First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Canada and Israel
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 4/25/10 , edited 4/25/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:

I always wondering why the influence and dominance of Israel is bigger than US. Originally, it was the US who wanted to have influence and ally in middle east region, that's when they supporting Jews in Europe against Germany and provide them home in Jerusalem and its surrounding. Israel was really being supported to build their settlements in Palestine by various power like US and its allies, including Canada. In that condition, Israelis supposed to be an ally and helper of US, the donater.

But does anyone feel it's the opposite at current situation? It's like the US is being controlled and under influence of Israel.


I have always felt that I mean who better benefits in the wars in the middle east USA or Israel? I believe Israel through their lobbies and groups continue to push for war as they have been and still are doing right now in the middle east region to secure that Israel is the most powerful country in the middle east. Right now it is said that Israel has over 400 nukes including the hydrogen bomb which makes the US extremely hypocritical each time they go after Iran for their nuclear energy. Israel wont even admit and refuses to sign the NPT while Iran has and on top of that the IEIA has 24/7 access to all Iranian nuclear facilities. To me the NPT is a joke and I believe it is setup to where only certain countries can have nukes while others cant to maintain power in certain countries.

But I think in order to even touch this topic is to first get rid of these old wounds that constantly reopen every time someone even breathes any critical response towards Israel actions. Even on this thread there are some people here who already talking about Jewish suffering, Holocaust, and some even went to post some of the history of the Jews which to me has nothing to do with what is going on and should not be used as a justification towards Israel actions.

Norman Finkelstine is a Jew who I have much respect for and is doing many Americans a favor in his criticism towards Israel and also him being a Jew makes it easier for him because you cant just quite dismiss him as some type of holocaust denying jew hater. This is a man whose family been through the tragic holocaust and one of the most highlighting moments to me was when he told this Jewish girl in his speech at Waterloo to "stop it with the crocodile tears." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHNaLcEmyfE . Because out of all the legit criticism that he well documented on Israel the only thing that girl could play which many zionist, jews, zionist christians and many in our media play is the holocaust card and Norman shut her down so hard it was amazing and he was applauded for it. Basically he wrapped it up by saying we Jews should not play the holocaust card to Justify the murder and terror Israel is doing in Palestine.

I believe the system is setup like this for a reason and real Anti-Semities are doing these organizations a great deal of good because the more blatant anti-semtism that is present the news can just report this in such an exaggerated way to get both US and Canada to keep supporting them. If we cant look past that then this will continue. Also to show the power of Jewish influence in Canada George Galloway whose was a former British parliment member was banned from entering Canada due to his criticism towards Israel. The JDL (Jewish Defence League) believes he is a threat to Canada http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAm7rfHKSyY ! I believe the real issue was as George does as well is because he delivered Aid to the Palestinian people at the time when they needed it most after the invasion led by Israel which killed thousands of civilians. Whats also shocking is that he is still able to travel in the USA. So how is he able to travel in the USA the number 1 supporter of Israel but is a threat to Canada? I really dont understand why Canada lets these groups influence like this.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/10
Sir, Chomsky is a linguist. He may be brilliant at it, like Bobby Fisher being brilliant in Chess, but he suffers from a fit of eccentricity, no, a madness that, like Fisher, makes him think that the greatest evil to befall the world is America. He is consistently Anti-American, but, inconstantly, he stays in the great and evil nation. The only thing admirable in Mr Noam Chomsky is that he is a speaker of Yiddish.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/10
Is not Israel justified in defending itself if it is attacked from its inhospitable neighbours and from domestic terrorists?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 4/25/10 , edited 4/25/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:

I always wondering why the influence and dominance of Israel is bigger than US. Originally, it was the US who wanted to have influence and ally in middle east region, that's when they supporting Jews in Europe against Germany and provide them home in Jerusalem and its surrounding. Israel was really being supported to build their settlements in Palestine by various power like US and its allies, including Canada. In that condition, Israelis supposed to be an ally and helper of US, the donater.

But does anyone feel it's the opposite at current situation? It's like the US is being controlled and under influence of Israel.


You're right about Israel being a surrogate for the US in the region, that's become its sole purpose, whether Israel knows it or not. Just, like Turkey or Egypt, the US needs local policemen in the area to keep things under control.

I don't think the US is under Israeli control now, Israel has always consistently followed US orders. Whenever the US has told Israel to do something in the past, it's done it, and it knows that it is very dependent on the US. Maybe recently Israel has been a little disobedient. but I don't think it controls US policy in any way. Maybe it controls some Americans and organizations, but not the government.



orangeflute wrote:

Sir, Chomsky is a linguist. He may be brilliant at it, like Bobby Fisher being brilliant in Chess, but he suffers from a fit of eccentricity, no, a madness that, like Fisher, makes him think that the greatest evil to befall the world is America. He is consistently Anti-American, but, inconstantly, he stays in the great and evil nation. The only thing admirable in Mr Noam Chomsky is that he is a speaker of Yiddish.


First of all, I'm not a sir. Second of all, you don't know what you are talking about.Yes he's a linguistic, I don't know how that's relevant. No, he doesn't think that about America at all, you obviously haven't read any of his books. "Anti-American" is a nonsense term. What does that mean? He points out the crimes of the US, and criticizes its policies. Martin Luther King did the same thing, was he anti-American? Were the Germans pointing out Nazi crimes anti-German? What does being anti-American mean exactly?

Read all his books, and actually study the things he talks about.



Is not Israel justified in defending itself if it is attacked from its inhospitable neighbours and from domestic terrorists?


This is pretty random and has no context. And I think there's no context because you don't know what the context would be, go study this entire issue first, then maybe we can discuss it.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/10

First of all, I'm not a sir. Second of all, you don't know what you are talking about.Yes he's a linguistic, I don't know how that's relevant. No, he doesn't think that about America at all, you obviously haven't read any of his books. "Anti-American" is a nonsense term. What does that mean? He points out the crimes of the US, and criticizes its policies. Martin Luther King did the same thing, was he anti-American? Were the Germans pointing out Nazi crimes anti-German? What does being anti-American mean exactly?

Read all his books, and actually study the things he talks about.


He is obviously lacking in knowledge, by virtue of his lack of learning, in the delicate field of political science and foriegn policies. It would be fine if he gives merit to what America does right as oppose to critizing the American government of its every actions. He clearly should only be recognised for his advancements in the field of linguistics, which is the only thing that has anything of truth to it. Every other bileful and poisonous tract on the evils of everything American should be rightly ignored as the ranting of an old man with too much time on his hands.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 4/25/10

orangeflute wrote:


First of all, I'm not a sir. Second of all, you don't know what you are talking about.Yes he's a linguistic, I don't know how that's relevant. No, he doesn't think that about America at all, you obviously haven't read any of his books. "Anti-American" is a nonsense term. What does that mean? He points out the crimes of the US, and criticizes its policies. Martin Luther King did the same thing, was he anti-American? Were the Germans pointing out Nazi crimes anti-German? What does being anti-American mean exactly?

Read all his books, and actually study the things he talks about.


He is obviously lacking in knowledge, by virtue of his lack of learning, in the delicate field of political science and foriegn policies. It would be fine if he gives merit to what America does right as oppose to critizing the American government of its every actions. He clearly should only be recognised for his advancements in the field of linguistics, which is the only thing that has anything of truth to it. Every other bileful and poisonous tract on the evils of everything American should be rightly ignored as the ranting of an old man with too much time on his hands.


I don't think he's lacking knowledge at all when it comes to the things he talks about. If you think so, ok, give some examples. Don't just make accusations randomly, back up your claims.

He does give lots of merit to many aspects of American society and policy. But you don't know that because you haven't read any of his books, and have no idea what you're talking about. But if you did know what you were talking about, you would know he gives lots of praise to US values and domestic policies, he says it's the freest country in the world, has lots of unique rights and privileges, etc. So you can make whatever random accusations you want, you clearly don't know what you're talking about, so why are you even commenting on him? Just making ridiculous claims for the hell of it?
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/10 , edited 4/25/10

Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


First of all, I'm not a sir. Second of all, you don't know what you are talking about.Yes he's a linguistic, I don't know how that's relevant. No, he doesn't think that about America at all, you obviously haven't read any of his books. "Anti-American" is a nonsense term. What does that mean? He points out the crimes of the US, and criticizes its policies. Martin Luther King did the same thing, was he anti-American? Were the Germans pointing out Nazi crimes anti-German? What does being anti-American mean exactly?

Read all his books, and actually study the things he talks about.


He is obviously lacking in knowledge, by virtue of his lack of learning, in the delicate field of political science and foriegn policies. It would be fine if he gives merit to what America does right as oppose to critizing the American government of its every actions. He clearly should only be recognised for his advancements in the field of linguistics, which is the only thing that has anything of truth to it. Every other bileful and poisonous tract on the evils of everything American should be rightly ignored as the ranting of an old man with too much time on his hands.


I don't think he's lacking knowledge at all when it comes to the things he talks about. If you think so, ok, give some examples. Don't just make accusations randomly, back up your claims.

He does give lots of merit to many aspects of American society and policy. But you don't know that because you haven't read any of his books, and have no idea what you're talking about. But if you did know what you were talking about, you would know he gives lots of praise to US values and domestic policies, he says it's the freest country in the world, has lots of unique rights and privileges, etc. So you can make whatever random accusations you want, you clearly don't know what you're talking about, so why are you even commenting on him? Just making ridiculous claims for the hell of it?


I do not read his work simply because I do not respect him, and I do not respect him because he has made comments not only in defense of a French Holocaust denier, but also in support of the Khmer Rouge, a reigme that has killed one of my uncle and my grandfather.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2010/feb/07/letters-assisted-suicide
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 4/25/10 , edited 4/25/10

orangeflute wrote:


Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


First of all, I'm not a sir. Second of all, you don't know what you are talking about.Yes he's a linguistic, I don't know how that's relevant. No, he doesn't think that about America at all, you obviously haven't read any of his books. "Anti-American" is a nonsense term. What does that mean? He points out the crimes of the US, and criticizes its policies. Martin Luther King did the same thing, was he anti-American? Were the Germans pointing out Nazi crimes anti-German? What does being anti-American mean exactly?

Read all his books, and actually study the things he talks about.


He is obviously lacking in knowledge, by virtue of his lack of learning, in the delicate field of political science and foriegn policies. It would be fine if he gives merit to what America does right as oppose to critizing the American government of its every actions. He clearly should only be recognised for his advancements in the field of linguistics, which is the only thing that has anything of truth to it. Every other bileful and poisonous tract on the evils of everything American should be rightly ignored as the ranting of an old man with too much time on his hands.


I don't think he's lacking knowledge at all when it comes to the things he talks about. If you think so, ok, give some examples. Don't just make accusations randomly, back up your claims.

He does give lots of merit to many aspects of American society and policy. But you don't know that because you haven't read any of his books, and have no idea what you're talking about. But if you did know what you were talking about, you would know he gives lots of praise to US values and domestic policies, he says it's the freest country in the world, has lots of unique rights and privileges, etc. So you can make whatever random accusations you want, you clearly don't know what you're talking about, so why are you even commenting on him? Just making ridiculous claims for the hell of it?


I do not read his work simply because I do not respect him, and I do not respect him because he has made comments not only in defense of a French Holocaust denier, but also in support of the Khmer Rouge, a reigme that has killed one of my uncle and my grandfather.


So you haven't read any of his work, and yet you decide to make all these claims about him? Ok, so we've established all those accusations have no basis whatsoever.

And you say he's made comments "in defense of a French Holocaust denier" and in support of the Kmour Rouge? Ok, where's the evidence for these claims now?
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/10 , edited 4/25/10

Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


First of all, I'm not a sir. Second of all, you don't know what you are talking about.Yes he's a linguistic, I don't know how that's relevant. No, he doesn't think that about America at all, you obviously haven't read any of his books. "Anti-American" is a nonsense term. What does that mean? He points out the crimes of the US, and criticizes its policies. Martin Luther King did the same thing, was he anti-American? Were the Germans pointing out Nazi crimes anti-German? What does being anti-American mean exactly?

Read all his books, and actually study the things he talks about.


He is obviously lacking in knowledge, by virtue of his lack of learning, in the delicate field of political science and foriegn policies. It would be fine if he gives merit to what America does right as oppose to critizing the American government of its every actions. He clearly should only be recognised for his advancements in the field of linguistics, which is the only thing that has anything of truth to it. Every other bileful and poisonous tract on the evils of everything American should be rightly ignored as the ranting of an old man with too much time on his hands.


I don't think he's lacking knowledge at all when it comes to the things he talks about. If you think so, ok, give some examples. Don't just make accusations randomly, back up your claims.

He does give lots of merit to many aspects of American society and policy. But you don't know that because you haven't read any of his books, and have no idea what you're talking about. But if you did know what you were talking about, you would know he gives lots of praise to US values and domestic policies, he says it's the freest country in the world, has lots of unique rights and privileges, etc. So you can make whatever random accusations you want, you clearly don't know what you're talking about, so why are you even commenting on him? Just making ridiculous claims for the hell of it?


I do not read his work simply because I do not respect him, and I do not respect him because he has made comments not only in defense of a French Holocaust denier, but also in support of the Khmer Rouge, a reigme that has killed one of my uncle and my grandfather.


So you haven't read any of his work, and yet you decide to make all these claims about him? Ok, so we've established all those accusations have no basis whatsoever.

And you say he's made comments "in defense of a French Holocaust denier" and in support of the Kmour Rouge? Ok, where's the evidence for these claims now?


Please spell 'Khmer' correctly, and yes, if he didn't support Pol Pot, maybe his views may be of consideration, but, for now, I will only consider him a man who the burden of linguistic genius and age has made mad and whose linguistics skills only serve to weave a fabric of sensible sounding nonsense, nothing more and nothing less.

There is a link to Mr. Ear's arguement against Noam Chomsky above.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/10
Also, Google 'Noam Chomsky and Robert Faurisson'
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 4/25/10 , edited 4/25/10

orangeflute wrote:

Please spell 'Khmer' correctly, and yes, if he didn't support Pol Pot, maybe his views may be of consideration, but, for now, I will only consider him a man who the burden of linguistic genius and age has made mad and whose linguistics skills only serve to weave a fabric of sensible sounding nonsense, nothing more and nothing less.

There is a link to Mr. Ear's arguement against Noam Chomsky above.


You're talking about the article in the middle of that page? I don't see anything damning about the quotes. I haven't read that 1979 book and Chomsky's essays at the time, so I have no idea of the context, but I he does talk about that genocide in other works. Obviously he never supported Pol Pot or any genocide.

Chomsky has a unique moral idea you may not be familiar with. People are morally responsible for what they can effect. So people could have discussed how evil Pol Potts is and how the Khmer Rouge should of ended the genocide at the time, but there's no moral value to that. Just like we can all agree that North Korea is a terrible regime and should stop. Ok, but what's the moral value in saying that? What should we be talking about? How about what we can effect, and therefore are responsible for?

People in the US can effect US policy. So it would be most useful to discuss US policy and its effects, what it should be, etc. What US did to Cambodia before the genocide was disgusting. They practically destroyed the entire country, killed ridiculous amounts of people. And the conditions caused by the US bombing and destruction lead to even more people dieing. And that also drove support for the Khmer Rouge up.

So Chomsky points that out and tries to get the US to have a policy that won't cause more damage. We can talk about evil dictators and horrible regimes all over the world if we want, and we can all agree they are evil and should stop. Yes, they should stop, it would be nice if they disappeared all together. But there's no moral value in saying that. It doesn't change anything, we should be concerned with what we can affect.

It's pretty obvious all the information you have on Chomsky has been reached by reading a few things online randomly and quickly. From the beginning, every accusation and claim, you even showed, were just baseless claims you probably searched up somewhere and posted, and the same goes for these new accusations. So there's no reason for me to take these accusations seriously, they're not even yours.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/10

Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:

Please spell 'Khmer' correctly, and yes, if he didn't support Pol Pot, maybe his views may be of consideration, but, for now, I will only consider him a man who the burden of linguistic genius and age has made mad and whose linguistics skills only serve to weave a fabric of sensible sounding nonsense, nothing more and nothing less.

There is a link to Mr. Ear's arguement against Noam Chomsky above.


You're talking about the article in the middle of that page? I don't see anything damning about the quotes. I haven't read that 1979 book and Chomsky's essays at the time, so I have no idea of the context, but I he does talk about that genocide in other works. Obviously he never supported Pol Pot or any genocide.

Chomsky has a unique moral idea you may not be familiar with. People are morally responsible for what they can effect. So people could have discussed how evil Pol Potts is and how the Khmer Rouge should of ended the genocide at the time, but there's no moral value to that. Just like we can all agree that North Korea is a terrible regime and should stop. Ok, but what's the moral value in saying that? What should we be talking about? How about what we can effect, and therefore are responsible for?

People in the US can effect US policy. So it would be most useful to discuss US policy and its effects, what it should be, etc. What US did to Cambodia before the genocide was disgusting. They practically destroyed the entire country, killed ridiculous amounts of people. And the conditions caused by the US bombing and destruction lead to even more people dieing. And that also drove support for the Khmer Rouge up.

So Chomsky points that out and tries to get the US to have a policy that won't cause more damage. We can talk about evil dictators and horrible regimes all over the world if we want, and we can all agree they are evil and should stop. Yes, they should stop, it would be nice if they disappeared all together. But there's no moral value in saying that. It doesn't change anything, we should be concerned with what we can affect.

It's pretty obvious all the information you have on Chomsky has been reached by reading a few things online randomly and quickly. From the beginning, every accusation and claim, you even showed, were just baseless claims you probably searched up somewhere and posted, and the same goes for these new accusations. So there's no reason for me to take these accusations seriously, they're not even yours.


Why should I go into details, when these quotes speak for themselves? He supported Pol Pot (not Potts) and the Khmer Rouge, ignored the fact, pull out quotes (as you accuse me of) from his enemy, and spin it to the most wild and absurd things to base his claims on. By your arguement, then, I shouldn't even consider Mr Chomsky's arguement for anything as valid. But I suppose I should give it a try.

Frist, let me ask you three questions:

1. Does Noam Chomsky have a degree in Political Science, that is to say, is the delicate art of Political Science is field of authority?

2. Has he any studies in Political Science?

3. Not having any studies in said art, why should his he be taken seriously in speaking on matters where he obviously have not reason to be drabbling in?
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/10
Despite the fact that Israel is probably the most tolerant and democratic state in all of that area, it has always been 'evil Jews' oppressing the 'poor palestinians', stealing their land, &c. Israel was given to the Jewish people on account of it being their ancestral homeland, Palestinians settling much later, probably during the Ottoman Empire. Arabs are granted Equal Rights by the Consitution of Israel and Arab-Israelis play an important role in Israeli government, to a much greater extent than minority Jews in other Arab nations.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 5/2/10

orangeflute wrote:

Why should I go into details, when these quotes speak for themselves? He supported Pol Pot (not Potts) and the Khmer Rouge, ignored the fact, pull out quotes (as you accuse me of) from his enemy, and spin it to the most wild and absurd things to base his claims on. By your arguement, then, I shouldn't even consider Mr Chomsky's arguement for anything as valid. But I suppose I should give it a try.

Frist, let me ask you three questions:

1. Does Noam Chomsky have a degree in Political Science, that is to say, is the delicate art of Political Science is field of authority?

2. Has he any studies in Political Science?

3. Not having any studies in said art, why should his he be taken seriously in speaking on matters where he obviously have not reason to be drabbling in?


He did not support any dictator or genocidal regime.

Whether someone has a degree in political science is irrelevant to their knowledge and perspective.

You have to understand Chomsky is a world-renowned leading political analyst, and has been for decades. He was rated the most important intellectual on Earth and is one of the most cited human beings of all time. This isn't some random guy who talks about politics, this is a well-known expert that is respected all over the world.

But you have no idea what you're talking about anyway, you just want to play devil's advocate by finding random things online to base your opinion on.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/10 , edited 5/2/10

Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:

Why should I go into details, when these quotes speak for themselves? He supported Pol Pot (not Potts) and the Khmer Rouge, ignored the fact, pull out quotes (as you accuse me of) from his enemy, and spin it to the most wild and absurd things to base his claims on. By your arguement, then, I shouldn't even consider Mr Chomsky's arguement for anything as valid. But I suppose I should give it a try.

Frist, let me ask you three questions:

1. Does Noam Chomsky have a degree in Political Science, that is to say, is the delicate art of Political Science is field of authority?

2. Has he any studies in Political Science?

3. Not having any studies in said art, why should his he be taken seriously in speaking on matters where he obviously have not reason to be drabbling in?


He did not support any dictator or genocidal regime.

Whether someone has a degree in political science is irrelevant to their knowledge and perspective.

You have to understand Chomsky is a world-renowned leading political analyst, and has been for decades. He was rated the most important intellectual on Earth and is one of the most cited human beings of all time. This isn't some random guy who talks about politics, this is a well-known expert that is respected all over the world.

But you have no idea what you're talking about anyway, you just want to play devil's advocate by finding random things online to base your opinion on.


He is a world rated intellectual on account of his contribution to the field of linguistics, and his analysis of language is far more profound than his analysis of world politics. He does not have any studies into the delicate art of Political Science, and, like the Fool of Pope's famous maxims, rush into those area where angels dare not tread, without map, nor compass, nor any other instrument of navigation. I don't know jackshit about the field of botany, and my learning of plants and plantlife is limited to my childhood gardening expierences, should I write a whole book on the follies of modern botanist and recomend an absurd system to replace the current, slightly less absurd one? Should my advice hold any weight over experts and professors? Why, then, should his advice on politics hold weight over those learned in the field when he is, by all account, a rather radical layman? He is, then, indeed, 'some random guy who talks about politics' just like Joe McBlogger, only with a larger vocabulary and much better grammar.

Also, what should it matter that he was the most quoted man of all time? Chairman Mao once held that spot, should his Little Red Book of quotes be given precedent over Marx and Engles when once wishes to study Communism? Pat Robertson talks much about, and thus, is quoted much on the topic of Evolution, does his word hold more weight than a learned Evolutionary Biologist?

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.