Chomsky vs. Dershowitz

[Hakan]

Check out the video from their debate at Harvard.

http://iopforum.harvard.edu:8080/ram...12905israel.rm

All in all, an interesting debate. I would say that Chomsky wins based on the fact that his arguments were based on scholarly merit while Deshowitz used more conjecture, generality and a not so subtle ad hominem attack.

But that's just my opinion.

[Cowperson]

Really? It seemed like Dershowitz cleaned his clock but I guess that depends on perspective.

They're on polar opposites of the argument, of course, one guy with an "Israel can do no wrong" approach and the other with a very tired "Israel can do no right."

Does that make either one of them credible given they both start with pre-ordained conclusions and then gather facts to support themselves?

Scholarly merit? How can you take seriously a guy who would say Iran is showing marvelous restraint in the face of Israeli and USA threats, this AFTER the president of Iran said Israel should be "wiped off the map," comments universally denounced from one end of the globe to the other, comments which are causing global alarm as this religious nutbar goes looking for nuclear bombs.

But that's a-okay with Chomsky, the same guy who supported Pol Pot long after genocide was exposed in Cambodia.

It was just a stupid thing to say. . . . but not for a blind, life-long, ideologue on his last legs.

Some reviews from both sides:

Anti-Chomsky

http://www.philipklein.com/archives/..._showdown.html

Anti-Chomsky:

http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/007060.shtml

A Chomsky fan:

http://www.counterpunch.org/ryan12072005.html

A neutral written account:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...1-chomsky.html

A neutral written account in the Jeruseleum Post:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

Cowperson

[Hakan]

Scholarly merit? How can you take seriously a guy who would say Iran is showing marvelous restraint in the face of Israeli and USA threats, this AFTER the president of Iran said Israel should be "wiped off the map," comments universally denounced from one end of the globe to the other, comments which are causing global alarm as this religious nutbar goes looking for nuclear bombs.

Typical strategy of Chomsky critics is to gloss over the issue at hand and then rely on unrelated controversy to discredit him. I'm not justifying what he said about Iran (because I didn't read it). All I'm saying is that in light of THIS debate, Chomsky's arguements were backed up by credible research. Dershowitz's arguements were not. Therefore, from a scholarly perspective Chomsky had won because he proved his points using the data and primary sources, while Dershowitz used conjecture and generality. A particularly poignant instance is when Chomsky actually called Dershowitz on it saying something like ""Well, you have two options. You can believe the diplomatic record, as reflected in the sources I've mentioned, or you can believe what Professor Dershowitz says somebody told him."

From grading papers, the ones that use Chomsky's approach get 'A's. The ones that use Dershowitz's get 'C's and 'B's.

Why don't you focus on the debate instead of whatever else Chomsky is to you Cow? It's like saying that I don't think Harper will manage the economy well because he doesn't support gay marriage. Limit your criticisms to the confines of the debate or to the specificity of the issue.

[Flash Walken]

dershowitz is a demonstratable plagiarist and literal liar, who's opinions are largely based on falsities, many of his own creation.

As per the debate, as soon as chomsky answered that nicaragua had been more 'humane in the face of terrorism', I almost felt sorry for dershowitz. Almost.

As per the plagiarism, I offer this debate transcript:


ALAN DERSHOWITZ: First tell me why I shouldn't be teaching at Harvard.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: On page 207 of your book you say that to deliberately misinform, miseducate, and misdirect students is a particularly nasty form of educational malpractice.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Of which I accuse Noam Chomsky and others.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I consider what you have done in the book to be a paradigmatic illustration of misinforming, miseducating and misdirecting. Allow me to finish.
AMY GOODMAN: Let him make his point.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Allow me to finish Mr. Dershowitz I've with very respectful of your time. On page 213 you discussed Holocaust fraud by Robert Soan and you write, quote, “it was there extensive historical research” referring to his book.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: That's right.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Instead there was the fraudulent manufacturing of false anti-history.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: That's right. And Chomsky wrote as you . . .
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Please don't bring in Mr. Chomsky. He can defend himself. We're talking about you and your book. It was the kind of deception referring to the book that let me quote clearly, for which professors are rightly fired.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I stand by that. NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Not because their views are controversial, let me underline this again, but because they are violating the most basic canons of historical scholarship.

[Cowperson]

Typical strategy of Chomsky critics is to gloss over the issue at hand and then rely on unrelated controversy to discredit him. I'm not justifying what he said about Iran (because I didn't read it). All I'm saying is that in light of THIS debate, Chomsky's arguements were backed up by credible research.

Uh, Chomsky brought up Iran in the context of Israel, not Dershowitz.

Therefore its relevant, particularly since Iran is a heavy sponsor of Palestinian terror groups, probably an example of Chomsky's "remarkable restraint" . . . . or more probably, his remarkable ability to ignore facts that are disagreeable to his rear-view mirror view of the world.

Or is that unrelated as well?

One reviewer of the debate wrote this:

At the same time, Chomsky was incapable of ever directly answering a question and felt compelled to inundate the audience with facts and sources that may or not be at all relevent to the question. Then after ticking off a litany of history, he would stop, and assume that he answered the question when it was clear he didn't. At which point people would yell "answer the question!"

The title of the debate was "Israel and Palestine After Disengagement- Where Do We Go From Here." On that question, what did Chomsky tell you? The only thing he said is there would be no disengagement and offered a view of ancient history.

That fits the profile of Chomsky in other debates, clinging to a position long discredited, like his blind and bizarre support of Pol Pot long after the exposure of genocide in Cambodia. Bitter about the past but offering nothing for the future and unable to speak to changing conditions.

In that context, who was avoiding the debate? Why were people yelling "answer the question!!" at him?

I've always found it hilarious that people would be duped into simply accepting a blizzard of footnotes from Chomsky. In fact, he was actually called out on one of them during the debate as demonstratably wrong.

Its the equivalent of myself and my theories on scoring in the NHL which are occasionally disputed by our friend timbit. I clearly have an endless blizzard of footnotes and have veritably snowed him under . . . . but who says I'm more right than the guy with the "gut feeling" that players were better in the 1970's/1980's?

Secondly, under what circumstances would Chomsky lose ANY debate in your mind Haken?

If you can't take Dershowitz seriously, you certainly can't take Chomsky seriously. They're both one trick ponies.

The Israel/Palestinian situation has certainly been far more problematic in the past than it is today . . . . thanks to needed changes on the Palestinian side which have forced the Israeli's to react.

You'd have to be a real sourpuss to not see that concessions on both sides have been pointing to at least the hope for a better future . . . . and it all started with the de-radicalization of the Palestinian Authority which is what the world was waiting for. I've said many times the Isreali excesses and occupation would have received a far more sympathetic hearing globally if a Ghandi or Mandela had been in charge instead of blundering opportunists like Arafat.

This is yet another situation where Chomsky simply fails to accept that an intelligent man will recognize that the world is succeptible to change and that, as conflicts erupt, it is possible for old one's to be settled.

Like I've said before, for a political analyst, Chomsky is a pretty good linguist.

Cowperson

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Secondly, under what circumstances would Chomsky lose ANY debate in your mind Haken?

This is like asking Agamemnon whether the CPC can do anything right.

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Scholarly merit? How can you take seriously a guy who would say Iran is showing marvelous restraint in the face of Israeli and USA threats, this AFTER the president of Iran said Israel should be "wiped off the map," comments universally denounced from one end of the globe to the other, comments which are causing global alarm as this religious nutbar goes looking for nuclear bombs.

Uh, Chomsky brought up Iran in the context of Israel, not Dershowitz.

Therefore its relevant, particularly since Iran is a heavy sponsor of Palestinian terror groups, probably an example of Chomsky's "remarkable restraint" . . . . or more probably, his remarkable ability to ignore facts that are disagreeable to his rear-view mirror view of the world.

I have said in a previous thread that the Iranian President's remarks were more domestic posturing than anything and besides, while the gravity of the statement may indeed be large, they pale in comparison to the convert and overt U.S./Israeli military operations directed against Iran over the past 25 years. What is worse? Saying Israel should be destroyed and doing nothing about it or saying nothing while launching military air strikes against Iranian powerplants and military facilities?

You would probably debate this by pointing out Iran's connection to Palestinian terror organizations which is a fair point. And I concede that this is likely happening but the record shows far more violent terror activity directed against the Iranian state from Israeli/U.S. backing than the other way around. Therefore, Chomsky's point stands in that Iran is showing restraint.

But I don't want this to turn into a debate over Iran and Israel. And if you want to use this as the crux of your argument claiming Dershowitz victory then I implore you to perhaps listen to the debate again using my criteria in my second post of this thread.

Or is that unrelated as well?

No it is not unrelated when it was mentioned near the end of the debate but to disqualify Chomsky's argument is, in my opinion, disingenuous. What is your definition of restraint? Mine is the concerted decision to act against your will. The Presidents calls for Israel to be wiped off the map but yet Iran does nothing about it. In my opinion, you could call that restraint, regardless of how horrible the motivations for the restraint may be. But then again, you really have to look at Israel's lack of restraint in regard to Iran.

One reviewer of the debate wrote this:

At the same time, Chomsky was incapable of ever directly answering a question and felt compelled to inundate the audience with facts and sources that may or not be at all relevent to the question. Then after ticking off a litany of history, he would stop, and assume that he answered the question when it was clear he didn't. At which point people would yell "answer the question!"

I gather that you agree with this review but I would call into question its merit or connection with reality. Both men avoided questions throughout so it would be ignorant to ascribe whether one won or lost based on that criteria. But I agree, Chomsky did evade questions. Dershowitz made things up, relied on a litany of personal attacks and answered questions based entirely on suppositions and brackish generalities. Furthermore, when Dershowitz's had the gumption of engaging in a scholarly critique of Chomsky's thought he was demonstrated to not only selectively quote but to falsely apply ideas that Chomsky had really nothing to do with. Ironically, this seems to be your biggest critique of Chomsky's methods.

Unfortunately, Chomsky preambled every quotation and historical fact with a primary source and refuted many of Dershowitz's claims with accounts on the official record. Dershowitz attempted to muddy Chomsky's points by saying (in bad taste) that they were from 'Planet Chomsky' but never actually or significantly addressed any of Chomsky's sources as faulty.

The title of the debate was "Israel and Palestine After Disengagement- Where Do We Go From Here." On that question, what did Chomsky tell you? The only thing he said is there would be no disengagement and offered a view of ancient history.

Well Chomsky stuck to his belief in that there should be a two state solution. A belief he has held for 30 years. As per quoting ancient history, Dershowitz was the one who kept referring to 1948. Chomsky never mentioned a historical moment before 1972. Of course this was highly relevant because it was a contemporary instance of peace negotiations after a denouement of military hostilities and peace was made with other Arab nations. Not a whole lot has changed from the mid-70s with respect to this problem. The same can't be said for the period right after WW2, of which Dershowitz continually referred to.

That fits the profile of Chomsky in other debates, clinging to a position long discredited, like his blind and bizarre support of Pol Pot long after the exposure of genocide in Cambodia. Bitter about the past but offering nothing for the future and unable to speak to changing conditions.

Irrelevant to this discussion.

In that context, who was avoiding the debate? Why were people yelling "answer the question!!" at him?

I've always found it hilarious that people would be duped into simply accepting a blizzard of footnotes from Chomsky. In fact, he was actually called out on one of them during the debate as demonstratably wrong.

I didn't hear the yelling. But I gather it was when the senior official from Barak's asked a question. This is another typical instance of people desperately grasping at something to criticize him on. The question was, would you support a decision that both sides agreed upon even if it did not meet up to your expectations? Who bloody cares? Big deal. But Chomsky then replied saying that there was a very good solution available and was almost agreed on at Taba before Israel pulled up and that he thinks that is a solution to this problem. Either way, it's a pretty vacuous critique considering the context of this debate.

As per the point he was pointed out to be wrong on, the official said that one person who he quoted was not at the Camp David negotations and Chomsky said he was. It was never resolved but Chomsky did say that the person himself said he was there and to ask him. Again, this is hardly a salient point proving his inaccuracies.

Secondly, under what circumstances would Chomsky lose ANY debate in your mind Haken?

Well he lost a debate with Michel Foucault back in the late '60s.

To address your point: you seem to say that in my mind Chomsky is undefeatable thus trivializing my opinion? Nice tactic. The fact is, from a scholarly standpoint, Chomsky won this debate. Dershowitz unleashed personal attacks and never substantially refuted ANY of Chomsky's points. Either Dershowitz was terribly prepared for this debate (which is likely as he showed no good knowledge of Chomsky's opinions on this issue) or Chomsky pulled the wool over EVERYONE's eyes using faulty self serving sources. Which alternative do you think is more likely?

If you can't take Dershowitz seriously, you certainly can't take Chomsky seriously. They're both one trick ponies.

I agree with this. Chomsky is not a pragmatist and he would be one of the last people (next to Dershowitz) that I would want at the peace negotiations. That doesn't discount my claim that Chomsky won the debate. They're both one trick ponies but Chomsky's trick was better than Dershowitz's this round.

The Israel/Palestinian situation has certainly been far more problematic in the past than it is today . . . . thanks to needed changes on the Palestinian side which have forced the Israeli's to react.

You'd have to be a real sourpuss to not see that concessions on both sides have been pointing to at least the hope for a better future . . . . and it all started with the de-radicalization of the Palestinian Authority which is what the world was waiting for. I've said many times the Isreali excesses and occupation would have received a far more sympathetic hearing globally if a Ghandi or Mandela had been in charge instead of blundering opportunists like Arafat.

I agree with you on these points. With that said, the previous peace agreements were terribly inadequate from a Palestinian perspective. There needs to be a fundamental paradigm shift in the Israeli government to allow real territorial and political concessions to the Palestinians to form a real autonomous state if the violence ever has a hope of ending.

Like I've said before, for a political analyst, Chomsky is a pretty good linguist.

Cowperson

Well for a Cow, you are a pretty good person. :P

sorry for typo, I hate proofreading

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by 4X4

This is like asking Agamemnon whether the CPC can do anything right.

Please find and quote anything negative I've said about the CPC in the past 6 moths. Otherwise you're a slanderous tool.

Vote Green!

[northernflame]

But that's a-okay with Chomsky, the same guy who supported Pol Pot long after genocide was exposed in Cambodia.

It was just a stupid thing to say. . . . but not for a blind, life-long, ideologue on his last legs.

Funny, even those who don't exactly agree with all that Chomsky has to say - and by 'those' I mean fellow scientitsts - heap praise on him for being an exceptional scientist in his own right.

"Not many scientists are great scientists, and not many great scientists get to found a whole new field, but there are a few. Charles Darwin is one; Noam Chomsky is yet another." (From Dennet's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea; page 385).

Now, I think most would agree that about the farthest one could be from an idealougue is to be a scientist. I mean a scientist in the true sense of formulating theories that are empirically testable.

He may be on his last legs, and surely has made his fair share of mistakes in his life (haven't we all?), but to generalize and discount all of his work based on your cursory reading of his political views doesn't do justice to the man, nor does it do justice to the worthy enterprise of honest intellectual effort.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Hakan

I have said in a previous thread that the Iranian President's remarks were more domestic posturing than anything

On a side note, if European politican said that about Iran, we would hear about white racism to no end. When Iranian nutcase says that about Israelis, thats somehow OK. OK

Originally Posted by Hakan

and besides, while the gravity of the statement may indeed be large, they pale in comparison to the convert and overt U.S./Israeli military operations directed against Iran over the past 25 years. What is worse? Saying Israel should be destroyed and doing nothing about it or saying nothing while launching military air strikes against Iranian powerplants and military facilities?

Can you tell the difference between A wiping off entire population and B launching military strikes again nuclear facilites? The israelis should destroy Iranian nuclear facilities ASAP. Otherwise someone will be very surprised when nukes start blowing up all over the world.

Originally Posted by Hakan

And I concede that this is likely happening but the record shows far more violent terror activity directed against the Iranian state from Israeli/U.S. backing than the other way around. Therefore, Chomsky's point stands in that Iran is showing restraint.

What terror activity?

Originally Posted by Hakan

No it is not unrelated when it was mentioned near the end of the debate but to disqualify Chomsky's argument is, in my opinion, disingenuous. What is your definition of restraint? Mine is the concerted decision to act against your will. The Presidents calls for Israel to be wiped off the map but yet Iran does nothing about it.

Errr..maybe because they can NOT do anything about it NOW? Thats why are they trying to develop nuclear weapons - to use them and threat other countries.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

On a side note, if European politican said that about Iran, we would hear about white racism to no end. When Iranian nutcase says that about Israelis, thats somehow OK. OK

I think if you bothered to look, you'd find plenty of 'racist', anti-Islamic comments from Jews. Watch the movie 'Checkpoint' on the Passionate Eye, it aired a few weeks ago, plenty of Israeli-racism. It's not like it's just the Iranians here.

Can you tell the difference between A wiping off entire population and B launching military strikes again nuclear facilites? The israelis should destroy Iranian nuclear facilities ASAP. Otherwise someone will be very surprised when nukes start blowing up all over the world.

Hmmm... I guess off the top of my head, 'B' happened, 'A' didn't (unless you're talking about the Holocaust, which has no bearing on this speciifc debate). That's the difference. Reality.

What terror activity?

Well... I suppose Air Strikes don't count, because thats 'legitimate' violence, because it's the Israelis (ie, 'good guys') doing the bombing. I could poke around though and try to find some sources of Israeli/US anti-Iranian operations if you like.

Errr..maybe because they can NOT do anything about it NOW? Thats why are they trying to develop nuclear weapons - to use them and threat other countries.

Yep, that's why every country makes nuclear weapons, to use them

Only one country on this earth has used Nuclear Weapons in war... luckily they're allowed to, because they're the 'good guys'. Phew...

[HOZ]

I think if you bothered to look, you'd find plenty of 'racist', anti-Islamic comments from Jews. Watch the movie 'Checkpoint' on the Passionate Eye, it aired a few weeks ago, plenty of Israeli-racism. It's not like it's just the Iranians here.

WHoa.....whoa,,,,those socialist horses there!

A quiz for Chomsky supporters. Name all the countries that have no racism in them that don't rhyme with The United States of AMericea?

Holy you have no idea what history is BATMAN! So well informed "JEWS" versus a mob of " wipe them off of he planet" slobs who have no idea what is happenning is equated as the same by you?


Multiple choice question for our students

I am more in timidated by......

a)A JEW who has NUKE

or

b)an Arab that does not have a nuke yet states he will use it?

[Cowperson]

Hakan,

Sorry for the delay, busy these days.

Although I could certainly spend all day contriving a rebuttal that goes to the heart of Chomsky's credibility, there is no finer critical examination of his arguments/relevance than the following which I've posted several times before and which you expressed outrage with before:

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/...03/chomsky.htm

The above is relevant because you say Chomsky engaged in an academic debate with Dershowitz and sealed his victory with a blizzard of references . . . . yet we can clearly see Chomsky isn't above making up a few things himself which should leave us to wonder why we should believe him any more than Dershowitz's claim of a conversation with Bill Clinton.

As an example, Clinton is certainly free to deny any conversation with Dershowitz just as Human Rights Watch denied ever authoring a report claimng tens of thousands of Sudanese dying which Chomsky used as a reference after a USA cruise missile attack on a pharmaceutical factory.

We also know that Chomsky's defence of Pol Pot relied upon former supporters of his position who had sensibly changed their minds even as Chomsky was using them.

If you doubt Dershowitz's reference because of prior issues then you should be open to doubting Chomsky for the same reason. . . . . and that, obviously, is relevant to the present-day debate between Dershowitz and Chomsky.

In his post above, you agree Chomsky, whom you favour, is the last person you would want negotiating peace in the Palestinian/Israeli situation, an agreeable position that I found pretty curious . . . . yet you claim Chomsky won a debate on exactly that topic, apparently basing that claim on Chomsky's continued point that peace wasn't possible.

From Haken's post . . .

The fact is, from a scholarly standpoint, Chomsky won this debate. Dershowitz unleashed personal attacks and never substantially refuted ANY of Chomsky's points.

Obviously that's a matter of perspective . . . . as I noted in my original post, with links to opinions dissenting your own, there are equal numbers of people who would say Chomsky was a wandering dufus in the debate . . . . you think he won, I think he lost.

There needs to be a fundamental paradigm shift in the Israeli government to allow real territorial and political concessions to the Palestinians to form a real autonomous state if the violence ever has a hope of ending.

Or you could build a wall around the animals to keep them away from you until they get serious about controlling the violent, uncompromising nutbars in their midst.

I don't agree with Israel building the wall on occupied land but I can see the underlying point in building the wall given it has been helping force the Palestinians to get serious about making peace, rendering impotent the militants among them.

You should note that as we speak the Palestinian Authority is rounding up Islamic Jihad activists who continue to snipe at Israeli's, a move some view as an attempt at an act of good faith . . . . and a good one. A solution will come through dialogue in the end.

There's only one country in this conversation that has consistently traded conquered land back to its original owners in return for guarantees of peace and that's Israel. They have the track record. The Palestinians don't.

You're the only person in the world, next to Chomsky apparently, who would view the Iranian leaders comments as "for domestic consumption" and not take them seriously, particularly after the same guy today made the same general appeal to all Muslim nations.

You'll eventually fall into the trap Chomsky has repeatedly exposed himself to, defending and apologizing for repressive regimes through 50 years long after they've been exposed for what they are, making an utter fool of himself in the process. There's one thing you can never accuse Chomsky off . . . morphing to fit the facts. Credibility comes through flexibility.

Northern Flame wrote:

Now, I think most would agree that about the farthest one could be from an idealougue is to be a scientist. I mean a scientist in the true sense of formulating theories that are empirically testable.

Chomsky came to a defined conclusion in the 1950's, that the USA was to blame for everything, and has never wavered in spite of whatever evidence might come along to challege or outright make a mockery of that conclusion in the instances he's applied it.

Through 50 years, the conflicts are self-evident as noted in the final paragraph of the piece I referenced above:

Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist but has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history. His political philosophy is purportedly based on empowering the oppressed and toiling masses but he has contempt for ordinary people who he regards as ignorant dupes of the privileged and the powerful. He has defined the responsibility of the intellectual as the pursuit of truth and the exposure of lies, but has supported the regimes he admires by suppressing the truth and perpetrating falsehoods. He has endorsed universal moral principles but has only applied them to Western liberal democracies, while continuing to rationalize the crimes of his own political favorites. He is a mandarin who denounces mandarins. When caught out making culpably irresponsible misjudgments, as he was over Cambodia and Sudan, he has never admitted he was wrong.

A good scientist wouldn't ignore such obvious contradictions. A good scientist would have followed the truth, both in the instances it supported him and the instances it didn't. Chomsky didn't and never has.

As a linguist, Chomsky is a terrific scientist. As a political analyst, he's a failure as a scientist.

He may be on his last legs, and surely has made his fair share of mistakes in his life (haven't we all?), but to generalize and discount all of his work based on your cursory reading of his political views doesn't do justice to the man, nor does it do justice to the worthy enterprise of honest intellectual effort.

Apparently you missed my final sentence above, where I said: "For a political analyst, Chomsky is a pretty good linguist."

His "life work" is actually in linguistics and is something to be admired.

His work as an activist is a sideline and doesn't have much to do with linguistics.

Its perfectly fine and logical to criticize the man in one area while simultaneously condemning him in another. . . . . or did you miss that same point in the NHLPA thread last week?

I might not be back for the inevitable rebuttal until tomorrow . . . a dentist is due to attack me at any second, perhaps anticipating Hakan kicking my teeth out.
Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

WHoa.....whoa,,,,those socialist horses there!

A quiz for Chomsky supporters. Name all the countries that have no racism in them that don't rhyme with The United States of AMericea?

Holy you have no idea what history is BATMAN!

This is incoherent or nonsensical. What are you trying to say? I have no problem admitting that nearly every Arab-state has plenty of anti-Jewish racists. Israel also has anti-Arab racists. But I guess that's my socialist horses running wild

So well informed "JEWS" versus a mob of " wipe them off of he planet" slobs who have no idea what is happenning is equated as the same by you?

Multiple choice question for our students

I am more in timidated by......

a)A JEW who has NUKE

or

b)an Arab that does not have a nuke yet states he will use it?

Where do I equate 'well informed Jews' and 'a mob of 'wipe them off the planet' slobs'? I'd never use these racist undertones.

[Hack&Lube]

Oh my. After writing a couple poli exams, this is the last thing I want to see on CP. The debate is making me feel ill.

[HOZ]

Where do I equate 'well informed Jews' and 'a mob of 'wipe them off the planet' slobs'? I'd never use these racist undertones.

Gee Agamennon.....You are so sensitive...you deserve a star on the fridge for being so wonderful. To defend the racists from racism....I mean without you I wouldn't know that calling ill-informed-fascists-slobs slobs was racist. Nevermind the word 'JEW'....

From this day forth I will no longer call Iranians or any others participating in a rally calling for a different people to be wiped from the face of the planet a mob or slobs. They will hence forth be called "a visible group that has problems with anger. Anger which root causes are the US' fault."

And Jews will no longer be called Jews but "people not of the Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddist religion".

Just so there is no undertones......

You know I may give you 2 stars.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Where do I equate 'well informed Jews' and 'a mob of 'wipe them off the planet' slobs'? I'd never use these racist undertones.

Gee Agamennon.....You are so sensitive...you deserve a star on the fridge for being so wonderful. To defend the racists from racism....I mean without you I wouldn't know that calling ill-informed-fascists-slobs slobs was racist. Nevermind the word 'JEW'....

Um... I'm not sure if you know this... the word 'Jew', on it's own, is not racist.

You've certainly lost me though. I'm saying there are racists on both sides... and somehow you're twisting that into some pro-Arab/anti-Jewish bent? Get real...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Where do I equate 'well informed Jews' and 'a mob of 'wipe them off the planet' slobs'? I'd never use these racist undertones.

Gee Agamennon.....You are so sensitive...you deserve a star on the fridge for being so wonderful. To defend the racists from racism....I mean without you I wouldn't know that calling ill-informed-fascists-slobs slobs was racist. Nevermind the word 'JEW'....

From this day forth I will no longer call Iranians or any others participating in a rally calling for a different people to be wiped from the face of the planet a mob or slobs. They will hence forth be called "a visible group that has problems with anger. Anger which root causes are the US' fault."

And Jews will no longer be called Jews but "people not of the Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddist religion".

Just so there is no undertones......

You know I may give you 2 stars.

Are you on a wicked bender or something?

You've always been quite good at pushing buttons but over the last couple days you don't seem to be making much sense.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I think if you bothered to look, you'd find plenty of 'racist', anti-Islamic comments from Jews. Watch the movie 'Checkpoint' on the Passionate Eye, it aired a few weeks ago, plenty of Israeli-racism. It's not like it's just the Iranians here.

I believe I said European, not Jewish. I havent seen the movie, but the point is - you made it look like only one side is labelled as racist, while it is cleary a two way street. So lets call spade a spade.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Hmmm... I guess off the top of my head, 'B' happened, 'A' didn't (unless you're talking about the Holocaust, which has no bearing on this speciifc debate). That's the difference. Reality.

So now annihilation of millions of citizens equals to destruction of military bases used to build nuclear weapons? Another thing, show me where the Jews threated Iran that they will drop nukes on Teheran? Its clearly Iran threatening to attack Jewish civilians - holy crap it is only natural that Israel wants to defend itself - and the way to defend itself is not letting Iran get nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... I suppose Air Strikes don't count, because thats 'legitimate' violence, because it's the Israelis (ie, 'good guys') doing the bombing. I could poke around though and try to find some sources of Israeli/US anti-Iranian operations if you like.

Air strikes dont count, because they are a reaction towards direct threat of use of violence. If you threat me that you will shoot me once you will pick up a gun from the floor, I am entitled not to let you pick up the gun. Disagree?

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Yep, that's why every country makes nuclear weapons, to use them

Only one country on this earth has used Nuclear Weapons in war... luckily they're allowed to, because they're the 'good guys'. Phew...

And make threats that they will use them! Cant you read? Really though, you see no difference between A the US having nukes and B totalitarian nutcase regimes full of religious zealots with inferioty complex?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I believe I said European, not Jewish. I havent seen the movie, but the point is - you made it look like only one side is labelled as racist, while it is cleary a two way street. So lets call spade a spade.

My comment referring to the fact that there is ALSO Jewish racism towards Arabs was an attempt to bring out the reality that BOTH sides have RACISTS. I was RESPONDING to 'only one side' being labelled racist, and ascribing it to both sides. Way to call a spade...

So now annihilation of millions of citizens equals to destruction of military bases used to build nuclear weapons? Another thing, show me where the Jews threated Iran that they will drop nukes on Teheran? Its clearly Iran threatening to attack Jewish civilians - holy crap it is only natural that Israel wants to defend itself - and the way to defend itself is not letting Iran get nuclear weapons.

Completely non-sensical. The holocaust, and the problems between Israel and Iran, are not related. Just in case you can't read small letters, NOT RELATED. The holocaust does not give Israel carte blanche to obliterate it's enemies, anymore than it's enemies should be 'allowed' to obliterate it.

Air strikes dont count, because they are a reaction towards direct threat of use of violence. If you threat me that you will shoot me once you will pick up a gun from the floor, I am entitled not to let you pick up the gun. Disagree?

Sooo... if 'terrorists/nationalist/rebels/freedom fighters/insurgents' in Iraq know US troops are coming to kill them, and set up an ambush to instead kill the US troops, that, according to your above statement, is not 'terrorism', because, in the example I site, they are 'reacting towards direct threat of use of violence'. Of course, I'm sure you'll say that, automatically, the US is _always_ the responder, and never the initiator of violence. Just like in the Iraq War...

And make threats that they will use them! Cant you read? Really though, you see no difference between A the US having nukes and B totalitarian nutcase regimes full of religious zealots with inferioty complex?

I'm sure India and Pakistan have threatened to use their nukes, at one time or another. The United States and Soviet Union certainly did. What's the point of having nukes if you can't 'threaten' to use them? I thought that was the point of having them, the 'threat' is your 'deterrance' against invasion.

All I said was only one nation has used nuclear weapons in war, in history. China, Russia, India... hell, Pakistan has them! North Korea almost has them! But Iran is the country that is _definitely_ going to use them? History certainly doesn't bend that way...

Arab states/leaders have been calling for the complete destruction of Israel since its inception. This guy is _nothing_ new. Iran is in _no_ position to wipe Israel off the map, without wiping itself off the map (hello MAD?).

Can't you read?

Holy smokes... this a jerk statement... usually you're more civil than this. If you think I've missed something, feel free to quote it and call me out on it, no need to imply that I'm stupid, I don't do the same to you.