations that long predated their current useage. None the less all but one of the teams agreed to change their names according to an article I read.

davefoc

18th January 2004, 04:56 AM

Skeptic,
You have provided some examples of what represents some pro-arab bias in your mind on the part of general news media.

I think a much stronger case can be made that the media in the US leans heavily to the Israeli side in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and is relentlessly careful to avoid anything that can be interpretted as anti-semitic.

Of the radio talk shows I listen to or have listened to I can not name one that argues for the Palestinian side or that has even been critical of Sharon. I have specific examples in my mind of pro-Israeli statements from Rush Limbaugh, Larry Elder, Michael Medved, Savage and Dennis Praeger to name the nationally syndicated ones that I can think of.

Essentially, all US TV commentary is pro-Israel. People from George Will to Alan Combs make pro-Irael statements.

The media rarely mentions the Palestinian deaths although there are many more of these than the Israeli deaths. Even less frequently do we learn any of the details of the lives of the Palestinians that are killed when Israeli military attacks kill nearby civilians.

When the Israeli soldiers were murdered (tragically in my view) by the Palestinian crowd no mainstream American media carried the fact that the Palestinian crowd believed the soldiers to be acting as spies.

One of the main reasons that the American media leans heavily to the Israeli side is that the US government has been pro-Israeli so long and people don't like to believe and don't like to hear about how their government has been making a mistake.

I realize that you will disagree with me on this, but Cleopatra might agree with me. The money that the US sends to Israel every year may be doing Israel more harm than good. Israel has been able to maintain the disputed settlement largely as the result of US money and to some degree the existence of that money acts as a kind of encouragement for the violence to continue. Bureacracies don't like to give up money and if peace came about would the US continue to send money?

Skeptic

18th January 2004, 02:54 PM

Many of the original crew are convinced it was not an accident

Nobody denied the ship was attacked on purpose; the point is that the pilots DIDN'T KNOW THE SHIP WAS AMERICAN. They thought it was an Egyptian ship.

and given the US government's attempts to cover up the incident from the beginning it is not unreasonable to be skeptical of reports from the US government on the issue.

Of course, one needs to take into account that the only evidence of a "coverup" is the fact that the US government didn't agree that the attack was deliberate.

So if the US government claimed the attack was deliberate, then it was deliberate. But if the US government claims the attack was not deliberate, then they are lying to "hide the truth". Finally, if the US government makes no claim at all about the subject, they are "covering up the truth behind a veil of silence".

The "coverup" claims are the usual conspiracy theorist's heads-I-win-tails-you-lose circular "logic": the government disagrees with me that the attack was deliberate, but I know that's just a coverup. But how do I know it's a coverup? Well, otherwise, why do they disagree with me instead of "admitting the truth"?

Just replace "USS Liberty Attack" with "Crashed Alien Saucer" or "The Illuminati control the world" and you'll see that the same "logic" works in all the cases.

Still for me the evidence is even stronger that it was an accident, but if one doesn't share that view (as apparently AUP doesn't according to skeptic here) I don't see this as evidence that the person has an agenda to find an eeeeebil zionist conspiracy.

Did you look at "Grammatron"'s .sig file lately? It is a quote, directly from AUP, where he (AUP) expresses his view that PRECISELY such a "zionist control of the USA" exists. Naturally, AUP thinks the USS Liberty "coverup" (which never was) is part of it.

It just seems like an issue that reasonable people can disagree on.

Actually, I don't think so.

First, let's look at israel's actions according to this theory: israel, engaged in a war of survival on three fronts, had deliberatly and with malice aforethought attacked and sank a ship of the most powerful--in fact, the ONLY--ally it had in the entire world, for no apparent reason.

(Of course the conspiracy theorists engage in silly attempts to find the "real reason" for the attack--usually, an attempt to "cover up" an even more nefarious "israeli war crime", but that, too, is typical conspiracy-theory thinking).

Now, let's look at the USA's reaction: in reply to what was (according to the conspiracy theory) nothing less than an act of war, the US, from president Johnson down, not only did nothing at all to punish israel, or even to publically express dissatisfaction, but slavishly covered up the truth to benefit israel, due to the awful influence of "racist zionist power" in the USA.

Of course, like most conspiracy theorists, the "explanation" begs the question of why--if israel/"the zionists" (e.g., "the jews") had such an iron grip on US politics--did they have to use such a crude device as attacking the USS Liberty in the first place.

israel/the jews are supposed to be, on the one hand, so weak and fearful of the US that they must blow up a US spy ship just in order to keep the US from discovering and instantly stopping israel's "secret plans", while on the other hand, israel/the jews are supposed to be so powerful they totally control everything the US does, and can force the US president to literally commit treason by collaborating in covering up a war crime on US personnel.

Now let's look at the evidence: well, none whatsoever--and, in fact, all official reports from both the USA and israel, many of them recently declassified point exactly in the opposite direction. But, as we all know, contrary evidence is merely "proof" of the extent of the coverup...

So, no, I do NOT think this is something "reasonable people can disagree on"--any more than I think reasonable people can disagree on whether Rosewell was a site of a real crashed UFO, or whether the moon landing was faked. I think that accepting such a prepsterous, nonsensical conspiracy theory is a pretty good sign one is an antisemite, since it means one believes in an all-powerful "zionist" cabal that controls the USA, at least partially.

Jocko

18th January 2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Yes you scored a point on Jocko once, but I had to just ask to verify it while you had a ton of posts that were unsubstaniated claims.

Er, which point was that, exactly?

Grammatron

18th January 2004, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
"a belief that race is the primary determination of human traits"

"Bloodthirstyness" is a trait that has been attempted to be pinned on some people.

Who has it attempted to be pinned on? Arabs... Not terrorists but Arabs. If you are an Arab, you are apparently bloodthirsty. I think this is fairly clear so far....

Now can it be argued that "Arabs" or "palestinians" are not a race? well, if you want to determine if someone is an Arab, or a Palestinian you need to use racial differences to decide. There are no blood tests avaiable, we are all one species. The determination is clearly what customs, religion and lifestyle are typical of the group of people.

Racists believe that these differences can be used to decide if you are "bloodthirsty" You do not have to do or say anything...just be something...be an Arab, or a palestinian

To claim that racial stereotypes directed at palestinians is not Racism because "palestinian" is not a race is simply semantics. To say Asians are inscrutable is racist, so is saying Chinese are inscrutable, so is saying Vietnamese are inscrutable....
In the case of the tired old Israeli palestinian racism debate directing the same old racial stereotypes at Palestinians is no different from directing the same old racial stereotypes at anyone else...It is unacceptable.

On a skeptic board I am amazed at how mush support there is for stupid racial stereotypes.

Should I tell all the anti-semites that they can slag Judaism all they want because its a religion?What religion people are is the most common source of stereotyping and hate rants....

Its just more of the same old thing...Those people over there who are different to "Us" are inferior because they are all XXXX........ Racism, pure and simple.

Who the heck said Arabs are not a race? You are making things up to reach your conclusion; people who disagree with the way Palestinians are doing things are racist because they hate Arabs. It's this kind of idiocy that prevents you from having a normal discussion on this board. You see one negative thing about Palestine you think "AHHH!! They are racist Arab-hating bigots!" By the same token I can call you racist against Americans whenever you make a critical comment against them. Of course, that would be stupid but you somehow fail to see that.

I'm sorry, but I can criticize religions as institutions all I want. I'm an atheist and from where I'm sitting they are all wrong. Does that make me a racist? No it does not.

Skeptic

18th January 2004, 05:12 PM

I'm sorry, but I can criticize religions as institutions all I want. I'm an atheist and from where I'm sitting they are all wrong. Does that make me a racist? No it does not.

No argument, Grammatron, but what I wonder is why you care if people like "the fool" calls you a "racist". In the leftist vocabulary, "racist!" means, more or less, "I disagree with you on that!".

Grammatron

18th January 2004, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

No argument, Grammatron, but what I wonder is why you care if people like "the fool" calls you a "racist". In the leftist vocabulary, "racist!" means, more or less, "I disagree with you on that!".

I don't know why I keep arguing with them, I think it's because I believe if I keep challenging them with facts I will eventually back them into a corner from which they can't argue themselves out of.

The Fool

18th January 2004, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

Who the heck said Arabs are not a race? You are making things up to reach your conclusion; people who disagree with the way Palestinians are doing things are racist because they hate Arabs. It's this kind of idiocy that prevents you from having a normal discussion on this board. You see one negative thing about Palestine you think "AHHH!! They are racist Arab-hating bigots!" By the same token I can call you racist against Americans whenever you make a critical comment against them. Of course, that would be stupid but you somehow fail to see that.

I'm sorry, but I can criticize religions as institutions all I want. I'm an atheist and from where I'm sitting they are all wrong. Does that make me a racist? No it does not.

I don't know...who said arabs are not a race? You said Palestinians are not a race so any blatant racial slur made against them is not racism....Its really cool of you to award "skeptic" unlimited free kicks at Palestinians. I pointed out that saying Asians are inscrutable is racist, so is saying Chinese are inscrutable or Vietnamese are inscrutable...I don't know how to make it any simpler for you.

I've had to take some of the other cheersquad members to task on this one...now it seems its your turn, please show one single example of me making a critisizm of Americans that uses racism or a racial stereotype. Just one will do. If I call GWB an Idiot or say American foreign policy is a disaster...so what? When do I ever jump on anyone for slagging that idiot Arafat or slagging those murdering terrorists in Hamas? Once again, I don't know how to make it any more simple for you...

You are defending stupid falacies grammatron. Are you supposed to be a skeptic? Why on earth would you waste time defending the proposition that all palestinians were anything other than a nation of individuals like any other...bloodthirsty? what a joke. All want thier children to be suicide bombers? What a joke. All want to conduct Genocide on jews? What a joke. You condone this crap by whistling and looking the other way.

The Fool

18th January 2004, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
I'm sorry, but I can criticize religions as institutions all I want. I'm an atheist and from where I'm sitting they are all wrong. Does that make me a racist? No it does not.

No argument, Grammatron, but what I wonder is why you care if people like "the fool" calls you a "racist". In the leftist vocabulary, "racist!" means, more or less, "I disagree with you on that!".
No son, when I call you a racist its because I am to lazy to type the full title of "piece of racist human garbage".

Grammatron

18th January 2004, 10:28 PM

There's only one way to resolve this.

Skeptic, do you believe that ALL Arabs are blood thirsty savages and want all Jews dead? Do you believe that ALL Palestinians are blood thirsty savages want all Jews dead?

If Skeptic answers we will know if he is racist or not and if he thinks all Palestinians are blood thirsty savages.

Cleopatra

18th January 2004, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
I realize that you will disagree with me on this, but Cleopatra might agree with me. The money that the US sends to Israel every year may be doing Israel more harm than good. Israel has been able to maintain the disputed settlement largely as the result of US money and to some degree the existence of that money acts as a kind of encouragement for the violence to continue. Bureacracies don't like to give up money and if peace came about would the US continue to send money?

Capel Dodger has said once something with which I totally agree. Israelis know how Americans function and think but Americans don't know at all the Israeli mentality.

This is very true.

I have said before that the polkicy that was established during the years that followed the 6 Days War is not functional any more, it doesn't work and it has to be revised.

The money that USA sends to Israel, davefoc are nothing comparing to the money they would need to support an Army in the area something that it would be a necessity if Israel didn't exist. This is why Israel was established, to play the cop in Middle East the question now is if Israelis still want to play this role and if they are willing to risk somethig else.

When Ben Gurion was talking about Israel's future, the Jewish State wasn't the only option that he had in mind, he thought that Israel could become a democratic nation with an open society something that it can't become now, no matter what.

I have observed too that USA Media rarely give room to Palestinians, everytime a Palestinian appears in CNN he can barely talk English although there are many Palestinians who speak English fluently. Of course, davefoc, have in mind that Palestinians have so many "internal" problems and disagreements that it's possible that the reason why the educated don't appear "on air" is because the officials of the Palestinian authority don't let them. I remind you that Edmund Said's books are forbidden by the regime of Yasser Arafat in the Occupied Territories.

Now, I have a question for you davefoc. :)

Could you please explain to me how some people in this forum that are not personally implicated to the conflict and they live miles away from ME are so blinded with fanaticism that they constantly make fool of themselves?

The Fool

19th January 2004, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by Grammatron
There's only one way to resolve this.

Skeptic, do you believe that ALL Arabs are blood thirsty savages and want all Jews dead? Do you believe that ALL Palestinians are blood thirsty savages want all Jews dead?

If Skeptic answers we will know if he is racist or not and if he thinks all Palestinians are blood thirsty savages.

Lol.... I notice you uppercased the cheersquads favorite rationalisation...that the word ALL is not included, apparently as long as you don't type the word ALL you can say that Australians are fat and lazy and thats not a gross steryotype because you didn't say ALL Australians are fat and lazy...precious.

Here let me give you a hand with a few of "Skeptics" classics. Statements that confirm his beliefs that Arabs and palestinians in particular are indeed "Bloodthirsty savages who want all jews dead"

Imagine a nation of REAL LIFE wannabe "terminators", and you get an idea what palestinian culture is like.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it isn't a "few" bad apples. The entire palestinian authority, the entire palestinian people, are full of genocidal hate for the jews.

The palestinians want their children to suicide while killing jews. That's the problem in a nutshell, really: civilization against savagery.

That might have something to do with being 600,000 among 150,000,000 bloodthirsty Arabs who want you dead.

Some things (like the genocidal hatered of the jews by the palestinians or their leaders being war criminals) never change.

And I'd like to conclude with one of skeptics that I find particularly interesting..

Some things are so vile they deserve nothing but disgust and derision, not attempts at "understanding". Wife-killing is one. Genocidal antisemitism is another.

Yes "skeptic" some things ARE so vile they deserve nothing but disgust.. Your Racism being one of them..

Now Grammatron... how are these statements to be rationalised and massaged into respectability?? May I suggest you continue on the line of semantics, selective amnesia and intermittant blindness, these seem to have been the standard approach so far...

still waiting for examples of my racial stereotypes used against Americans...any luck?

BillyTK

19th January 2004, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
3). The BBC's reaction to the infamous Tom Paulin claim that settlers "should be shot" was the following: "a polemical, knockabout style ruffled feathers in the US, where the Jewish question is notoriously sensitive".

(Yes, those "notoriously" sensitive jews again, objecting to being shot, for some reason. A "jewish question" indeed. Obviously Paulin supports one type of "final solution" to it.)
IIRC Paulin's comments were about "Brooklyn Jews", whom he styled as Nazis and therefore should be shot. I don't understand the reference (is "Brooklyn" some kind of break-out ultra-orthodox sect?) so I've no idea if this mitigates Paulin's comments anymore than advocating beating a women with a piece of dowling rather than a 2x4 mitigates women-beaters, but, y'know, accuracy and all that. As such, I'd like to see the BBC's comments in context.

Edited to add
Re: Palestinians and race; regardless of whether they're a race in any sense of the word, or an ethnicity, a nationality of a social club, calling them savages as a group or calling for their deaths is as inherently racist as any of the usual racist epithets.

Giz

19th January 2004, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by davefoc

Many of the original crew are convinced it was not an accident

Doesn't prove anything I'm afraid. When something bad happens people have a tendency to assign blame to some causal agent (i.e. they don't want to accept that sometimes you just get "bad luck").

An interesting example of this kind of "there must be design" delusion is the belief in many German surviors of Stalingrad that the Red Army lured them deep into Russia with the prior intention of cutting them off, a giant trap in which the Germans were the duped victims.

Skeptic

19th January 2004, 06:20 AM

There's only one way to resolve this.

Skeptic, do you believe that ALL Arabs are blood thirsty savages and want all Jews dead? Do you believe that ALL Palestinians are blood thirsty savages want all Jews dead?

Well, no, but of course, "The Fool" knows THE TRUTH(tm), therefore I am lying, he is right, that's that. And all protestations to the contrary are just an attempt at "propaganda" and/or "denial" on my part to hide THE TRUTH(tm), of course.

19th January 2004, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

IIRC Paulin's comments were about "Brooklyn Jews", whom he styled as Nazis and therefore should be shot. I don't understand the reference (is "Brooklyn" some kind of break-out ultra-orthodox sect?)

Brooklyn is the home to a number of ultra-orthodox jewish sects. When I say Orthodox, I mean ORTHODOX. It is amazing how they have created an insular city within a city. The word Ghetto comes to mind. One of the best known are the Lubivichers. Their Rabbe, Menacham Shneerson died a few years ago and some thought he was the Massiah. They literally would not let him die and then camped out near his grave, might still be there. Also, they are not Zionists.

My take is that they are not agressive at all. You rarely read about them in the newspapers (the "Brooklyn Jews" I mean). The reference might be a rather uneducated one regarding the Jewish Defence League which, I believe, was started in Brooklyn by Myer Kahane, noted Jew. He was pretty nuttsie and moved to Isreal where he was too nutty for the authorities, lots of legal trouble if I recall correctly. Anyhoo he was killed there some years ago. Myer was nutsie but some of his thinking was sound, IMHO. He and his organization popularized the slogan "Never again".

Hope this trip to our local ghetto helps.

davefoc

19th January 2004, 09:20 AM

Skeptic,
As I stated, I agree that the Liberty ship attack was probably an accident (to be semantically perfect an intentional attack that was based on an accidental misidentification).

What is a little hard for me to understand is how somebody that seems as well acquainted with the incident as you are can throw off the contrary evidence as just typical conspiracy theory claptrap. This evidence includes the fact that the American ship looked completely different than any possible Egyptian ship, the passionate stories by the survivors describing the display of the American flag and the statement many years later by the man who ran the initial inquiry that he had been ordered to arrive at a particular result and was ordered to suppress the testimony of the eyewitnesses.

Of course, in the end Occam's razor might draw us to the view that there was just no reason why the Israeli's would have done this intentioally (although certainly a few reasons have been put forth that are on the edge of plausible) and so they probably didn't. But I think the comparison of people that disagree with you on this to people that believe that LGM visited Roswell is a very strained comparison at best.

BillyTK

19th January 2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Ed
Hope this trip to our local ghetto helps.

Thanks for the info. I googled up a bio on Kahane (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/kahane.html), and he was certainly an... interesting figure.

Grammatron

19th January 2004, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Lol.... I notice you uppercased the cheersquads favorite rationalisation...that the word ALL is not included, apparently as long as you don't type the word ALL you can say that Australians are fat and lazy and thats not a gross steryotype because you didn't say ALL Australians are fat and lazy...precious.

Here let me give you a hand with a few of "Skeptics" classics. Statements that confirm his beliefs that Arabs and palestinians in particular are indeed "Bloodthirsty savages who want all jews dead"

Imagine a nation of REAL LIFE wannabe "terminators", and you get an idea what palestinian culture is like.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it isn't a "few" bad apples. The entire palestinian authority, the entire palestinian people, are full of genocidal hate for the jews.

I don't know about all people but the authority sure seems to be that way. Have you seen what they show on the Palestinian TV and teach in schools? It's pretty much genocidal hate for the jews.

The palestinians want their children to suicide while killing jews. That's the problem in a nutshell, really: civilization against savagery.

That might have something to do with being 600,000 among 150,000,000 bloodthirsty Arabs who want you dead.

Some things (like the genocidal hatered of the jews by the palestinians or their leaders being war criminals) never change.

And I'd like to conclude with one of skeptics that I find particularly interesting..

Some things are so vile they deserve nothing but disgust and derision, not attempts at "understanding". Wife-killing is one. Genocidal antisemitism is another.

Yes "skeptic" some things ARE so vile they deserve nothing but disgust.. Your Racism being one of them..

Now Grammatron... how are these statements to be rationalised and massaged into respectability?? May I suggest you continue on the line of semantics, selective amnesia and intermittant blindness, these seem to have been the standard approach so far...

still waiting for examples of my racial stereotypes used against Americans...any luck?

Well Skeptic just posted a reply that he doesn't think that ALL (ALL being 100% -- frankly I don't even know why you are arguing my use of the word) Arabs and/or Palestinians are that way. If he was as racist as you claim him to be he would have said yes. On the other hand, in the quote you provided he does claim that "the entire Palestinian people" want Jews dead. I don't know about all people but the authority sure seems to be that way. Have you seen what they show on the Palestinian TV and teach in schools? It's pretty much genocidal hate for the Jews. So, perhaps Skeptic has an unreasonable view of Palestinian people, but I wouldn't call him racist and just like stated above, when confronted with direct question, he denies it so go figure.

The second quote is very reasonable, unless of course you think there's something positive about genocidal anti-Semitism?

For the last time, there's no American race, thus I can't show you an example of you giving a racial stereotype, is that really so hard to understand?

hgc

19th January 2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Ed

Brooklyn is the home to a number of ultra-orthodox jewish sects. When I say Orthodox, I mean ORTHODOX. It is amazing how they have created an insular city within a city. The word Ghetto comes to mind. One of the best known are the Lubivichers. Their Rabbe, Menacham Shneerson died a few years ago and some thought he was the Massiah. They literally would not let him die and then camped out near his grave, might still be there. Also, they are not Zionists.

My take is that they are not agressive at all. You rarely read about them in the newspapers (the "Brooklyn Jews" I mean). The reference might be a rather uneducated one regarding the Jewish Defence League which, I believe, was started in Brooklyn by Myer Kahane, noted Jew. He was pretty nuttsie and moved to Isreal where he was too nutty for the authorities, lots of legal trouble if I recall correctly. Anyhoo he was killed there some years ago. Myer was nutsie but some of his thinking was sound, IMHO. He and his organization popularized the slogan "Never again".

Hope this trip to our local ghetto helps. A few corrections...

The Lubavitchers are not anti-Zionist. They are pretty much accommodated to the existence of Israel. It's the Brooklyn-based Satmar sect (originated in Hungary) that are vehemently anti-Israel, believing that only the coming of the messiah can bring about the nation of Israel.

Meir Kahane was persona non grata in Israel by the time he was assissinated, in New York.

davefoc

19th January 2004, 10:01 AM

Cleopatra asked:Could you please explain to me how some people in this forum that are not personally implicated to the conflict and they live miles away from ME are so blinded with fanaticism that they constantly make fool of themselves?

I don't think this question was necessarily directed at me but whether it was or not I would like to answer it from my perspective.

I am an American. For the most part I have agreed with my country's foreign policies. I believe them to be driven by a combination of self interest and morality. I would like to think that morality is the dominant motive but I understand that self interest at times has been the main driver.

America has been actively involved with the middle east and Israel in particular since long before I began to follow the news. So as an American, while I am not personally involved in the conflict, I have still felt an involvement in the conflict because of my country's almost continuous involvement in the conflict.

The thing that I have wondered about over the years is whether the US involvement is beneficial or detrimental to the lives of people in the region and whether it is beneficial to US interests. I don't know the answer to this. I know that I am surrounded by an almost continous barrage of media opinion that is critical of the Palestinians and unquestioning of the Israeli's. Given this situation it is easy to just accept that the US is doing everything it can to bring about peace, but it is just stymied by the violent irrational Palestinians.

I don't feel I have any great ability to understand what the real situation is. I know that I tend to disagree with a large number of people that have a public voice on this issue. Many of these people are ones that I otherwise am generally in agreement with.

But in the end, I have the view that Israeli zealots led by people like Sharon have the ability to manipulate American middle east policy and use that ability to maintain the status quo of confrontation and violence. This is not to say that everything would be peachy if all of a sudden Israel removed its settlements and ended its occupations. I understand that many Palestinians have become so wrapped up in violence against the Israelis that no agreements will end their actions and that Israel will continue to suffer violence for years to come even if peace settlements were reached.

Grammatron

19th January 2004, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
*snip*
But in the end, I have the view that Israeli zealots led by people like Sharon have the ability to manipulate American middle east policy and use that ability to maintain the status quo of confrontation and violence.
*snip*

I'm sorry, but exactly what kind of ability do these "zealots" have and who are they?

davefoc

19th January 2004, 10:34 AM

Grammatron asked:I'm sorry, but exactly what kind of ability do these "zealots" have and who are they?

Well, I guess the fact that you asked that question suggests that you and I disagree on this.

For me the zealots are the Israeli's living in the settlements, the ones trying to expand the settlements and the ones that felt the need to elect a leader like Sharon with his association with the massacre in Lebanon.

They are also the ones building a meandering fence on disputed territory.

They are also the ones who felt the need to make an attack on a Hamas leader (and of course accidentally kill some nearby civilians) right after the Israeli bomb went off killing the Palestinian school girls while Palestinian anti-Israeli feelings were reaching a crescendo.

Grammatron

19th January 2004, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
Grammatron asked:

Well, I guess the fact that you asked that question suggests that you and I disagree on this.

For me the zealots are the Israeli's living in the settlements, the ones trying to expand the settlements and the ones that felt the need to elect a leader like Sharon with his association with the massacre in Lebanon.

They are also the ones building a meandering fence on disputed territory.

They are also the ones who felt the need to make an attack on a Hamas leader (and of course accidentally kill some nearby civilians) right after the Israeli bomb went off killing the Palestinian school girls while Palestinian anti-Israeli feelings were reaching a crescendo.

I had a two-part question and I don't think you really answered either. Yes those policies are wrong although I don't entirely disagree with targeted attacks on Hamas. Regardless, who exactly are "zealots" who have ability to manipulated American Middle East policy? Or do you have the same opinion as AUP does (see my signature for details.)

davefoc

19th January 2004, 11:34 AM

Grammatron,
I'm sorry. You're right I didn't answer your question.

My views in this area are not very certain and are somewhat complicated.

First, there is my view of how a democracy works. On the simplest level it might seem that leaders are driven by some combination of the majority views, by their own views of correct policy and by corruption. This is all true, but a very significant driver is minority interests and views even when those views are at odds with the majority interests and views. This mechanism is facilitated by the fact that minority views are supported by people that believe passionately in the issue whereas the majority views are supported by people that have little interest in the issue. So politicians are often driven to support minority views to obtain those voting blocks to enhance their chances of being elected.

The support for Israel in the US is driven to a degree by this kind of mechanism. There is a minority group of people (consisting of Jews, and various kinds of largely religious conservates) who believe passionately that the US should continue to support Israel and that Israel is totally righteous in the Israeli/Palestinian disputes. The majority of the population has much more moderate and largely disinterested views on the subject. So if you are a politician that is trying to get elected in many jurisdictions you must show strong support for Israel or almost certainly suffer a significant loss of a block of voters without a counterbalancing gain in support from people who might not agree with your support but don't care enough about the issue for it to affect how they vote.

I believe that Israeli leaders are precisely aware of this mechanism whereby minority views can have significant power in the US and use it to manipulate American foreign policy with regards to Israel. I believe it was not an accident at the same time that Bush for the first time by an American president was advocating a Palestinian state, Sharon after a period of relative calm was attacking Hamas leaders and accidentally killing Palestinian civilians. I think he wanted to provoke a violent reaction by the Palestinians that would stifle any efforts by the American president to move towards a legitimate Palestinian state. I think he succeeded.

I said my views on this issue were uncertain. I have expressed approximately this idea to Cleopatra and I believe her thought was that it was a little on the looney toons side (a rough paraphrase). I respect Cleopatra's views and given my own uncertainties on this issue I am willing to concede that I could have stepped off into the land wacky conspiracy theories here.

I have also seen, several times, Cleopatra's views that America's policies with regard to Israel have been driven by cold self interest and that has been the main driver for American leaders. I don't totally reject this thought either, but I find it to be at best only a partial explanation for American actions.

Cleopatra

19th January 2004, 11:56 AM

davefoc could you please repeat which of my theories you consider that they are conspiracy theories? My claim that Israel was established by the West to play the cop in Middle East?

Grammatron

19th January 2004, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
Grammatron,
I'm sorry. You're right I didn't answer your question.

My views in this area are not very certain and are somewhat complicated.

First, there is my view of how a democracy works. On the simplest level it might seem that leaders are driven by some combination of the majority views, by their own views of correct policy and by corruption. This is all true, but a very significant driver is minority interests and views even when those views are at odds with the majority interests and views. This mechanism is facilitated by the fact that minority views are supported by people that believe passionately in the issue whereas the majority views are supported by people that have little interest in the issue. So politicians are often driven to support minority views to obtain those voting blocks to enhance their chances of being elected.

The support for Israel in the US is driven to a degree by this kind of mechanism. There is a minority group of people (consisting of Jews, and various kinds of largely religious conservates) who believe passionately that the US should continue to support Israel and that Israel is totally righteous in the Israeli/Palestinian disputes. The majority of the population has much more moderate and largely disinterested views on the subject. So if you are a politician that is trying to get elected in many jurisdictions you must show strong support for Israel or almost certainly suffer a significant loss of a block of voters without a counterbalancing gain in support from people who might not agree with your support but don't care enough about the issue for it to affect how they vote.

I believe that Israeli leaders are precisely aware of this mechanism whereby minority views can have significant power in the US and use it to manipulate American foreign policy with regards to Israel. I believe it was not an accident at the same time that Bush for the first time by an American president was advocating a Palestinian state, Sharon after a period of relative calm was attacking Hamas leaders and accidentally killing Palestinian civilians. I think he wanted to provoke a violent reaction by the Palestinians that would stifle any efforts by the American president to move towards a legitimate Palestinian state. I think he succeeded.

I said my views on this issue were uncertain. I have expressed approximately this idea to Cleopatra and I believe her thought was that it was a little on the looney toons side (a rough paraphrase). I respect Cleopatra's views and given my own uncertainties on this issue I am willing to concede that I could have stepped off into the land wacky conspiracy theories here.

I have also seen, several times, Cleopatra's views that America's policies with regard to Israel have been driven by cold self interest and that has been the main driver for American leaders. I don't totally reject this thought either, but I find it to be at best only a partial explanation for American actions.

Thank you for your reply. However I must respectfully disagree with your point of view. I think the support that exist for Israel is largely Historical. The state was created to accommodate both people -- people who’s countries did not exist prior. When Israel has been repeatedly attacked by its neighbors with the intent to destroy it completely sympathy developed on the US side, which grew with each new war.

However, with all this support US still is very critical of Israeli action when it does something negative. Yes, we give Billions of dollars in aid to Israel, we also do the same for many other countries. For example Turkey which oppresses Kurds far worse than any real claim against Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Somehow the world is a bit quieter on that one.

Look at Dean as an example of someone who has very unflattering view on Israel, and he's been leading in the Polls. So I don't know about Israel being that big of an Issue, maybe Nationally -- let's face it, Middle East is THE foreign policy topic and Israel is in the middle of it all -- but not so much locally unless of course majority of the constituency could be swayed on that issue. I think there're not enough of those areas to really make your point, though.

davefoc

19th January 2004, 12:32 PM

Cleopatra, I don't think I referred to it as a conspiracy theory, but I was talking about your theory that the US involvement in Israel is designed to support a surrogate warrior state designed to serve as a "cop" in the middle east.

Before you mentioned this idea I had never heard it. I think that during the cold war it is reasonable guess that supporting Israel might have played some role in our effort to maintain or expand our allies. It seems like it might also be argued that it hurt that effort in that the middle east was a key area in play during the cold war and our support of Israel might have been counterproductive to the goal of gaining and maintaining middle east allies.

I don't really see much of an argument for it today. I suppose it could be argued that Israeli blowing up the Iraq nuclear facilities was an act that was beneficial to the US, but which for various reasons we wouldn't do directly ourselves.

Grammatron,
I think the issue is complicated and I do not disagree with anything that you said. I just think you have told only part of the story.

The US spends more on Israeli foreign aid than all other foreign aid combined I believe (exlcuding recent expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan I'm sure). This is not totally driven by some altruistic notions on the part of our leaders to make a home for the Jews or even sympathy developed after their wars for Israelis. I am not sure what the reasons are, but my guess is that it is largely political as I described in my previous post. I think that it is partially driven by some sort of perceived self interest by US leaders, I am not sure exactly what that self interest is though and I remain skeptical that it is Cleopatra's "cop" theory.

The Fool

19th January 2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

Well Skeptic just posted a reply that he doesn't think that ALL (ALL being 100% -- frankly I don't even know why you are arguing my use of the word) Arabs and/or Palestinians are that way. If he was as racist as you claim him to be he would have said yes. On the other hand, in the quote you provided he does claim that "the entire Palestinian people" want Jews dead. I don't know about all people but the authority sure seems to be that way. Have you seen what they show on the Palestinian TV and teach in schools? It's pretty much genocidal hate for the Jews. So, perhaps Skeptic has an unreasonable view of Palestinian people, but I wouldn't call him racist and just like stated above, when confronted with direct question, he denies it so go figure.

The second quote is very reasonable, unless of course you think there's something positive about genocidal anti-Semitism?

For the last time, there's no American race, thus I can't show you an example of you giving a racial stereotype, is that really so hard to understand?

well I suppose "unreasonable view of palestinians" is the best I'm going to get. It suprises me a bit that you can balance all those examples where he was saying the exact things you asked about but his one word "no" reply was enough to sway the day...looks like any racist just has to answer "No" and they are in the clear eh? Bugger the evidence and bugger the persistant pattern of behavior, a denial is all thats needed.... But anyway, Youre accepting it without any curiosity about why he persistantly says exactly what he denies he believes so I'm happy to let it drop..no point bashing my head against a wall.

The comment about the "anti-semitism" I made was simply expressing amazement at "skeptics" clear revulsion at anti-semitism when he does exectly the same thing himself....Exactly the same damn thing. The Hypocrisy is amazing.

And the "americans" thingy.... I know you can't provide examples, neither can anyone else. In that case, I would ask (and others) you to stop saying that i make the same sort of generalisations and steryotypical statements about Americans as those about muslims/Arabs/Palestinians that I take people to task for........

Unless you are Cleopatra and can make conclusions about me from "feeling" you get from what I dont say, that claim is unsupportable.

I don't particularly want to continue bashing heads with you Grammatron, I would rather take this up with the racist troll directly....unfortunately skeptic tends to rant and run. I have no Idea why some people hang around in his wake and try to massage his rants into something rational.

Grammatron

19th January 2004, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

well I suppose "unreasonable view of palestinians" is the best I'm going to get. It suprises me a bit that you can balance all those examples where he was saying the exact things you asked about but his one word "no" reply was enough to sway the day...looks like any racist just has to answer "No" and they are in the clear eh? Bugger the evidence and bugger the persistant pattern of behavior, a denial is all thats needed.... But anyway, Youre accepting it without any curiosity about why he persistantly says exactly what he denies he believes so I'm happy to let it drop..no point bashing my head against a wall.

The comment about the "anti-semitism" I made was simply expressing amazement at "skeptics" clear revulsion at anti-semitism when he does exectly the same thing himself....Exactly the same damn thing. The Hypocrisy is amazing.

And the "americans" thingy.... I know you can't provide examples, neither can anyone else. In that case, I would ask (and others) you to stop saying that i make the same sort of generalisations and steryotypical statements about Americans as those about muslims/Arabs/Palestinians that I take people to task for........

Unless you are Cleopatra and can make conclusions about me from "feeling" you get from what I dont say, that claim is unsupportable.

I don't particularly want to continue bashing heads with you Grammatron, I would rather take this up with the racist troll directly....unfortunately skeptic tends to rant and run. I have no Idea why some people hang around in his wake and try to massage his rants into something rational.

The reason these arguments continue is because you tend to jump to conclusions and twist the story to make it more favorable to your cause. For example, I never accused you of making stereotypical statements against America, that's something you made up for whatever reason, or just read wrong. You want to accuse Skeptic of being a hypocrite? That's fine, I could see how one would make such a conclusion. However, Skeptic, when confronted, says he doesn't believe all Palestinians are blood thirsty, if he was such a big racist you claim him to be he wouldn't be saying that, now would he?

Skeptic

19th January 2004, 03:16 PM

They are also the ones building a meandering fence on disputed territory.

That might have SOMETHING to do with three years of relentless suicide bombing that began right AFTER israel offered the palestinians a state that included, of course, all of the area now taken up by the fence. Living next to the palestinian authority is a bit like living with a roomate who repeatedly tries to set you on fire. The fence is the least israel could do to protect itself. It's a bit hypocritical from the PA to complain about "racist israeli seperation fence war crime" when its version of "Seasame Street" features a child who tells his playmates how his goal is to grow up to be a suicide bomber, to their great encouragement, don't you think?

Skeptic

19th January 2004, 03:44 PM

well I suppose "unreasonable view of palestinians" is the best I'm going to get

Not that you actually ever MET a palestinian, but you know I am "unreasonable" about what the palestinians want. Why? Because I actually claim their goal is to destroy israel--which it is--and that they are taught genocidal hatered of jews by their leaders--which they are.

You just "know" these conclusions are false because they puncture your "why can't we all be friends" view of the world. So you claim that my conclusions are false because I cannot prove that every single palestinian holds these view--as if that's what I ever claimed; as if that is what is EVER meant by ANYBODY who claimed "the palestinians want to destroy israel".

What you seem not to undestand is that just because not EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of a group holds a view, that doesn't mean a generalization about a group is wrong. Of course not every single palestinian wants to destroy israel; but the palestinians as a group do. Of course not every single palestinian hates jews; but the palestinians as a group do.

On your "view", it is also "racist" to claim that the nazis wanted to kill the jews because not every single nazi party member wanted to do this; it's "racist" to say Americans are capitalists, because not every single American is a capitalist; it's "racist" to say Swedes are nordic because not every single Swede is a nordic person, and so on and so forth.

The "what, EVERY SINGLE member of group X is Y???" so-called "anti-racist" argument in reaction to people saying "well, people of group X are Y" is simply a strawman: the claim, of course, ALWAYS meant "most people of group X are Y" or "the people of group X by and large are Y", not "every single member of group X is Y".

Claims like "blacks are criminals" are racist not because there is an occasional black who isn't a criminal, but because MOST blacks are not criminals. Claims like "women are inferior to men in intelligence" is not chauvinistic because there is an occassional woman who is more intelligent than the occassional man, but because MOST women are as intelligent as most men.

Similarly, the claim that the palestinians want to destroy israel, which is true, is not "disproved" by the occassional palestinian who doesn't. Looking at opinion polls, actions, and statements made by the palestinians make it quite clear that the palestinians as a whole DO want israel destroyed and the jews massacred.

The palestinian culture today, as said by a perceptive reporter, is the "culture of death", where the highest goal is to become a killer of as many jews as possible--as shown, for instance, by naming summer camps for children after suicide bombers, or by palestinian children playing with trading cards with pictures of suicide bombers on them (the more jews the bomber killed, the higher its worth), or by the palestinian version of "Seasame Street" showing a five-year-old explaining to his playmates how his goal is to kill jews when he grows up by becoming a suicide bomber?

What would you have said if white American kids would routinely play cards with pictures of lynchers and church bombers from the KKK, the card being worth more the more blacks the person on it killed? What would you have said if, on "Sesame Street", a kid would explain to others that his goal in life is to kill as many "nigg-rs" as possible? Would that be a BIT of evidence for you that the USA is a racist country? Or would you claim it all doesn't matter, since nobody has proven that every single white American wants to kill blacks?

Your double standard is astounding. When it comes to my claims, ANY general claim whatsoever made about the Palestinians or about Arabs is "racist generalization" that shows my "biases" if I haven't "proved" that every single Palestinian or Arab fits it. On the other hand, when you are out there to "prove" I (or the USA) are "racists", ANYTHING is good enough evidence for it, including your own homemade interpretations of what Bush "really meant".

To prove your claims about Americans or "the west" or "the Bush administration" or "the oil companies", etc., all you need is one (usually misinterpreted) piece of evidence. When anybody else makes a claim about a group of people, however, he is a "racist" if he doesn't prove that the description applies to every single member of the group.

The Fool

19th January 2004, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
There's only one way to resolve this.

Skeptic, do you believe that ALL Arabs are blood thirsty savages and want all Jews dead? Do you believe that ALL Palestinians are blood thirsty savages want all Jews dead?

Well, no, but of course, "The Fool" knows THE TRUTH(tm), therefore I am lying, he is right, that's that. And all protestations to the contrary are just an attempt at "propaganda" and/or "denial" on my part to hide THE TRUTH(tm), of course.
well, If you don't believe it.....simply stop saying it. I can't (unlike some) write something and then wish it into non existence with a denial. You remind me of my 3 year old who can, mouth covered in chocolate, deny she ate it...... .... At this point I believe its probably pointless exploring why you continually state something you claim not to believe, maybe thats a power your particular style of selective skepticism is capable of.

Grammatron

19th January 2004, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

well, If you don't believe it.....simply stop saying it. I can't (unlike some) write something and then wish it into non existence with a denial. You remind me of my 3 year old who can, mouth covered in chocolate, deny she ate it...... .... At this point I believe its probably pointless exploring why you continually state something you claim not to believe, maybe thats a power your particular style of selective skepticism is capable of.

Skeptic just posted a nice, lengthy reply to essentially all the things you call him on. His point of view is a bit extreme but not unreasonable and most importantly not racist. Of course you are yet to respond to it, so perhaps I will wait till you do so, although I won't be holding my breath for your agreement with Skeptic.

The Fool

19th January 2004, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]Similarly, the claim that the palestinians want to destroy israel, which is true, is not "disproved" by the occassional palestinian who doesn't. Looking at opinion polls, actions, and statements made by the palestinians make it quite clear that the palestinians as a whole DO want israel destroyed and the jews massacred.

Skeptic, you are a raving Idiot.... Please explain to me how you conclude that palestinians as a whole want Jews massacred. You are simple a racist troll demonising these people... You brand palestinians with the crimes of Hamas. Yeeeeha! what critical thinking skills that must take. If someone stated that Jews as a whole wanted Palestinians massacred you would be screaming anti-semitism...Why? because in your narrow little mind your stereotypes are true but other stereotypes are not....There is zip evidence for either but you can conclude one is true and the other false....

Skeptic

19th January 2004, 05:45 PM

Skeptic, you are a raving Idiot.... Please explain to me how you conclude that palestinians as a whole want Jews massacred.

Well, because it's the common theme of their a). education, b). religious sermons, c). political speeches, d). constitution (the palestinian charter--the ex-PLO charter--is the only constitution in the world which officially has the destruction of another state, israel, and the removal of all jews who arrived after 1917, as an official basic law--the equivalent of the US Constitution containing a paragraph declaring the US's main goal is England's destruction by an means); and, above all e). their actions, e.g., three years of suicide terror AFTER being offered a state?

Of course, you can also check here (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR2403) and here (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR01102) and in a zillion other places...

The Fool

19th January 2004, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Skeptic, you are a raving Idiot.... Please explain to me how you conclude that palestinians as a whole want Jews massacred.

Well, because it's the common theme of their a). education, b). religious sermons, c). political speeches, d). constitution (the palestinian charter--the ex-PLO charter--is the only constitution in the world which officially has the destruction of another state, israel, and the removal of all jews who arrived after 1917, as an official basic law--the equivalent of the US Constitution containing a paragraph declaring the US's main goal is England's destruction by an means); and, above all e). their actions, e.g., three years of suicide terror AFTER being offered a state?

Of course, you can also check here (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR2403) and here (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR01102) and in a zillion other places...

Lol...you quote the Palestinian authority and religious sermons. I guess I could quote bush and christian sermons and conclude that American on the whole are Christian fundies?

I also love the way you claim the writings of a terrorist organisation some sort of "palestinian constitution" are automatically the thoughs of palestinians as a whole. I guess you use the complete agreement between Americans on the meaning of thier constitution as a guide.... way to go deep thinker!

Your main problem here "skeptic" is that I don't have a problem with you slagging Hamas, the PLO,The palestinian authority, The Education system in palestine or any number of muslim clerics you like....I don't know why you keep trying to use this stuff to support the proposition that you can mindread millions of Arabs and conclude they are bloodthirsty . Personally I have only ever met a handful of palestinians and I didn't find reading thier minds any easier than reading the minds of other Nationalities, To be honest I found it impossible. Whats your secret?...maybe its just one of your many hidden talents, like "evil" sniffing.

Skeptic

19th January 2004, 08:10 PM

Lol...you quote the Palestinian authority and religious sermons. I guess I could quote bush and christian sermons and conclude that American on the whole are Christian fundies?

You sure could, if christian fundamentalism was the only allowed political party in the USA, like it is in the PA...

I also love the way you claim the writings of a terrorist organisation some sort of "palestinian constitution" are automatically the thoughs of palestinians as a whole.

Not "automatically", fool. From long experience with palestinians. I didn't need to "mind read"--they TOLD me, personally, and each other, a lot, that they want me dead and my country destroyed. As they say, if I had a dollar for every time...

Your main problem here "skeptic" is that I don't have a problem with you slagging Hamas, the PLO,The palestinian authority, The Education system in palestine or any number of muslim clerics you like....

Yes, you just have NO IDEA how I POSSIBLY reached the conclusion that "the palestinians as a whole" want israel destroyed JUST BECAUSE the entire education system, political organization, newpapers, television, the constitution, the religious leaders, opinion polls, and the military organizations claim they do.

I mean, next thing I'll tell you "Americans as a whole" support capitalism JUST BECAUSE the education system, religious leaders, CEOs, media, newspapers, politicians, opinion polls, lawyers, and voters claim this is the case.

Personally I have only ever met a handful of palestinians

Yeah, we know. Doesn't stop you from knowing "the truth" about what the palestinians want, though, does it?

Whats your secret?

To repeat: decades of experience with palestinians where I was repeatedly told just that.

The Fool

19th January 2004, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

To repeat: decades of experience with palestinians where I was repeatedly told just that.

Well Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care... Maybe you could write a book of anecdotes to prove the matter once and for all.

The old "its not racism because its true" line....not very original "skeptic".

Mycroft

19th January 2004, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
Well Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care... Maybe you could write a book of anecdotes to prove the matter once and for all.

The old "its not racism because its true" line....not very original "skeptic".

You know, statistics are just collections of a lot of anecdotes. The problem is you dismiss them both.

The Fool

20th January 2004, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Grammatron

Skeptic just posted a nice, lengthy reply to essentially all the things you call him on. His point of view is a bit extreme but not unreasonable and most importantly not racist. Of course you are yet to respond to it, so perhaps I will wait till you do so, although I won't be holding my breath for your agreement with Skeptic.
In what way is it a bit extreme?

The Fool

20th January 2004, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

You know, statistics are just collections of a lot of anecdotes. The problem is you dismiss them both.
you should write a book too. A lot of statisticians would be interested to learn this new fact.

Skeptic

20th January 2004, 05:22 AM

Well Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care... Maybe you could write a book of anecdotes to prove the matter once and for all.

Indeed so. After all, it's just my EXPERIENCE of the FACTS; that is merely anecdotal and unimportant, you know. (At least when it conflicts with your "objective view", concieved in glorious ignorance, of what "the truth" of the matter "really" is.)

Personally I have only ever met a handful of palestinians

...which doesn't stop you from claiming that you know more about the issue than I do.

and I didn't find reading thier minds any easier than reading the minds of other Nationalities, To be honest I found it impossible. Whats your secret?

I'll tell you what my secret is in a form of a multiple-choice quiz, if you don't mind.

1). Do you, "The Fool", have the ability to read minds?

___ Yes

___ No

2). If the answer to (1) is NO, how do you know what other people think?

___ I don't; I never have any idea what people think, and am always totally confused about their intention.

___ I reach conclusions about what people want from their actions and word.

3). If the answer to (2) is the latter, consider this: The Palestinian Authoity's politicians, educators, religious leaders, military personnel, television, newspapers, constitution, opinion polls, etc., etc., etc., all constantly glorify terror and call for israel's destruction; they conduct a war of terror against israel; and, in addition, speaking to many palestinians, they told me that they too agree with this goal. This is:

___ Some evidence that the Palestinians want israel destroyed.

___ Racist, evil ranting based on which is merely anecdotal nonsense, because I didn't engage in actual mind-reading of every single palestinian.

Mr Manifesto

20th January 2004, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care... Maybe you could write a book of anecdotes to prove the matter once and for all.

Indeed so. After all, it's just my EXPERIENCE of the FACTS; that is merely anecdotal and unimportant, you know. (At least when it conflicts with your "objective view", concieved in glorious ignorance, of what "the truth" of the matter "really" is.)

Personally I have only ever met a handful of palestinians

...which doesn't stop you from claiming that you know more about the issue than I do.

and I didn't find reading thier minds any easier than reading the minds of other Nationalities, To be honest I found it impossible. Whats your secret?

I'll tell you what my secret is in a form of a multiple-choice quiz, if you don't mind.

1). Do you, "The Fool", have the ability to read minds?

___ Yes

___ No

2). If the answer to (1) is NO, how do you know what other people think?

___ I don't; I never have any idea what people think, and am always totally confused about their intention.

___ I reach conclusions about what people want from their actions and word.

3). If the answer to (2) is the latter, consider this: The Palestinian Authoity's politicians, educators, religious leaders, military personnel, television, newspapers, constitution, opinion polls, etc., etc., etc., all constantly glorify terror and call for israel's destruction; they conduct a war of terror against israel; and, in addition, speaking to many palestinians, they told me that they too agree with this goal. This is:

___ Some evidence that the Palestinians want israel destroyed.

___ Racist, evil ranting based on which is merely anecdotal nonsense, because I didn't engage in actual mind-reading of every single palestinian.

You call 3 false dichotomies 'multiple choice'? :confused:

Skeptic

20th January 2004, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Well Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care... Maybe you could write a book of anecdotes to prove the matter once and for all.

The old "its not racism because its true" line....not very original "skeptic".

Well, when I give you evidence about the palestinians as a whole to show they want to destoy israel--their constitution, their leaders, their school curriculum, etc.--you claim these are just "generalities" and that it doesn't mean the average palestinian thinks that way.

But when I give you direct evidence that the average palestinian feels the same way (public opinion polls, personal experience, etc.)--you claim that these are just specific "anecdotes" that don't tell us how "the palestinians as a whole" think.

So when I give you general evidence it doesn't count because its too general, and when I give ou specific evidence it doesn't count because it's too specific.

:con2:

davefoc

20th January 2004, 09:39 AM

I haven't taken part in this who's-a-racist debate because I haven't exactly understood the positions of the people involved and I wasn't sure it was that interesting anyway.

But here's my, perhaps unwelcome, two cents:

When Skeptic says things like this:

Well, when I give you evidence about the palestinians as a whole to show they want to destoy israel--their constitution, their leaders, their school curriculum, etc.--you claim these are just "generalities" and that it doesn't mean the average palestinian thinks that way.

He's making a statement which on it's face is not objective. I do not think it is likely that there is such a thing as a completely homogeneous group as to their thinking on any particular issue. A statement that said that most, or a large majority would sound far more credible to me. A statement that uses the phrase Palestinians as a whole is somewhat ambiguous but might be interpreted to mean all, which seems wildly unlikely to be true.

My suspicion is that there is quite a range of views amongst Palestinians from let's kill all the Jewish inhabitants of Israel, to let's remove all the inhabitants who can't trace ancestry to inhabitants before 1917, to let's make the best deal we can for a Palestinian state and get on with our lives. So I would even question the sentiment of his statement if it is interpreted to mean something like "the vast majority of Palestinians want to destroy Israel". But if there was such a thing as a reliable iopinion poll on what Palestinians are thinking then that would certainly be a useful source of information on this.

On the other hand statements like this from The Fool, while entertaining, seem to be questionable also:

Skeptic, you are a raving Idiot....
I believe that what The Fool is implying here is that Skeptic is full of crap when it comes to describing the views of the Palestinians. However the case seems to be that there is at least something to what he is saying. It seems like there are far too many stories about the indoctrination of the Palestinians with hatred for Israelis and Jews in particular and the success of that indoctrination for his point to be completely dismissed.

Of course, what Skeptic never acknowledges is that this hatred doesn't spring from a vacuum and that the displacement of one people with another is pretty much guaranteed to create long standing enmity between the groups. And that encroachment of what land that people is left with by settlers is going to fuel the already existing enmity.

Skeptic

20th January 2004, 01:07 PM

dave, once more, OF COURSE when I say that "the palestinians want to destroy israel" I do not mean EVERY SINLGE ONE of them. That's not the point; what is meant is that they as a group want this.

This is NOT "hair-splitting"--this is how such statements are ALWAYS used. For example, if you say "the republican party wants X" you mean what the party decided; not that every single republican wants X. When you say "women are against rape" you mean the (vast) majority of them, not that every single women is against rape--for all I know, there could be a masochistic woman somewhere that is for rape.

It doesn't even have to be the literal majority: When you say "the nazis perpertrated the holocaust" you do not mean every single nazi party member (most of them didn't know about it at the time). You mean the nazi party as a whole, as a body politic.

This is precisely what I mean here. This is, of course, all I ever meant by such statement. The palestinians as a group--as a body politic--as a nation--want israel destroyed. Does this mean every single palestinian does? No, but that doesn't mean the statement is wrong, and is in an important sense irrelevant, for the same reason that the fact that not ALL nazis wanted the jews dead didn't stop the holocaust as long as the nazis as a group wanted them dead.

The Fool

20th January 2004, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
dave, once more, OF COURSE when I say that "the palestinians want to destroy israel" I do not mean EVERY SINLGE ONE of them. That's not the point; what is meant is that they as a group want this.

This is NOT "hair-splitting"--this is how such statements are ALWAYS used. For example, if you say "the republican party wants X" you mean what the party decided; not that every single republican wants X. When you say "women are against rape" you mean the (vast) majority of them, not that every single women is against rape--for all I know, there could be a masochistic woman somewhere that is for rape.

It doesn't even have to be the literal majority: When you say "the nazis perpertrated the holocaust" you do not mean every single nazi party member (most of them didn't know about it at the time). You mean the nazi party as a whole, as a body politic.

This is precisely what I mean here. This is, of course, all I ever meant by such statement. The palestinians as a group--as a body politic--as a nation--want israel destroyed. Does this mean every single palestinian does? No, but that doesn't mean the statement is wrong, and is in an important sense irrelevant, for the same reason that the fact that not ALL nazis wanted the jews dead didn't stop the holocaust as long as the nazis as a group wanted them dead.
Its alright for you to say that you don't mean every single person when you say "Palestinians" "palestinians as a whole" "The palestinians" etc, you are making a broad generalization. Sometimes these are quite legitimate.... the palestinians have 2 eyes is legitimate, it would be very pedantic indeed to point out those who have lost or never been born with one or both of thier eyes.
The problem is that the same pedantism does not cut it as a defence against racial slurrs. If I said jews are evil shifty backstabbing conspirators it is a racial slurr, it is racism. It does not matter if I plead that I was not referring to every single Jew...

I'll do you a deal, because people are rightfully expressing boredom at this ongoing back and forth ranting. You critisize anyone you like. You comment on any actions by palestinians that takes your fancy... Just don't for one moment think that you can call entire ethnic groups savages or murderers and not get picked on. This is a skeptics board, such blatant stereotyping is never going to go unchallanged.

davefoc

21st January 2004, 12:02 AM

Skeptic,
My apologies, I took your use of the phrase "as a whole" to mean something approaching every person. I don't know why I took it like that. I don't think it means that. I was just wrong.

Mycroft

21st January 2004, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
The problem is that the same pedantism does not cut it as a defence against racial slurrs. If I said jews are evil shifty backstabbing conspirators it is a racial slurr, it is racism. It does not matter if I plead that I was not referring to every single Jew...

So if instead of “Jews” you say “Israelis” and instead of “are evil shifty backstabbing conspirators” you say “are perpetuating genocide against the Palestinians” is that racist?

Why or why not?

renata

21st January 2004, 08:21 AM

I did this research in another thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870139515) already, so I will requote it here.

The statistics that I saw were as follows

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2072851.stm

The June 2002 poll by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre showed that a large majority - nearly seven out of 10 people - supported the suicide operations, about 60% of those expressing their "strong" support.

....

More than 51% see the liberation of all historic Palestine - and the removal of Israel from the map - as the true goal of the intifada, according to JMCC's findings.

I was curious to see if Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre is an Israeli Organization and would feed inflammatory figures to the Western press. So I researched the organization.

http://www.jmcc.org/

JMCC was established in 1988 by a group of Palestinian journalists and researchers to provide information on events in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip. JMCC's Jerusalem and Gaza offices provide a wide range of services to journalists, researchers, international agencies, individuals and organizations interested in obtaining reliable information on the Palestinian territory.

They take a lot of polls through the years. Fascinating numbers on the site, I suggest you go there directly.

Latest poll, May 2003
http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/pop/03/may/pop12.htm

The majority of Palestinians (75%) remain strongly or somewhat supportive of the continuation of the Intifada.
.....

As figure 1 shows, there has been a gradual increase in the level of support for the continuation of the Intifada during its first year, which peaked in September 2001 (87%) and then decreased slightly and leveled off. However, the current level of support for the continuation of the Intifada has decreased since the last JMCC poll conducted in December 2002 (81%).

.....
Respondents were asked whether they supported the resumption of military operations against Israeli targets as a suitable response during the current political conditions, or whether they rejected it and found it harmful to Palestinian national interests. Military operations include shootings, car bombs, and mortar rocket attacks, but do not include suicide attacks.

Sixty-five percent of respondents supported military operations, 25% rejected them, and 10% did not know/ did not provide an answer. The level of support for military operations has decreased slightly since the latest JMCC poll conducted in December 2002. However, as figure 3 depicts, a huge increase in the level of support for military operations occurred at the beginning of the Intifada in September 2000.

......

Respondents were also asked whether they supported the resumption of military operations inside Israel only, inside the Occupied Territories only, inside Israel and the Occupied Territories, or whether they did not support military operations. Of those interviewed, 17.5% supported the resumption of military operations inside Israel only, 12.6% supported operations inside the Occupied Territories only, 43% supported operations inside Israel and the Occupied Territories, 22.4% did not support military operations against Israeli targets, and 4.5% did not give an answer.
....

Respondents were asked whether they supported or opposed suicide-bombing operations against Israeli civilians. Sixty percent of Palestinians supported suicide operations, a slight decrease from figures obtained in the latest JMCC poll conducted in December 2002.

As figure 4 shows, the level of support for suicide bombing operations has increased dramatically after the onset of the current Intifada to reach a high of 76% in April 2001. It should be noted that only 24% of Palestinians supported suicide operations in May 1997.

Here is a link to polls 1999-2003

http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/opinion.html

Cleopatra

21st January 2004, 08:38 AM

Israeli Committee Against Housing Demolitions (http://www.icahd.org/eng/)

Gush Shalom ( Israeli Organization Against the Occupation) (http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.html)

Yesh Gvul (“There is a limit !”) (http://www.yesh-gvul.org/english/about/)

These are only some of the Israeli organizations that are devoted exclusively in fighting the rights of the Palestinians.

I didn't include the organizations supported by Israelis and Palestinians.

I searched but I haven't found yet any Palestinian organization that denounces Suicide Terrorism.

davefoc

21st January 2004, 09:48 AM

Thank you for the statistics Renata.

I am hesitant to say any more in this thread, since I am feeling some what uncomfortable with the way I went off half cocked here.

I would like to say though, that I immediately took the presentation of these statistics, together with some precision about what the views of the Palestinians were as an attempt at an objective description of the situation.

I continue to believe that statements like "as a whole the Palestinians want to destroy the Israelis" are both ambiguous and unnecessarily antagonistic even if with a logical parsing of the words one might decide that the statements are correct. I wonder if Skeptic could find some agreement with what I am saying.

I would also like to add that the statistics aren't unexpected. People whose homes, businesses and orchards are being bulldozed or blown up by war planes and tanks are unlikely to think highly of the people who are doing it. Regardless of your views of the legitimacy of the Israeli actions, this seems like an obvious conclusion.

Cleopatra

21st January 2004, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
[I would also like to add that the statistics aren't unexpected. People whose homes, businesses and orchards are being bulldozed or blown up by war planes and tanks are unlikely to think highly of the people who are doing it. Regardless of your views of the legitimacy of the Israeli actions, this seems like an obvious conclusion.

Maybe we shouldn't jump into this conclusion that hastily Dave.

Bulldozing is a reaction to suicide terrorism. IDA doesn't bulldoze houses just like that.They bulldoze specific houses so let's avoid generalizations.

Furious

21st January 2004, 10:04 AM

It seems there is a bit of egg on Fool's face.

Based on those polls, some facts:

1) A majority of Palestinians support civilian targets for suicide bombers.

2) A much smaller minority of Palestinians do not support civilian targets for suicide bombings.

Now, there has been a semantic problem in this thread with how racism is defined. Without intentionally trying to create strawmen (feel free to clarify, and I will update as needed, I know they are probably oversimplified) it appears the two definitions are:

Fool - It is racist to declare ALL of some group to be something when only some of them are that something.

Skeptic - It is racist to declare a group something when a vast minority of are NOT that something.

The polls show, that conservatively, a healthy majoirty of at least 60% of the Palestinians support civilian targets.

The general statement in question is that Palestinians think that it is morally acceptable to kill civilians and advocate it.

Fool's definition might hold, since not all Palestinians hold that view.

Skeptic's definition clearly would make that assertion not racist, as it is pretty clear that it is not a small minority that believes civilians are legitimate suicide bomber targets.

The flip side though, is that it is definitely racist according to both definitions to say that the Palestinians do not support suicide bombing. Only a minority of Palestinians hold this view.

Saying that Palestinians do not support suicide bombing of civilians is not exactly a harsh racist statement though, since it isn't exactly a negative stereotype (I hope anyway).

So, as a thought question, does racist comment inherently have to have a negative connotation to be considered racism, even if false?

davefoc

21st January 2004, 04:01 PM

Cleopatra said:Maybe we shouldn't jump into this conclusion that hastily Dave.

Bulldozing is a reaction to suicide terrorism. IDA doesn't bulldoze houses just like that.They bulldoze specific houses so let's avoid generalizations.

Lately, I seem to have a penchant for saying things that I think both sides can agree wtih only to find that not to be the case.

Here I was trying to make the point that if you kill civilians with your bombs, blow up their buildings with your tanks and bulldoze their orchards you are not likely to find much sympathy with the populations so affected, no matter how great and logical and moral your justification is.

Even if you accept that the actions ordered by Sharon are 100 per cent justified and appropriate it is reasonable to expect that Palestinians are going to like Israeli's less as a result of those actions and so one might expect a fairly high incidence of people who would like to see harm done to Israeli's in the Palestinian population.

Of course, those who think the Israeli actions are appropriate can argue that Sharon has no choice, and that regardless of what concessions were made toward peace the Palestinians would continue to admire suicide bombers and to promote that activity and that brutal measures by the Israelis are the only reasonable approach to counteract brutal measures by the Palestinians.

Those who don't think the actions are appropriate can argue that the Israelis should stop building new settlements, pull out of the existing contested ones, stop building the wall on contested ground, stop accidentally killing civilians when they are targeting the terrorist groups and wait to see if there isn't a significant reduction in the violence directed against them so that a distinction can be made between Palestinian violence based on unresolvable desires to harm Israelis and Palestinian violence that is a response to Israel's continued encroachment into what they consider their land and the Israelis violent responses to what they consider their own justified violence.

The Fool

21st January 2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

So if instead of “Jews” you say “Israelis” and instead of “are evil shifty backstabbing conspirators” you say “are perpetuating genocide against the Palestinians” is that racist?

Why or why not?

Is it racist? well not according to you and the apologists.... None of those statements would be racist.... "Jews are shifty backstabbing conspirators" would not be in the slightest bit racist according to "skeptics" cheersquad

I am really getting to near hair tearing frustration explaining this to you over and over and over and over...

Please please please show me where I make generalisations like "Israelis are perpetuating genocide against the palestinians" as you claim I do....... please???????

I often critisize the current Israeli government and/or Israeli foreign policy and/or the actions of the IDF and/or Sharon,I often critisize Hamas and/or the Palestinian Authority and/or Arafat and/or Terroris bombers...please learn and recognise the difference between this and baseless generalisations about Paletinians and israelis...please?????

The Fool

21st January 2004, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Furious
It seems there is a bit of egg on Fool's face.

Based on those polls, some facts:

1) A majority of Palestinians support civilian targets for suicide bombers.

2) A much smaller minority of Palestinians do not support civilian targets for suicide bombings.

Now, there has been a semantic problem in this thread with how racism is defined. Without intentionally trying to create strawmen (feel free to clarify, and I will update as needed, I know they are probably oversimplified) it appears the two definitions are:

Fool - It is racist to declare ALL of some group to be something when only some of them are that something.

Skeptic - It is racist to declare a group something when a vast minority of are NOT that something.

The polls show, that conservatively, a healthy majoirty of at least 60% of the Palestinians support civilian targets.

The general statement in question is that Palestinians think that it is morally acceptable to kill civilians and advocate it.

Fool's definition might hold, since not all Palestinians hold that view.

Skeptic's definition clearly would make that assertion not racist, as it is pretty clear that it is not a small minority that believes civilians are legitimate suicide bomber targets.

The flip side though, is that it is definitely racist according to both definitions to say that the Palestinians do not support suicide bombing. Only a minority of Palestinians hold this view.

Saying that Palestinians do not support suicide bombing of civilians is not exactly a harsh racist statement though, since it isn't exactly a negative stereotype (I hope anyway).

So, as a thought question, does racist comment inherently have to have a negative connotation to be considered racism, even if false?
Please show me some polls that show that palestinians are "evil" or "savages".
Its that sort of hate rant that is unacceptable from someone who calls themselves a skeptic.

Nikk

21st January 2004, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Furious

The flip side though, is that it is definitely racist according to both definitions to say that the Palestinians do not support suicide bombing. Only a minority of Palestinians hold this view.

So, as a thought question, does racist comment inherently have to have a negative connotation to be considered racism, even if false?

It would be nice to have a generally agreed upon definition of racism. Here's the "Dictionary.com" definition.....

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

A dictionary definition is merely opinion of course but the essence of that definition is that a genuine racist believes in genetic differences in human abilities between "races"........ whatever they are.

As even a rabid Palestinian apologist like me;) would not claim that the Palestinians are a race (and arguably not even an ethnic group) then, if the above definition is accepted, Skeptic's beliefs do not make him a racist.

It seems to me that the word racism is often used when an exagerated or oversimplified criticism is made of the common cultural attributes of a particular group. Thus if someone were to express the view that say "arabs are incapable of organising a piss up in a brewery" then in my opinion this would not be racism unless the speaker believed that arab incapacity was the result of genetics rather than culture.

Perhaps it would be better to call Skeptic a "culturalist"

Jocko

21st January 2004, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Nikk

It would be nice to have a generally agreed upon definition of racism. Here's the "Dictionary.com" definition.....

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

A dictionary definition is merely opinion of course but the essence of that definition is that a genuine racist believes in genetic differences in human abilities between "races"........ whatever they are.

As even a rabid Palestinian apologist like me;) would not claim that the Palestinians are a race (and arguably not even an ethnic group) then, if the above definition is accepted, Skeptic's beliefs do not make him a racist.

It seems to me that the word racism is often used when an exagerated or oversimplified criticism is made of the common cultural attributes of a particular group. Thus if someone were to express the view that say "arabs are incapable of organising a piss up in a brewery" then in my opinion this would not be racism unless the speaker believed that arab incapacity was the result of genetics rather than culture.

Perhaps it would be better to call Skeptic a "culturalist"

You just don't get it, do you? After Fool and his PC ilk are done rewriting history, they're going to start work on rewriting the dictionary too. Until then, please don't confuse the poor guy with facts.

The Fool

21st January 2004, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

You just don't get it, do you? After Fool and his PC ilk are done rewriting history, they're going to start work on rewriting the dictionary too. Until then, please don't confuse the poor guy with facts.
no, The dictionary definitions are fine by me...Discrimination and prejudice based on race is fine..... Most of the arguments of the apologists revolve around what "race" means. IE you can slag a group as much as you like as long as you claim they are not a "race". Well I hate to burst your bubble but try investigating what "race" means. Antrolologists don't agree, If you know the definitive answer then please let them all know, it will save them a lot of discussion.
My view, which has much support, is a "race" of people is really just a very very extended family...discrimination and prejudice against people because they are from that extended family is racism... It is racist to proclaim asians inscrutible, is it less racist to proclaim Chinese inscrutible? It is racist to proclaim Arabs bloodthirsty savages, is it less racist to proclaim palestinians savages?
I have no problem with "Facts" so how about you do some work demonstrating the "fact" that if you are born into an Arabic society you are any more or less likely to be "bloodthirsty" or a "savage" than if you are born into any other society ...its a simple request...Prove it or dismiss it as the total claptrap that it so obviously is.

The Fool

21st January 2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Nikk

"arabs are incapable of organising a piss up in a brewery" then in my opinion this would not be racism unless the speaker believed that arab incapacity was the result of genetics rather than culture.

Perhaps it would be better to call Skeptic a "culturalist"

genetics? culture? what about skin colour? If Norwegians were black you would not group them with Zambians. Whan trying to determine the categories of "race" Anthropologists considers many things, genetic traits, cultural behavior and many other factiors. It doesn't matter what factor you erroneously believe makes the difference in the ability to organise a piss up does it? Racism is the false belief that "race X are Y, simply because they are X" Where Y is any slur or putdown you can think of....like "could not organise a piss up in a brewery" or "bloodthirsty" or "savages" or "smelly" or any other damn thing you like... I don't see how it matters if you believe that the Y bit is down to genetics, culture or even alien possesion.

I don't see how any statement could be racist under your system.

Mycroft

21st January 2004, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
Is it racist? well not according to you and the apologists.... None of those statements would be racist.... "Jews are shifty backstabbing conspirators" would not be in the slightest bit racist according to "skeptics" cheersquad

I am really getting to near hair tearing frustration explaining this to you over and over and over and over...

Please please please show me where I make generalisations like "Israelis are perpetuating genocide against the palestinians" as you claim I do....... please???????

You didn’t make any such statement, and I didn’t mean to imply that you did. I asked the question because I thought the answer would be interesting for discussion. While I disagree with you on a lot, I think you’re a pretty smart guy and would have produced something thoughtful.

From the tone of your response, I would guess that your answer would be yes, such a statement about the Israelis would be racist. Feel free to correct me if you disagree.

Originally posted by The Fool
Please show me some polls that show that palestinians are "evil" or "savages".
Its that sort of hate rant that is unacceptable from someone who calls themselves a skeptic.

Here you imply that maybe it’s not racist if it can be demonstrated to be true. Maybe you just meant that in a rhetorical sense knowing that subjective terms such as “evil” and “savage” don’t lend themselves easily to statistical data, but the idea itself is worth discussing. Is a generalization about any population “racist” if it’s demonstrably true?

I think that’s an interesting question, and I don’t have an answer for it.

Originally posted by The Fool
The old "its not racism because its true" line....not very original "skeptic".

I don’t disagree with this statement. I’ve heard plenty of racists protest that their racism is justified because it’s true, and it doesn’t make it any less racist. Can you make any generalization about any population? Why or why not?

The Fool

21st January 2004, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

You didn’t make any such statement, and I didn’t mean to imply that you did. I asked the question because I thought the answer would be interesting for discussion. While I disagree with you on a lot, I think you’re a pretty smart guy and would have produced something thoughtful.

From the tone of your response, I would guess that your answer would be yes, such a statement about the Israelis would be racist. Feel free to correct me if you disagree.

The statement strikes me as highly racist whichever way you swap around the words Israeli and Palestinian.

Here you imply that maybe it’s not racist if it can be demonstrated to be true. Maybe you just meant that in a rhetorical sense knowing that subjective terms such as “evil” and “savage” don’t lend themselves easily to statistical data, but the idea itself is worth discussing. Is a generalization about any population “racist” if it’s demonstrably true?

I think that’s an interesting question, and I don’t have an answer for it.

Truth is irrelevant to racism. It is intent that counts. to me, "its not racist because its true" is a silly argument. Consider this statement.

Jews would rather lie around on a beach than work.

It is a racist statement because it is intended to belittle..."they" are inferior to "us" due to inherrant lazyness.

Now go and poll the entire human population of the world...would it be stretching it to say that if given a choice the vast majority of people would choose lying on a beach from going to work? If I polled all jews would waving this result around and claiming it removed the racism from my statement be valid? Not in my opinion...the statement is designed to belittle with a baseless stereotype.

The example used by some posters on this forum is that because polls indicate many palestinians support terrorist attacks on israelis does not support the conclusion that palestinians are genocidal, evil, bloodthirsty or anything remotely like it. Its a tragedy that people could value human life so cheaply, people who support killing are to be condemned.....But during the terrorism in Britain many many Irish sympathised with the IRA, this does not support the proposition "Irish are genocidal and/or evil and/or savages" either.

Can you make any generalization about any population? Why or why not?

sure.... you just have to take your medicine if people put them to the test.

Arabs Hate Broccoli.....
there I just made a generalisation lets see what people hink of me because of it....I suspect they will just think is a joke example (hopefully)....Generalizations deserve the sniff test, this is a skeptics board after all....

what about "true" generalizations? well, if you make em, you support em..... It is possible to get across any point you like without using racist statements, the only function of racial slurrs is to support the prejudices of racists.

Mycroft

22nd January 2004, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
The statement strikes me as highly racist whichever way you swap around the words Israeli and Palestinian.

I wasn’t swapping the words Israeli and Palestinian as much as I was remembering the posts of some of the frequent users of this board, AUP, Demon and others who have said Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian-Arabs.

Originally posted by The Fool

Truth is irrelevant to racism. It is intent that counts. to me, "its not racist because its true" is a silly argument. Consider this statement.

Jews would rather lie around on a beach than work.

It is a racist statement because it is intended to belittle..."they" are inferior to "us" due to inherrant lazyness.

Hmmm, I agree that statement would be intended to belittle, but is it truthful? Technically yes, but it implies that Jews would rather lie on the beach more than other people which is untruthful. I would see it as an artful manipulation of language. Racist because it’s purpose is to deceive.

Originally posted by The Fool
The example used by some posters on this forum is that because polls indicate many palestinians support terrorist attacks on israelis does not support the conclusion that palestinians are genocidal, evil, bloodthirsty or anything remotely like it.

Suppose you change the topic from the Israeli/Arab conflict to another conflict such as the followers of Joseph Kony in Uganda. With the use of child soldiers, reports of cannibalism and mutilations, could one characterize his followers as evil, bloodthirsty or savage without being racist?

The Fool

22nd January 2004, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

I wasn’t swapping the words Israeli and Palestinian as much as I was remembering the posts of some of the frequent users of this board, AUP, Demon and others who have said Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian-Arabs.

I didn't mean to suggest that you had swapped around another statement. It was my point that its the same either way...you must excuse my paranoia because I am often baselessly accused of seeing only racism on one side of this ongoing tragedy By people who can never find anything I have written to back them up...

Regarding what others post...Well I can't speak for those people but If someone says to me "Israel wants to..." or "America wants to..." I normally assume they are talking about government policies rather than a people. If they were saying "Israelis want to..." I would reject it as baseless, the suggestion that being israeli means you are more likely to have genocidal urges than any other person would be blatantly racist.

I personally don't think the current government of Israel wants to see genocide, I think thier actions indicate that they want them gone from land they see as belonging to Jews as a divine right.... I don't think Sharon could care less about the civil and religious rights of Palestinians. Probably about as much as Arafat cares about Jews.

Hmmm, I agree that statement would be intended to belittle, but is it truthful? Technically yes, but it implies that Jews would rather lie on the beach more than other people which is untruthful. I would see it as an artful manipulation of language. Racist because it’s purpose is to deceive.

agreed.

Suppose you change the topic from the Israeli/Arab conflict to another conflict such as the followers of Joseph Kony in Uganda. With the use of child soldiers, reports of cannibalism and mutilations, could one characterize his followers as evil, bloodthirsty or savage without being racist?

I don't see why not... you are talking about a warlord and his followers. People join in by choice so must wear the flak they get. I don't know of anyone who would tar the Ugandan people with the same brush... Is the existence of this group evidence that Ugandans are inherently evil, bloodthirsty or savage?...I think not.

Grammatron

22nd January 2004, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
I don't see why not... you are talking about a warlord and his followers. People join in by choice so must wear the flak they get. I don't know of anyone who would tar the Ugandan people with the same brush... Is the existence of this group evidence that Ugandans are inherently evil, bloodthirsty or savage?...I think not.

So what you are saying is that anything that people join by choice can be generalized against?

The Fool

22nd January 2004, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by Grammatron

So what you are saying is that anything that people join by choice can be generalized against?

Umm, no I said that the people who joined this warlords army have taken a voluntary action that associates them with criticisms of the group as a whole.... Obviously the cook and the cleaner may be viewed differently from armed killers but to me its like a political party...its no good saying you were in the other room when the vote was taken...you wear the critisizm of your party.

Now I have not had the time to consider every voluntary organisation that exists but here goes an attempt at a general principle.

If the "generalisation" is appropriate for the group you voluntarily associate with and stands a sniff test...

If you join the Boyscouts its not the same as joining Hamas. If you join a group who commits acts of violence you deserve to be tarred with the same brush as your fellow members if becoming involved in those acts was one of the reasons you joined. However, If you joined a group for one purpose it may be unfair to associate you with activities of that group that you do not condone or were unaware of. I can probably quite safely say that all members of hammas are bloodthirsty terrorists as I doubt anyone joined it thinking it was a line dancing school. I suspect they would have been fairly keen on spilling some blood.

Skeptic

22nd January 2004, 05:55 AM

So what you are saying is that anything that people join by choice can be generalized against?

(Yawn)

What he's saying is that he's employing the usual double standard:

1). If there is one person in the US/israel/the west that hates arabs, then the US/israel/the west are "racist", "colonialists", "imperialists", etc.

2). On the other hand, unless one has mind-read all Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims personally, and established absolute unanimity of their claims, any less-than-adoring claim made about what these groups believe or want is "racism" and "stereotyping". But then again, what else would you expect from someone who lives in a racist, colonialist, and imperialist country (see 1 for proof)?

Mycroft

22nd January 2004, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by The Fool Regarding what others post...Well I can't speak for those people but If someone says to me "Israel wants to..." or "America wants to..." I normally assume they are talking about government policies rather than a people. If they were saying "Israelis want to..." I would reject it as baseless, the suggestion that being israeli means you are more likely to have genocidal urges than any other person would be blatantly racist.

I have a couple thoughts on this:

First, there is no parallel distinction to Israel/Israeli or America/American to the Palestinian-Arabs. You can’t say Palestine wants to do something because there is no nation called Palestine yet. By default Palestinian becomes the only term available.

Second, I think it depends on what policy you’re talking about. I think it’s clear that if you’re criticizing the United States for going to war with Iraq, you’re criticizing the Bush administration; another President would not have done that. On the other hand, if someone were to charge America with cultural imperialism or Israel with attempted genocide, taken literally these are not policies that could be carried out with just one administration, would require the backing of the populace and thus refers to the people represented by these governments.

Do you agree?

Originally posted by The Fool I don't see why not... you are talking about a warlord and his followers. People join in by choice so must wear the flak they get. I don't know of anyone who would tar the Ugandan people with the same brush... Is the existence of this group evidence that Ugandans are inherently evil, bloodthirsty or savage?...I think not.

Well, many who join the Lords Resistance Army do not do so by choice, but I see your point. I assume you would have no problem with characterizing members Hamas as evil, bloodthirsty savages?

The Fool

22nd January 2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
So what you are saying is that anything that people join by choice can be generalized against?

(Yawn)

What he's saying is that he's employing the usual double standard:

1). If there is one person in the US/israel/the west that hates arabs, then the US/israel/the west are "racist", "colonialists", "imperialists", etc.

2). On the other hand, unless one has mind-read all Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims personally, and established absolute unanimity of their claims, any less-than-adoring claim made about what these groups believe or want is "racism" and "stereotyping". But then again, what else would you expect from someone who lives in a racist, colonialist, and imperialist country (see 1 for proof)?

you really are addicted to the strawman falacy...

1. Complete misrepresentation. Can you find one example where I have suggested anything remotely like this? There certainly is at least one person in the US/israel/west that hates Arabs, that would be you. Fortunately you are a minority among rational people. It is you that will have to live with your racism, please try not to pass it on to the next generation of your family.

2. oh sob, sob, sob....poor "skeptic" weeps because he can't slurr Arabs without people spanking him....go throw a tantrum somewhere else you piece of garbage.

epepke

22nd January 2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
Lately, I seem to have a penchant for saying things that I think both sides can agree wtih only to find that not to be the case.

Here I was trying to make the point that if you kill civilians with your bombs, blow up their buildings with your tanks and bulldoze their orchards you are not likely to find much sympathy with the populations so affected, no matter how great and logical and moral your justification is.

I think that's accurate, but it sheds little light. I think most people already know about this mechanism and have some basic understanding of how this leads to blood feuds lasting for generations, often far beyond the time that the original dispute has been forgotten.

One might as easily say, from the other "side," that living for decades surrounded by countries that do not recognize your country and occasionally lob missiles into it is also affects one's perceptions.

What would be more interesting is what an impartial observer would think. This may never be known, as there do not seem to be many impartial observers, and on the rare occasion that they exist, they are normally jumped on by both sides. I imagine that such an observer could reasonably come to the conclusion that neither the bulldozing of homes nor suicide bombing is justifiable.

Just as one may think (as I do) that the actions of the US Government in Waco, Texas were heinous and unjustifiable but simultaneously believe that the Oklahoma City bombing was also heinous and unjustifiable.

Those who don't think the actions are appropriate can argue that the Israelis should stop building new settlements, pull out of the existing contested ones, stop building the wall on contested ground, stop accidentally killing civilians when they are targeting the terrorist groups and wait to see if there isn't a significant reduction in the violence directed against them so that a distinction can be made between Palestinian violence based on unresolvable desires to harm Israelis and Palestinian violence that is a response to Israel's continued encroachment into what they consider their land and the Israelis violent responses to what they consider their own justified violence.

One can reasonably argue that, yes. One can also reasonably argue that a reasonable facsimile was proposed around 2000, which directly resulted in Arafat's walking away from the talks, the conclusion amongst many Palestinians that the concessions showed the the Israelis were weak and could be defeated utterly, and the new Intifada.

I, personally, would not argue either, as I consider them both oversimplifications.

The Fool

22nd January 2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

I have a couple thoughts on this:

First, there is no parallel distinction to Israel/Israeli or America/American to the Palestinian-Arabs. You can’t say Palestine wants to do something because there is no nation called Palestine yet. By default Palestinian becomes the only term available.

Well, if you are looking to refer to a group simply state who you are holding responsible. Homicide bombers may be palestinian but it is obviously a Hamas crime...so saying "Hamas did it" rather than "palestinians did it" is not just PC semantics, it is simply more accurate.
If you believe that the Palestinian Authority is the legitimate government of the Palestinians then you probably could say "palestines policy is....." But, true enough, these are a stateless people. But always remember that making generalizations may be poor logic at times but unless its intent is to belittle the target it is not racism in my view. I know its a fine line and often its a case of "I know it when I see it" its this grey area that racists like "skeptic" like to dance around in when they want to rationalise thier hate speech.

Second, I think it depends on what policy you’re talking about. I think it’s clear that if you’re criticizing the United States for going to war with Iraq, you’re criticizing the Bush administration; another President would not have done that. On the other hand, if someone were to charge America with cultural imperialism or Israel with attempted genocide, taken literally these are not policies that could be carried out with just one administration, would require the backing of the populace and thus refers to the people represented by these governments.

Do you agree?

The topic of electoral responsibility is always full of pits traps and grey areas. What percentage of the vote did Sharon get? I doubt it was a "Saddam special" 100%. of those that voted for him what proportion voted for him based on a desire to elect someone who would commit genocide? No doubt there were some but suggesting this is an underlying desire of Israelis is unsupportable.

If sharons governments are described as Genocidal by some I don't agree, I think that is way do extreme. I think is policies are better described as aiming to displace rather than eradicate palestinians. A new government could scrap every single policy of sharon that affects palestinians the morning after the election. I doubt that Israelis have the option to elect a government that would do that....I am not fully informed of Israeli party politics, is there an alternative party that has a platform that has radically different policies towards palestinians? In times of armed conflict government policies that are extreme are often popular, politicians are bound to provide the policies they think will attract votes.

In the end I don't consider it racist to say that you believe Israelis have elected a government whose policies are genocidal. If you do this the onus is on you to support it with evidence.... believing "israelis are genocidal, they will always elect governments that will implement thier desires" is a different thing entirely. Is that what these people are saying?

Well, many who join the Lords Resistance Army do not do so by choice, but I see your point. I assume you would have no problem with characterizing members Hamas as evil, bloodthirsty savages?
Then I would consider them the same as galley slaves in the roman fleet...they make the ships move but could not be seen as shaing responsibility for the deeds of the Navy.

As for Hammas, you assume correctly.

Mycroft

23rd January 2004, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
Well, if you are looking to refer to a group simply state who you are holding responsible. Homicide bombers may be palestinian but it is obviously a Hamas crime...so saying "Hamas did it" rather than "palestinians did it" is not just PC semantics, it is simply more accurate.

In theory, I agree, that makes sense. At the same time, the complexity of the situation there makes such distinctions unwieldy. Hamas is just one terrorist organization. The largest, to be sure, but one of about a half-dozen major organizations plus any number of micro-factions. The memberships of these organizations overlap, and it’s not always clear where the orders come from. Also, Hamas seems to be taking a page from the Hezbollah play-book in trying to be a rival to the PA for political power by providing social services that should fall under the PA responsibility. (for example, did you know that Hamas was voted to represent the teachers union in the United Nations run Palestinian-Arab public schools?)

Factor all that in with the public support for suicide-bombings among the Palestinian-Arab population, add the fact that the average western observer can’t distinguish between these various factions and doesn’t understand that a suicide-bomber is recruited and indoctrinated rather than simply acting out of frustration, and you can see how simply saying Palestinian is easier than trying to decipher the difference between Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Hamas, Fatah or the PFLP.

Originally posted by The Fool
If you believe that the Palestinian Authority is the legitimate government of the Palestinians then you probably could say "palestines policy is....." But, true enough, these are a stateless people. But always remember that making generalizations may be poor logic at times but unless its intent is to belittle the target it is not racism in my view. I know its a fine line and often its a case of "I know it when I see it" its this grey area that racists like "skeptic" like to dance around in when they want to rationalise thier hate speech.

I disagree on Skeptic, but I do agree that bigotry is one of those things that’s hard to define, but you “know it when you see it.”

I also think this thread illustrates a need to expand the language to create words to describe different kinds of bigotry. Who was it that said Skeptic was guilty of culturalism?

Let me throw that iron into the fire. Do you think it’s racist (or bigotry) to criticize a culture?

Originally posted by The Fool
The topic of electoral responsibility is always full of pits traps and grey areas. What percentage of the vote did Sharon get? I doubt it was a "Saddam special" 100%. of those that voted for him what proportion voted for him based on a desire to elect someone who would commit genocide? No doubt there were some but suggesting this is an underlying desire of Israelis is unsupportable.

I wasn’t really thinking of electoral responsibility, but since that’s easier to define, let’s go with that. From my reading, the most radical favor expulsion, but they’re a pretty small minority and don’t get much attention. They think Sharon is too liberal.

Originally posted by The Fool
If sharons governments are described as Genocidal by some I don't agree, I think that is way do extreme. I think is policies are better described as aiming to displace rather than eradicate palestinians. A new government could scrap every single policy of sharon that affects palestinians the morning after the election.

I understand where you get this assessment, but I disagree with it for several reasons:

1) The harsh conditions imposed upon the Palestinian-Arabs by the Israelis; the loss of employment though closing the border, the checkpoints, the fence, and the targeted killings of terrorist leaders, are all recent and a result of the intifada. Not that things were great before, but they were worlds better than they are now.

2) Short of mass-killings or force-marching them to the border, I don’t think they can be displaced. Keep in mind that for 60 years, these people have been fed this idea that they have a special connection to this specific land. Also, between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, there are three million of them. Making them want to go away just isn’t practical.

3) If they wanted to go, they still don’t really have any other place to go to. Other Arab nations don’t grant them citizenship and make visas hard to get and harder to keep.

Originally posted by The Fool
I am not fully informed of Israeli party politics, is there an alternative party that has a platform that has radically different policies towards palestinians? In times of armed conflict government policies that are extreme are often popular, politicians are bound to provide the policies they think will attract votes.

I’m not fully informed either, but Sharon belongs to the more conservative/hawkish Likud party, while the more liberal/dovish party is the Labor Party. There are other parties too, but those are the major ones. Labor was in charge when Oslo was put through, but the Israeli people elected the more conservative Likud party in when that was seen to have failed.

If Cleopatra or Skeptic would like to add too or correct that, feel free. Figuring it out by reading English translations of Ha’aretz or Jerusalem Post isn’t easy.

Originally posted by The Fool
In the end I don't consider it racist to say that you believe Israelis have elected a government whose policies are genocidal. If you do this the onus is on you to support it with evidence.... believing "israelis are genocidal, they will always elect governments that will implement thier desires" is a different thing entirely. Is that what these people are saying?

Your standards are different from mine. You be the judge:
Originally posted by Zero
Jeez, Israel finds a new and clever way to steal land from the Palestinians...shall we open the champagne now, or wait until Israel's goal of eventual genocide is complete?:p

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870241307&highlight=genoc%2A+and+israel#post1870241307

Originally posted by demon
The suicide bombers are NOT the issue, hence condemnation of them achieves nothing and helps to drag the focus away from the Occupation and the slow-burn GENOCIDE being perpetrated by the Zionists.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870128457&highlight=genoc%2A+and+israel#post1870128457

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Is that what I'm doing? That's news to me. Given that there are no gas chambers in Palestine or Israel, I don't think I am performing that comparison.

The act of genocide in the West Bank and Gaza that I am referring to is a much more humane one, that is, there is no policy of mass homicide in process.

There is a policy of creating ghettoes and destruction of culture, however. I believe this is all I have claimed. This is one step prior to a policy of actual killing. I don't believe it would ever come to a policy of mass killings. Such an act would cast Israel in the role of pariah and forever destroy any credibility or respect it has.

The only comparisons I have made to the Holocaust are to other acts of actual mass homicide. That is, Rwanda, Tasmania, the Gypsies.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870107453&highlight=genoc%2A+and+israel#post1870107453

Originally posted by a_unique_person
They are too smart to just go out an kill everyone. The process of gradually bulldozing land, appropriating it, settling it, checkpointing it, fencing it does a much more effective job while avoiding the sensastionalism of headlines. It does, however, achieve the same end, one of genocide.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27202&perpage=40&highlight=genoc*%20and%20israel&pagenumber=2

Originally posted by The Fool
Then I would consider them the same as galley slaves in the roman fleet...they make the ships move but could not be seen as shaing responsibility for the deeds of the Navy.

Except that once brought into the Lords Resistance Army, they pick up on the violence pretty quickly and are still pretty messed up if they leave. Can’t really blame them for it, but you can’t dismiss the effect either.

Originally posted by The Fool As for Hammas, you assume correctly.

Hey! Common ground! ;)