ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I suspect he'll promise some links, but they'll be on his computer back in Israel, that he gave to his cousin Zvi, and he'll get them to you just as soon as Zvi e-mails them to him.Spion said:
Finkelstein dumps dePaul
- Thread starter moono
- Start date
Invisible: Actually that is accurate for a short period in Einstein's life (pre-war) but not for the majority of his life. He actually came to the conclusion that a national homeland for Jews, was the only real solution to the precarious state we (including him) find ourselves in.
Of course he never voiced support for a totally Jewish Nation, noone really has, not even Rav Kahane. The idea is that it should hold Jeiwsh Cultural orientation, support a Jewish majority (usually naturally), and that ALL People should be given full and equal rights pursuant to their acceptance of those first two basic truths.
Einstein was a vocal supporter for the JEWISH State, not a state with alot of Jews in it. He even considered accepting the seat of (first) PM (which would have been a horrible move all around).
Spion: "Total fraud." As long as it is an opinion, why should I EVER produce ANY articles. A person IS free to make up their own mind on the subject., In tyhe end, it is giving fat too much attention to a person who stakes his claim to fame as being an ansti-Zionist Jew.
People have this amazing habit of assuming that being part of a group they criticise somehow lends more weight to their criticism. The idea is ridiculous.
It would be akin to my saying my veiws mean more than yours simply because I am a Jewish Israeli and ineed, while mine might be based on subjective experiences you lack, they are no more "true" than yours or anyone elses.
I would hope people merely use boards like this as food for thought as the saying goes, so that they may further reasearch those issues that interest them in the task of unearthing actual truth.
I have followed Finkelstein for a couple of years, quite regularly, and see very little redeeming qualities about the man. Someone who builds a career (and make no mistake, his career is Israel Baiting, regardless of his academic credentials) on disparaging an entity close to him, ON ALL COUNTS (not one a paticular issue, say so called Ethnic Cleansing) is indeed a clear fraud in my eyes. What you make of it, a person with no real stake in the matter one way or another, is entirely up to you.
Panda:I do not see a point in listing his faults as a I see them in any more than a very general outline. the case for and against his is very well documented on every level and folks more interested can very easily do a 5 minute Google search to get the outline of them and then delve further if so interested.
As for making up non-sensical stories about fictitious cousins of mine, why not adress the argument and not your perception of me as a person? Surely you are capable of more than run of the mill ad hom attacks, yes?
Of course he never voiced support for a totally Jewish Nation, noone really has, not even Rav Kahane. The idea is that it should hold Jeiwsh Cultural orientation, support a Jewish majority (usually naturally), and that ALL People should be given full and equal rights pursuant to their acceptance of those first two basic truths.
Einstein was a vocal supporter for the JEWISH State, not a state with alot of Jews in it. He even considered accepting the seat of (first) PM (which would have been a horrible move all around).
Spion: "Total fraud." As long as it is an opinion, why should I EVER produce ANY articles. A person IS free to make up their own mind on the subject., In tyhe end, it is giving fat too much attention to a person who stakes his claim to fame as being an ansti-Zionist Jew.
People have this amazing habit of assuming that being part of a group they criticise somehow lends more weight to their criticism. The idea is ridiculous.
It would be akin to my saying my veiws mean more than yours simply because I am a Jewish Israeli and ineed, while mine might be based on subjective experiences you lack, they are no more "true" than yours or anyone elses.
I would hope people merely use boards like this as food for thought as the saying goes, so that they may further reasearch those issues that interest them in the task of unearthing actual truth.
I have followed Finkelstein for a couple of years, quite regularly, and see very little redeeming qualities about the man. Someone who builds a career (and make no mistake, his career is Israel Baiting, regardless of his academic credentials) on disparaging an entity close to him, ON ALL COUNTS (not one a paticular issue, say so called Ethnic Cleansing) is indeed a clear fraud in my eyes. What you make of it, a person with no real stake in the matter one way or another, is entirely up to you.
Panda:I do not see a point in listing his faults as a I see them in any more than a very general outline. the case for and against his is very well documented on every level and folks more interested can very easily do a 5 minute Google search to get the outline of them and then delve further if so interested.
As for making up non-sensical stories about fictitious cousins of mine, why not adress the argument and not your perception of me as a person? Surely you are capable of more than run of the mill ad hom attacks, yes?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
because your doing so would reveal to the other posters on this thread whether you've formed a valid opinion of your own, or whether you're merely regurgitating someone else's opinion.rachamim18 said:
Rachamim, you're the person who originally told another poster, in lieu of providing them with information you'd promised them, that you'd get some relative to dig out your papers for you, so you could provide the info (and then didn't). My "story" is merely a homage to your own piece of fiction.
Panda: "Opinion of one's own or regurgitating anothers'..." OR simply admitting that the general complaints about said person nicely sum it up. Other complaints that I might add or merely superfulous. Again, why bother? If I sign off on 80% of what is critqued, I do not see how omitting say the 20% I do not agree with on Wiki (if I even ever used the site) is going to matter one way or another.
I already did offer a hugely general criticism about his selfserving and mediaslick website. If you create a site to futher an agenda, or to serve as a blog, go fo rit by all means. If instead your only agenda is what happens to self, as in clown's case, what is the point really?
Panda: I certainly said I would provide papers but that was one case, and to a person who then spit expletives as long as they could . What then would THAT have to do with THIS?
Adding cutesy nonsense ike cousin's names (I NEVER mention any relative 's names, save one brother who is dead out of respect for their privacy so I know I did not add that silly name). Why not concentrate on facts?
I already did offer a hugely general criticism about his selfserving and mediaslick website. If you create a site to futher an agenda, or to serve as a blog, go fo rit by all means. If instead your only agenda is what happens to self, as in clown's case, what is the point really?
Panda: I certainly said I would provide papers but that was one case, and to a person who then spit expletives as long as they could . What then would THAT have to do with THIS?
Adding cutesy nonsense ike cousin's names (I NEVER mention any relative 's names, save one brother who is dead out of respect for their privacy so I know I did not add that silly name). Why not concentrate on facts?
lobster
Well-Known Member
Spending ones life fighting for a cause whether you agree with it or not is pretty much a good reason to make a career out of it. Campaigning about it part-time after a full-time job is hard so you cannot blame Finkelstien on that.
I may well be completely wrong on this.. Finkelstien does not seem to propose ideas on what should of happened to the jews before and after ww2.
Chomsky is pretty much the same, you can explain what is wrong to there is no more printing paper, unless you propose and organise for a better world your critical analysis tends to exemplify issues that we all know, just not in detail. The big reason I have not read Chomsky for a while. I am fully aware that both are academics and keeping a political history is important.
I would hope rachamim18 thinks that not everything that the state of Israel has done is perfect. A good citizen accepts constructive criticism which I believe rachamim18 is.
I am not sure if its ever been brought up, but we bitch and moan about what we dislike , how about some positive thoughtful posts?
I may well be completely wrong on this.. Finkelstien does not seem to propose ideas on what should of happened to the jews before and after ww2.
Chomsky is pretty much the same, you can explain what is wrong to there is no more printing paper, unless you propose and organise for a better world your critical analysis tends to exemplify issues that we all know, just not in detail. The big reason I have not read Chomsky for a while. I am fully aware that both are academics and keeping a political history is important.
I would hope rachamim18 thinks that not everything that the state of Israel has done is perfect. A good citizen accepts constructive criticism which I believe rachamim18 is.
I am not sure if its ever been brought up, but we bitch and moan about what we dislike , how about some positive thoughtful posts?
Lobster: You misunderstand my point. I applaud ANYONE devoting ANY REAL time to ANY cause, even if I find it a stupid cause,etc. Finkelstein however only serves himself. Spen some real time at his site (if you have not) and see what he talks about. Most content relates to himself. He revels in criticism because it gives much more reason to sit and pontificate.
Had he instead concentrated on the real cause (i.e. "Palestinians" and Israeli alleged injustices in relation to the group) I would have only a problem with his veracirty perhaps but would not be personally disgusted by him. As ignorant as Chomsky often is, he devotes his considerable efforts towards fighting what he sees as a real problem. Finkelstein instead fights himself, unadulterated egotism.
Although Finkelstein is an admitted alcolyte of Chomsky, my problem with each in completely different for each. Chomsky is the the prgeny of Holocaust survivors. He also caters to Holocaust Deniers/Revisonists. I see it as deplorable. Some supporters argue that his relationship with paticular Deniers is related to personal freedoms and not the cause per se but in reading his words, in interviews, articles, and in his own (many) works it is clear.
I do vigirously applud Chomsky on one count, tha is his taking people who talk of Israel and its poilicies/actions in relation to "Aparthied" to task. He calls them non-sensical and I agree to the utmost so he is not without some level of redemption ( as are we all).
Chomsky though is nothing but an egotists besides his self hating words and actions.
People jump all over the use "self hating." I do not apply nor think that critics of Israel and its policies who also happen to be Jews are all self haters , only those who happen to deny an event that resulted in the murder and torture of his/her own family.
I DO also have problems with both mens' misue of events out of context and often total lack of veracity/accuracy .
I was in Israel , in the war last summer, and Chomsky could be seen being interviwed on many Arab media sources, talking night and day about the evils ISrael was accused of doing,. Fine, cool if that is your take on it BUT, in discussing the kidnapping of one tanker from OUR side of the Gazan border, Chomsky completely ignored the event itself (after stating that Israel excused its actions saying a soldier was kidnapped) and instead merely talked of the Israeli response as if it occurred in a vacuum.
Saying "Israel used as an excuse" tends to portray Israel as having ALLEGED the action instead of stateing what the perpertrors themselves proudly admitted to. To discuss any action without general context is at best ignorant and at worst can even be truly evil, as if purposely misleading folks .
Yes, both Chomsky and Finkelstein ARE academics, but neither has anything even closely related to an education and/or expereince in anything historical OR political. Panda has made the argument that Linguitics are closey related to Sociology, which to a degree of course is true...BUT...not in the sociological scope relating to the Mid-East conflict. Lingustics has nothing to do with anything going on or anything that went on ,save its role in propagnda but then Chomsky never delves into this area.
Chomsky tries to argue history and political science. Cool, anyone can do so. To lend creedence though to his words over those of any other person is just silly. If you agree with soemthing he says, fine but to use his words as proof of something is just insane.
Chomsky also has nothing to do with anything happening in this dynamic.
Both mens' claim to fame is simply that they are Jews! Then to throw Holocaust into it is just plain vile. Should I use my actual role as the son of a woman who lived through it in Moldova (actually Trans-Diniseter in Bessarabia), I would be lambasted even more than I usually am here.
If one cannot capitalise in a positive way on this situation (Holocaust, how can they make their position based on it in the opposite creed as well?
If I cannot excuse soemthing I do because of that event, how can I somehow have more integrity simply because of the same event? It is non-sensical and most do not bother to really think on it.
Sad that you think I believe everything Israel does is good or perfect. I have said many times, even within this forum that I do not do any such thing.
for your benefit I will just give you one major complain I have, one that makes me red with anger. In the last war the best Infantry Batallion was the "Swords," the Druse Batallion. Yet, a Druse is ineligible to serve in our airforce. Only a Jew may do so because of Intel issues. These Druse, whom I fought with side by side at different times, are more loyal to Israel than most Jews I know. Their own familes , close relatives as in a mother's brother, live on the other side of the border in places like Golan and Hermon. Yet, thse brave men are willing to kill their own familes to defend our nation. And how do we repay them? By limiting their opportunities in away that smacks of distrust and even separatism.
Want more complaints, I have lists. However, I have no stomach for falsehoods and inaccuracies. If you want to criticise Israel, GREAT. Just please do it on correct information and do not single Israel out from among other nations when you have no first hand connectio to it.
In other words (again), if I concentrated my immense enrgy on criticising the UK, when places like Darfur are taking place, and I have no relation whatsoever to the UK or groups realting to it, is that at all sensible?
Had he instead concentrated on the real cause (i.e. "Palestinians" and Israeli alleged injustices in relation to the group) I would have only a problem with his veracirty perhaps but would not be personally disgusted by him. As ignorant as Chomsky often is, he devotes his considerable efforts towards fighting what he sees as a real problem. Finkelstein instead fights himself, unadulterated egotism.
Although Finkelstein is an admitted alcolyte of Chomsky, my problem with each in completely different for each. Chomsky is the the prgeny of Holocaust survivors. He also caters to Holocaust Deniers/Revisonists. I see it as deplorable. Some supporters argue that his relationship with paticular Deniers is related to personal freedoms and not the cause per se but in reading his words, in interviews, articles, and in his own (many) works it is clear.
I do vigirously applud Chomsky on one count, tha is his taking people who talk of Israel and its poilicies/actions in relation to "Aparthied" to task. He calls them non-sensical and I agree to the utmost so he is not without some level of redemption ( as are we all).
Chomsky though is nothing but an egotists besides his self hating words and actions.
People jump all over the use "self hating." I do not apply nor think that critics of Israel and its policies who also happen to be Jews are all self haters , only those who happen to deny an event that resulted in the murder and torture of his/her own family.
I DO also have problems with both mens' misue of events out of context and often total lack of veracity/accuracy .
I was in Israel , in the war last summer, and Chomsky could be seen being interviwed on many Arab media sources, talking night and day about the evils ISrael was accused of doing,. Fine, cool if that is your take on it BUT, in discussing the kidnapping of one tanker from OUR side of the Gazan border, Chomsky completely ignored the event itself (after stating that Israel excused its actions saying a soldier was kidnapped) and instead merely talked of the Israeli response as if it occurred in a vacuum.
Saying "Israel used as an excuse" tends to portray Israel as having ALLEGED the action instead of stateing what the perpertrors themselves proudly admitted to. To discuss any action without general context is at best ignorant and at worst can even be truly evil, as if purposely misleading folks .
Yes, both Chomsky and Finkelstein ARE academics, but neither has anything even closely related to an education and/or expereince in anything historical OR political. Panda has made the argument that Linguitics are closey related to Sociology, which to a degree of course is true...BUT...not in the sociological scope relating to the Mid-East conflict. Lingustics has nothing to do with anything going on or anything that went on ,save its role in propagnda but then Chomsky never delves into this area.
Chomsky tries to argue history and political science. Cool, anyone can do so. To lend creedence though to his words over those of any other person is just silly. If you agree with soemthing he says, fine but to use his words as proof of something is just insane.
Chomsky also has nothing to do with anything happening in this dynamic.
Both mens' claim to fame is simply that they are Jews! Then to throw Holocaust into it is just plain vile. Should I use my actual role as the son of a woman who lived through it in Moldova (actually Trans-Diniseter in Bessarabia), I would be lambasted even more than I usually am here.
If one cannot capitalise in a positive way on this situation (Holocaust, how can they make their position based on it in the opposite creed as well?
If I cannot excuse soemthing I do because of that event, how can I somehow have more integrity simply because of the same event? It is non-sensical and most do not bother to really think on it.
Sad that you think I believe everything Israel does is good or perfect. I have said many times, even within this forum that I do not do any such thing.
for your benefit I will just give you one major complain I have, one that makes me red with anger. In the last war the best Infantry Batallion was the "Swords," the Druse Batallion. Yet, a Druse is ineligible to serve in our airforce. Only a Jew may do so because of Intel issues. These Druse, whom I fought with side by side at different times, are more loyal to Israel than most Jews I know. Their own familes , close relatives as in a mother's brother, live on the other side of the border in places like Golan and Hermon. Yet, thse brave men are willing to kill their own familes to defend our nation. And how do we repay them? By limiting their opportunities in away that smacks of distrust and even separatism.
Want more complaints, I have lists. However, I have no stomach for falsehoods and inaccuracies. If you want to criticise Israel, GREAT. Just please do it on correct information and do not single Israel out from among other nations when you have no first hand connectio to it.
In other words (again), if I concentrated my immense enrgy on criticising the UK, when places like Darfur are taking place, and I have no relation whatsoever to the UK or groups realting to it, is that at all sensible?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
What utter shite.
lobster
Well-Known Member
rachamim18 said:
Believing in freedom of speech means you accept what you believe is acceptable and what you don't think is acceptable.
What I mean by acceptable is saying something about anything as long as it does not involve hatred towards a group or a society.
Robert Faurisson is a holocaust denier, he is not actually political or involved in the far-right movement, which is quite surprising as holocaust deniers are usually political.
Because of not having the political connection he does have freedom of speech, i totally disagree with him, but anyone who does not instigate hatred should have a opinion.
As you proberly know, there are people who do not believe humans have been to the moon , that 9/11 never happened and so on.
As much as they are conspiracy theorist, there entitled to freedom of speech.
rachamim18 said:
I never said that in my previous post...
lobster said:
My statement was open for you to comment on it..
Which you have given..
rachamim18 said:
UK has lots to criticise like any country on the globe. Ignoring the situation in Darfur and concentrating on sucking out the oil in Iraq is disgraceful.
You may well be correct in that nobody else on this forum lives in Israel or has relations to it, however as I stated above people should be able to express what they want as long as its not instigating hatred.
So on that note, you are free to get involved on the uk politics forum.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
rachamim18 said:
Utter contemptible falsehood.
You're a liar, Rachamim.
(Avram) Noam Chomsky was born in 1928 in Philadelphia, his father, William Chomsky, a noted Hebrew Scholar and Russian Jew emigrated to the USA in 1913, his mother Elsie's family emigrated when she was an infant (in the 1890s).
He may, like so many Jews, have lost members of his extended family, but he is not the progeny of "Holocaust survivors" (i.e. the child of holocaust survivors). Even taking the word "progeny" in it's loosest meaning, i.e. "descendant of", is incorrect, as his paternal grandparents and their parents pre-deceased Nazism, as did his maternal great-grandparents in what's now Belarus. His maternal grandparents, of course, were living in Philadelphia.
Lobster: Actually I support the right of anyone to say anthing they wish, although I do hope for civility. In the end though, it is their choice. However, when you decide to champion them in any way, let alone the way in which they diseeminate their hate, you become accomplice to their intent and/or actions.
The problem with Chomsky though goes much further than his Introduction to that book, even though characterising Faurisson as a "sort of apolitical liberal" is at the very least a completely bizarre choice of words. The event that killed close family of yours (meaning Chomsky when saying "yours") is denied by the man, you write the forward to his book and then defend him without mentioning his Nazi views. You also then deny that Faurisson, the author of that book is even anti-Jewish.
Chomsky is a "Self Hater" for far more than defending Faurrison, or even for supporting Guillame. He is shown to hate himself by talking of NY's "Jewish run media...(and)...domination of cultural and economic life." Not only almost verbatim HAMAS phrasing (another group he has signd on with) but srock claims by Hitler, the man who created the event now denied by Chomsky's "associates."
He is shown to hate himself when he not only champions Shahak, but the very book now a Neo-Nazi cllassic ("Jewish History, Jewish Religion"). Applauding a boo that says Pogroms were popular uprisings and "progressive events" is pretty insane. Then applauding such garbage as Jews "worship both G-D... and then Satan" when washing their hands at eating, or "mutter curses" aimed at non-Jews when "passing non-Jewish cemetries" or "non-Jews (themselves)" is lunacy.
Chomsky's claim that Jews use Nazi propaganda when talking about Arabs, or make posters and drwaings in the same horrible manner is not only false, but hateful as well (Xhronicles of Dissent,1992). Seeing your own people who survived this hatred within your own generation, and the transfer of those atrocities into the hands of your own people (without any proof or truth) is a form of self-hatred as well.
Yep, people do sometimes claim that 9/11 never happened but when any of them are people who lost close family members in the event, they need mental health workups.
Of course people anywhere, let alone this forum should be able to express themselves, etc. but...when they only focus on Israel, is it then a far strectch to posit that they (most) probably have anti-Jewish fixations? Israel, as stated , is a tiny nation. Right or wrong, it is but one of many,many nations and groups that is embroiled in conflict and nary a word about anything else. It seems quite clear really.
Panda: "Liar." Yeah, I mean it is not like an Ashkenaz Jew did not have ancestors who went through the event (Hmmm...8 plus million living in Europe in 39, 6 plus million died ).
A normal person would have asked for a source, or perhaps if truly nice might ask me why I claim that. Wht do I see from you? "Contemptible falsehood...You're a liar..." Par for the course, sad.
You swwm to think that the word "progeny" is limited to sire of mother and father. It is not . One would think that someone who often holds court over semantics would be well aware of this. Wait...you base this waste of space on grandparent,etc. Families are abit bigger and one could, very tiredly as I find this, argue that a branch coming from his forebears in Galitzia,etc qualify. Please, find a real argument.
The problem with Chomsky though goes much further than his Introduction to that book, even though characterising Faurisson as a "sort of apolitical liberal" is at the very least a completely bizarre choice of words. The event that killed close family of yours (meaning Chomsky when saying "yours") is denied by the man, you write the forward to his book and then defend him without mentioning his Nazi views. You also then deny that Faurisson, the author of that book is even anti-Jewish.
Chomsky is a "Self Hater" for far more than defending Faurrison, or even for supporting Guillame. He is shown to hate himself by talking of NY's "Jewish run media...(and)...domination of cultural and economic life." Not only almost verbatim HAMAS phrasing (another group he has signd on with) but srock claims by Hitler, the man who created the event now denied by Chomsky's "associates."
He is shown to hate himself when he not only champions Shahak, but the very book now a Neo-Nazi cllassic ("Jewish History, Jewish Religion"). Applauding a boo that says Pogroms were popular uprisings and "progressive events" is pretty insane. Then applauding such garbage as Jews "worship both G-D... and then Satan" when washing their hands at eating, or "mutter curses" aimed at non-Jews when "passing non-Jewish cemetries" or "non-Jews (themselves)" is lunacy.
Chomsky's claim that Jews use Nazi propaganda when talking about Arabs, or make posters and drwaings in the same horrible manner is not only false, but hateful as well (Xhronicles of Dissent,1992). Seeing your own people who survived this hatred within your own generation, and the transfer of those atrocities into the hands of your own people (without any proof or truth) is a form of self-hatred as well.
Yep, people do sometimes claim that 9/11 never happened but when any of them are people who lost close family members in the event, they need mental health workups.
Of course people anywhere, let alone this forum should be able to express themselves, etc. but...when they only focus on Israel, is it then a far strectch to posit that they (most) probably have anti-Jewish fixations? Israel, as stated , is a tiny nation. Right or wrong, it is but one of many,many nations and groups that is embroiled in conflict and nary a word about anything else. It seems quite clear really.
Panda: "Liar." Yeah, I mean it is not like an Ashkenaz Jew did not have ancestors who went through the event (Hmmm...8 plus million living in Europe in 39, 6 plus million died ).
A normal person would have asked for a source, or perhaps if truly nice might ask me why I claim that. Wht do I see from you? "Contemptible falsehood...You're a liar..." Par for the course, sad.
You swwm to think that the word "progeny" is limited to sire of mother and father. It is not . One would think that someone who often holds court over semantics would be well aware of this. Wait...you base this waste of space on grandparent,etc. Families are abit bigger and one could, very tiredly as I find this, argue that a branch coming from his forebears in Galitzia,etc qualify. Please, find a real argument.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
His ancestors were already dead. Read any decent biography and you'd find that out.rachamim18 said:
Sources?
We know what happens when you're asked for a source, don't we?
Oh, and in case anyone wishes to know what my source was, it's:
Page 120 of "Chomsky for Beginners" by John Maher and Judith Groves. 2nd Ed Published by Icon Books. Cambridge. 1988.
No, that's why I mention the wider description of "progeny" as "being a descendant of".
No, the real argument is that progeny means "descendant of" in it's wider sense, and one can only be descended via one's blood forebears. By his own account all his blood forebears pre-deceased the Holocaust.
Whichever way you cut it, you're either a liar or a sophist. Quite amusing considering you make reference to "holding court over semantics", don't you think?
No doubt your error will be blamed, yet again, on your "poor grasp of English", even though you appear to believe you have enough mastery of the tongue to make judgements about what is or isn't "semantics".
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
But hey, Rach's so well-informed that he was able to critique Edward Said as a "bullshitter" who had no right to involve himself with politics (much as he's said Chomsky has no right to voice political opinions because he's a linguist). Surely you can't call someone so obviously an intellectual giant a "junkie ex-fascist"?Spion said:
Dishonest and morally bankrupt maybe.
Spion
I hear ya
You're quite right, VP. Allow me to correct myself . . .ViolentPanda said:
Hmmm, tough choice this one. A peer-reviewed widely-published academic or a dishonest and morally bankrupt junkie ex-fascist who posts rambling unsupported assertions on the internet? Let me have a while to figure that one out please
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Spion said:
Sure, thats no problem at all, take as much time as you need.
lobster
Well-Known Member
rachamim18 said:
They fixations have more to with anti-zionsm than anti-semitism as they point out issues in Israel and not jews of the world.
Occasionally anti-semitic comments are posted on this forum and one of the admins immediately attends to it, a suitable punishment is given.
In no way does this board endorse anti-semitism , racism and other prejudices.
lobster
Well-Known Member
rachamim18 said:
They fixations have more to with anti-zionsm than anti-semitism as they point out issues in Israel and not jews of the world.
Occasionally anti-semitic comments are posted on this forum and one of the admins immediately attends to it, a suitable punishment is given.
In no way does this board endorse anti-semitism , racism and other prejudices.
lobster
Well-Known Member
rachamim18 said:
They fixations have more to with anti-zionsm than anti-semitism as they point out issues in Israel and not jews of the world.
Occasionally anti-semitic comments are posted on this forum and one of the admins immediately attends to it, a suitable punishment is given.
In no way does this board endorse anti-semitism , racism and other prejudices.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
ViolentPanda said:
Edward Said a "bullshitter"? Professor Edward Said advocated mutual recognition between Israelis and Palestinians. There's nothing "bullshit" about that.
I remember hearing some revisionist rubbish about Edward Said not being a Palestinian, that he never lost his family home in Jerusalem in the fighting of 1947-48, and that Palestinians -- the "so-called Palestinian refugees" didn't exist and there were no Palestinians.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Rachamim says he audited some of Said's English classes at Columbia, he seemed to believe that this qualified him to judge Said's political views and call him a "bullshitter" on political matters.invisibleplanet said:
Same old same old.
Odd how the revisionists tend to nitpick over unimportant details rather than addressing the issue in hand holistically, isn't it?
Spion: Yes, they are peer reviewed ,but then so am I actually if you want to push that issue, Just like them however, I am credentialed in a far different field than the one we now discuss.
You do not have to belive anyone but the things you just mentioned make no sense.
Already adressed the academic point.
As a junkie, many people have addictions of one form or another. The difference being that I am fully honest and talk about mine. Other famous people talk of theirs as well and mange to have quite successful lives so that point is also moot.
As for facist, I am not one, nor have I ever been. I was a Kahanist but then Kahanism is not fascism no matter how much youmay wish it so. It is not a form of supremacy. It does not say anyone is less than anyone else. It simply says Israel must be a Jewish Nation (UN says as much) and that Jews must be strong (soemthing the world has verified).
However, if fasicsm disqualifies a person, so should liberalism. What makes one better as far as a source of info?
As for unsupported, nope, not that either although you can callit what you wish. If you shoose to follow a Lingusit in developing your political outlook, more power to you. Silly is as silly does.
Panda:"Chomsky and his family." I have more family info on th man than I will talk about here. I know what I said and since it is not really relevant to the discussion we can leave it wherever you like, meas liar, etc. It does not change it.
"Know what happens when asked for source." Yep, if you call my mom a cun%, I will do the same over and over. The act does not really hurt me at all (as one with issues involving her I might laugh at it) but since I find it symbolic of a total lack of civility, and politics require alot of it, I will just bow out. Should you ask about most things, do so in a normal way (not mormal per U75 since epletives are day to day), I will certainly oblige IFABLE.
"Chomsky for beginners." I read it as well. My source is abit more accurate but it is a non-issue. Well, I can hear the peanut gallery now so let me just state , anyone curious should just go back and look what happened to Shapiro of ISM. All people like that have complete family histories floating around. I do not agree with what is soemtimes done with it but it does help to understand people like Chomky a bit better.
"Arguing over definition of'progeny." Ha. I am going to leave splitting hairs to you. 2nd cousins are good neoughfor me , as categorising who constitutes "survivor" or "victim" in his family. I could have just as easily called him self hating for alot ofother things as I did as a relative of Holocaust victims and survivors.
"Poor grasp of English." Indeed it is pooer than you think (were you to ever hear me speaking it) but I know full well what "progeny" means."
"Edward Said." An English POrofessor certainly has much right as a Linguist to involve himself in trying to set political agendas. Both are fools.
"Rachamim as intellectual giant." Except I never claim to be anything near that. In fact, just yesterday I claimed the oppoite in this very forum (soemthing we will agree on finally). Difference though is that I offer verfiable facts. I do not call Arabs anything, I call terrorists soemthing. Said, Shahak, Chomsky, and Finkelstein all denigrate Israelis as whole (and all but Said denigrate all Jews). Just a tad different.
You do not have to belive anyone but the things you just mentioned make no sense.
Already adressed the academic point.
As a junkie, many people have addictions of one form or another. The difference being that I am fully honest and talk about mine. Other famous people talk of theirs as well and mange to have quite successful lives so that point is also moot.
As for facist, I am not one, nor have I ever been. I was a Kahanist but then Kahanism is not fascism no matter how much youmay wish it so. It is not a form of supremacy. It does not say anyone is less than anyone else. It simply says Israel must be a Jewish Nation (UN says as much) and that Jews must be strong (soemthing the world has verified).
However, if fasicsm disqualifies a person, so should liberalism. What makes one better as far as a source of info?
As for unsupported, nope, not that either although you can callit what you wish. If you shoose to follow a Lingusit in developing your political outlook, more power to you. Silly is as silly does.
Panda:"Chomsky and his family." I have more family info on th man than I will talk about here. I know what I said and since it is not really relevant to the discussion we can leave it wherever you like, meas liar, etc. It does not change it.
"Know what happens when asked for source." Yep, if you call my mom a cun%, I will do the same over and over. The act does not really hurt me at all (as one with issues involving her I might laugh at it) but since I find it symbolic of a total lack of civility, and politics require alot of it, I will just bow out. Should you ask about most things, do so in a normal way (not mormal per U75 since epletives are day to day), I will certainly oblige IFABLE.
"Chomsky for beginners." I read it as well. My source is abit more accurate but it is a non-issue. Well, I can hear the peanut gallery now so let me just state , anyone curious should just go back and look what happened to Shapiro of ISM. All people like that have complete family histories floating around. I do not agree with what is soemtimes done with it but it does help to understand people like Chomky a bit better.
"Arguing over definition of'progeny." Ha. I am going to leave splitting hairs to you. 2nd cousins are good neoughfor me , as categorising who constitutes "survivor" or "victim" in his family. I could have just as easily called him self hating for alot ofother things as I did as a relative of Holocaust victims and survivors.
"Poor grasp of English." Indeed it is pooer than you think (were you to ever hear me speaking it) but I know full well what "progeny" means."
"Edward Said." An English POrofessor certainly has much right as a Linguist to involve himself in trying to set political agendas. Both are fools.
"Rachamim as intellectual giant." Except I never claim to be anything near that. In fact, just yesterday I claimed the oppoite in this very forum (soemthing we will agree on finally). Difference though is that I offer verfiable facts. I do not call Arabs anything, I call terrorists soemthing. Said, Shahak, Chomsky, and Finkelstein all denigrate Israelis as whole (and all but Said denigrate all Jews). Just a tad different.
Lobster: "Fixations." Not when all other nations with much more people and worse conditions are all ignored for the sake of one tiny nation. It points to one thing (althouh all critics are not anti-Jewish, just that there is a very real problem and a very real agenda taking place).
Invisible: Said was a fraud, in many wyas Ask his Cairo neighbours and family members. Said criticsied ALL Israelis. He did not support any mutual anything until very late in his lie and only when Arafat even gave lipservice to the 2 State Solution,
Said wanted Israel gone. Fine as far as it goes and he was honest up until late but noone should make any mistake about it.
As for Revisionism, I will deal with Said later in this thread, as far as an outline on his "integrity."
there were NO "Palestinains" until 48. My dad was one, says as much on his birth certificate.
There WERE and ARE refugess but only less than 650,000 and most because of their own piss poor choices.
Panda: I did audit him, twice. It di not enable me to do anything but jusdge briefly, his personality. I do remember the Mid-East Studies brouhahah there and that enabled me to actually pinpoint him for what he is. I will get into it later, as stated.
Invisible: Said was a fraud, in many wyas Ask his Cairo neighbours and family members. Said criticsied ALL Israelis. He did not support any mutual anything until very late in his lie and only when Arafat even gave lipservice to the 2 State Solution,
Said wanted Israel gone. Fine as far as it goes and he was honest up until late but noone should make any mistake about it.
As for Revisionism, I will deal with Said later in this thread, as far as an outline on his "integrity."
there were NO "Palestinains" until 48. My dad was one, says as much on his birth certificate.
There WERE and ARE refugess but only less than 650,000 and most because of their own piss poor choices.
Panda: I did audit him, twice. It di not enable me to do anything but jusdge briefly, his personality. I do remember the Mid-East Studies brouhahah there and that enabled me to actually pinpoint him for what he is. I will get into it later, as stated.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Whatever.rachamim18 said:
You keep repeating that Grandma Death called your mother a cunt, but you haven't, despite repeated requests fro Grandma Death and from the owner of the bulletin board, provided ANY proof whatsoever that he actually did so.
Whatever, you're just repeating your usual "I'm a poor victim" spiel AGAIN.
Bully for you.
So rather than making claims, if this evidence is so easily accessible, why do you never post links to it, or, for example, to the claims you made about ISM?
Thing is, we're not talking about what's good enough for Rachamim ben Ami, we're talking about the actual meaning of a word, not your self-serving interpretation of it.
I really couldn't give a rat-dick for what you could have easily done, it's beside the point that you claimed that he was "the progeny of Holocaust survivors", you were wrong.
That's very obviously NOT the case, or you'd know it doesn't mean "someone from a branch of your extended family", but rather "someone in direct lineal descent from"
And yet many politicians and political commentators have specialisms outside of politics, yet you only condemn those who speak against your beliefs.
Verifiable facts, Rachamim?
You offer commentary which you claim is easily verifiable when no such verification is easily accessible (possibly because it doesn't exist).
You aver that another board member has called your mother a cunt but persistently fail to substantiate this claim, even when the board owner requests that you do so.
That isn't "verifiable facts", that's bluster and hot air.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
invisibleplanet said:
And you seriously think that you can discuss anything with R18 when he comes out with rubbish like this?
Panda: "Cun%." It is there for the owner and anyone else who cares to look. I have better things to do then dig it out. In any event, it is moot since EVERY OTHER POST TO ME, by THAT PERSON, consisted of vile garbage of the same caliber. Calling me "F" this, MF" that is no different than calling my mom a sexual name. You argue semantics as if it matters all the time.
If a person calls you "Fuc&ing As^hole" everytime they pop up what does it matter what they call your mom. I used it as an example because it was one that stood out because she/he focused on someone close to me as opposed to just me. I am sure that the "owner" saw this when looking because they never again touched on it.
You should spend less time trying to uncover me, a person you do not know, as a liar and more on real isssues. What I do or do not do is not going to matter one iota if a person actually cares about a political issue. Too many like you see it as a personal contest. I do not. I do see it as a search for truth (if a bit corny on phrasing) and that does not require any personal evaluations of a person I have never met.
My complaining about the lack of civility is my trying to pain myself as a victim? Pretty ridiculous Panda. By your way of looking at things one complaining of being shat on from a dog is just portraying themselves as victim. Panda, get off it. It is not about you, nor me. If you managed to display such an impressive grasp of English than surely you have realised that little kernel of truth soemwhere along the way?
"Claims about ISM. " Have to refresh my memory on those eince there is so much to talk about with them. Here are a few though, tell me if they ring a bell:
I) The group is a terrorist haven.
II) the group claims to stand for peace but supports the use of violent terrorism.
III) the group serves a well defined political agenda irrespetive of their supposed anarchist leanings.
IV) Shapiro, the group's cofounder isa liar.
V) The group has purposely fabricated photos on at least two occasions and admitted one of them at least, in relation to Reuters who caught them and admonished them publicly.
Want more?
"Talking about the ACTUAL definition of the word." And you yourself admitted that "progeny" means what I said it did, and? Just more pointless quibbling.
"Many politicians and commentators have specialisations outside of politics." Yep, but they work in th field, devote their lives to it as opposed to specialised and atrocious agendas . You love peace? Admirable but peace involves @ PARTIES. Chomsky, Finkelstein, and Shahak before them are just stooges. Fine and dany but anyone latching onto a stooge because they match their political orientation when trying to discuss multi faceted issues is a stooge themself.
It is as if I sat here quoting Rav Kahane all day. Or alternatively the IMFA, or AIPAC, or ADL, or JDL, or JDO, and so on. It is pointless. You and others seem to think Chomsky,etc. are the cat's meow because they say things you agree with and their only real qualification is being Jews...and that of course would mean I am the oracle of truth as well.
"Verification that Shahak, Finenkelstein, and Chomsky denigrate Israelis as a whole." Sorry, since you quote them verbatim yuo are well aware on that one. Do not wate wither of our time. Were it another who does not know of the 3, fine. You are merely , as usual, just trying to be antognistic. TRhen you top it off with "mom is cu%t" again just perfectly illustrating that your point is to inflame and villify as opposed as actual, perish the thought, discourse.
If a person calls you "Fuc&ing As^hole" everytime they pop up what does it matter what they call your mom. I used it as an example because it was one that stood out because she/he focused on someone close to me as opposed to just me. I am sure that the "owner" saw this when looking because they never again touched on it.
You should spend less time trying to uncover me, a person you do not know, as a liar and more on real isssues. What I do or do not do is not going to matter one iota if a person actually cares about a political issue. Too many like you see it as a personal contest. I do not. I do see it as a search for truth (if a bit corny on phrasing) and that does not require any personal evaluations of a person I have never met.
My complaining about the lack of civility is my trying to pain myself as a victim? Pretty ridiculous Panda. By your way of looking at things one complaining of being shat on from a dog is just portraying themselves as victim. Panda, get off it. It is not about you, nor me. If you managed to display such an impressive grasp of English than surely you have realised that little kernel of truth soemwhere along the way?
"Claims about ISM. " Have to refresh my memory on those eince there is so much to talk about with them. Here are a few though, tell me if they ring a bell:
I) The group is a terrorist haven.
II) the group claims to stand for peace but supports the use of violent terrorism.
III) the group serves a well defined political agenda irrespetive of their supposed anarchist leanings.
IV) Shapiro, the group's cofounder isa liar.
V) The group has purposely fabricated photos on at least two occasions and admitted one of them at least, in relation to Reuters who caught them and admonished them publicly.
Want more?
"Talking about the ACTUAL definition of the word." And you yourself admitted that "progeny" means what I said it did, and? Just more pointless quibbling.
"Many politicians and commentators have specialisations outside of politics." Yep, but they work in th field, devote their lives to it as opposed to specialised and atrocious agendas . You love peace? Admirable but peace involves @ PARTIES. Chomsky, Finkelstein, and Shahak before them are just stooges. Fine and dany but anyone latching onto a stooge because they match their political orientation when trying to discuss multi faceted issues is a stooge themself.
It is as if I sat here quoting Rav Kahane all day. Or alternatively the IMFA, or AIPAC, or ADL, or JDL, or JDO, and so on. It is pointless. You and others seem to think Chomsky,etc. are the cat's meow because they say things you agree with and their only real qualification is being Jews...and that of course would mean I am the oracle of truth as well.
"Verification that Shahak, Finenkelstein, and Chomsky denigrate Israelis as a whole." Sorry, since you quote them verbatim yuo are well aware on that one. Do not wate wither of our time. Were it another who does not know of the 3, fine. You are merely , as usual, just trying to be antognistic. TRhen you top it off with "mom is cu%t" again just perfectly illustrating that your point is to inflame and villify as opposed as actual, perish the thought, discourse.
Similar threads
