Shame on the Left and its Vicious Hatred of Israel

[Rue]

This the same typical kind of left wing bull that says a black person can't be racist or a woman can't be sexist.

Many of us find leftists anti-semitic, racist, sexist, and quite intolerant.

While I agree with some of your rebuttal of the more obviously faulty logic in those three points, I fail to see why you make your own seemingly outrageous generalizations in return.

People who actually believe what you mention in that first point would be better defined as primarily ignorant, not primary left.

As for the second, what was stopping you from adding " that are " between " leftists " and " anti-semitic " , as that was the only difference between a dumb generalization and a factual statement?

My response should have said; "some of of us can find SOME leftists....." Your point is taken. The way I wrote it generalizes against ALL leftists which is wrong and was not my intention. You are right. If I generalize ALL leftists, it is as you say a dumb generalization. I was writing too fast. I actually edited my response but missed that one,

[Catchme]

Oh, so it is okay for you Rue, to utilize generaliztions, when taking exception to my obvious yet not so faulty generalizations that were taking exception to JBG extreme generalizations.

Perhaps you should have taken exception to JBG's, absolute hate mongering generalizations, as opposed to mine that were merely pointing out very real inconsistencies and outrageous generalizations in the title premise?

Instead you insist upon furthering those outrageous generalizations and fail to address the very real inconsistent thinking of some of those on the right who believe the "left" is too tolerant of and is thereby hurting society, while pretending you are doing a debunking.

[Remiel]

Oh, so it is okay for you Rue, to utilize generaliztions, when taking exception to my obvious yet not so faulty generalizations that were taking exception to JBG extreme generalizations.

Perhaps you should have taken exception to JBG's, absolute hate mongering generalizations, as opposed to mine that were merely pointing out very real inconsistencies and outrageous generalizations in the title premise?

Instead you insist upon furthering those outrageous generalizations and fail to address the very real inconsistent thinking of some of those on the right who believe the "left" is too tolerant of and is thereby hurting society, while pretending you are doing a debunking.

Can't we all just try to get along here, and debate like, oh, I don't know, civilized folks?

I pointed out Rue's mistake because I was trying to diffuse the reactionism, not provide it with another springboard for attack. Forgive and move on, y'know?

[Figleaf]

...keep going!

No need, your anti-semitic stereotype made it all quite clear.

[kuzadd]

In regards to 1 ,since when can a Jewish person not hate Israel let alone have a vicious hatred of Israel? Do you think because someone is Jewish, that automatically means when they make anti-semitic or anti-Israel comments, they can't be? This the same typical kind of left wing bull that says a black person can't be racist or a woman can't be sexist. Of course Jewish people can viciously hate Israel or other Jews. Any minority can hate their own minority status. Uh hello do you not think there are Muslims who hate parts of their own religion or hate their own governments or do you think simply because they are Muslim they don't? You think blacks can be racist or its an impossibility? Well? Its a stupid comment that generalizes all Jews and engages in a stereotype about Jews that many leftists engage in. They think if they quite someone like Benny Morris who is a Jew by heritage, then when he makes anti-semitic or anti-Israel comments, automatically these comments have automatic credibility since he is Jewish. That is b.s. and its an exercise engaged in time and time again by anti-Israelis on these posts. . The fact that some is Jewish is irelevant to the opinions they state when they criticize Israel and to fuse being Jewish and anti-Israeli opinions as being inextricable and interchangeable is by its very nature necessarily an anti-semitic stereotype of Jews since it suggests anyone who is Jewish when they engage in vicious attacks against Israel, aren't simply because they are Jews. That is a false generalization and it serves as a cover to legitimize anti-semitism and its precisely why anti-semites love to quote Jewish anti-semites. The point is anyone can think and have prejudices about anyone and the fact they are Jewish or anything else does not preclude them from being prejudice. Some of the biggest homophobes in the world are gay, some of the worst sexists are women and some of the most intolerant people against Christianity or Islam are Christian and Muslim. I think your assumption needs to be challenged. I am not saying you make the assumption because you hate Jews either. I do not think that all.

In regards to 2, you are enagged in generalizations again. Manyleftists have demonstrated anti-semitic, racist, sexist, homo-phobic and other intolerant views. Where have you been? Do you really believe you can generalize and depict ALL leftists as tolerant? What have you been reading? Do you mean to tell me you would have us believe Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, the Communist regime in Camobodia that killed hundreds of thousands are tolerant?

Rue: " ,since when can a Jewish person not hate Israel let alone have a vicious hatred of Israel?/ Do you think because someone is Jewish, that automatically means when they make anti-semitic or anti-Israel comments, they can't be? "

I've seperated your sentence with this as I will address second part later.

why do you ASSUME it is a "vicious hatred" ( and I do note your choice of words, for there extremist value)

That is all it is, ASSUMPTION. So you can paint this thusly labelled person in a negative light, and you can therefore justify your nonsensical attack. (Talk about propoganda)

A more rational discourse, would not use those words, since they are only words of assumption , based on YOUR presuppositions. presupposition:presupposition is an assumption about the world whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.

Rue:"Of course Jewish people can viciously hate Israel or other Jews. Any minority can hate their own minority status."

You are joining two different concepts that are unrelated. A hatred of ones minority status, whateverYOU mean by that exactly ? But IMO that would construe a resentment more against those who are in the majority status, as opposed to a country, or a religious grouping.

Rue: "do you not think there are Muslims who hate parts of their own religion or hate their own governments or do you think simply because they are Muslim they don't? "

OK, right here Rue. When you say this wrt Muslims, who dislike parts of there religions, or dislike their government, I notice, you do not paint them as racist, or anti anything. Yet, wrt Jewish people you label them as having a "vicious hatred" of Israel and of being potentially anti-semetic.

Then you rant on and on about Jewish people expressing their opinions WRT Israel as being hateful and anti-semetic and this and that.

Therein lies your double standard.

Since you clearly think that Israel is above criticism, you rail against people who criticize, no matter how legitimate as "viciously hateful" and "anti-semetic" especially Jews.(whose opinion is not shared by you)

But you heap NO such language on the Muslim who is critical of their religion or there government, simply because you think that Islam is in need of all the criticism it can have thrown at it.

What you have shown clearly is your own bias, wrt those you believe are above reproach ( People who are never critical of Israel and Muslims who are critical of Islam) and those you believe are not.(People who are critical of the state of Israel, wether it be it's actions, it's policies etc.,)

You haven't demonstrated a dam thing about the "left".

Your arguement is so flawed, I have to add, that, according to you every criticism a Canadian makes of Canada, makes one 'viciously hateful" and anti-canuck, ditto for evey American. that is bullocks, pure and simple!

Your whole convoluted arguement consists of a need to label people in the propagandic sense, so you can attack them, and nothing more.

To demonize is to dehumanize, and make it easier for attack, that is all you have done.

[Rue]

Oh, so it is okay for you Rue, to utilize generaliztions, when taking exception to my obvious yet not so faulty generalizations that were taking exception to JBG extreme generalizations.

Perhaps you should have taken exception to JBG's, absolute hate mongering generalizations, as opposed to mine that were merely pointing out very real inconsistencies and outrageous generalizations in the title premise?

Instead you insist upon furthering those outrageous generalizations and fail to address the very real inconsistent thinking of some of those on the right who believe the "left" is too tolerant of and is thereby hurting society, while pretending you are doing a debunking.

Hang on I would most certainly concede there probably are people who generalize leftists the way you said. That is another issue and I get your point and concede its just the way you stated it was contentious so I jumped on it. I concede there are at least two sides and often many more to every issue and we all engage in generalizations and quite frankly I got lazy in an earlier response and unintentionally made a generalization against all leftists and Remiel made me bow on that. Point taken. By the way in the past I have stated in posts I do not agree wth JBG on certain comments he makes when I find them to be negative generalizations. I have made that clear. JBG and I support Israel but our approaches have differences. It is in my personal opinion problematic whether we make negative generalizations about Jews, Israelis, Palestinians, Muslim whoever so you will note when I debate I debate with fire and flames in defence of Israel but I do not intentionally try dehumanize or demonize or stereotype Palestinians or Muslims. My beef is with terrorists, the fact those terrorists call themselves Muslims or Palestinians is not the real issue for me, the fact they are terrorists is. And yes I criticize Israelis and Jews (my fellow Zionist infidels) if I think they are being extremist. However can I say this. When you live in Israel, and you work and live with Israelis AND Palestinians as I have, I do not immediately assume when some of them sound extreme they feel that way deep deep inside. I think on either side of the conflict, people who have suiffered

and watched loved ones die understandably become full of hatred and rage because of the personal attachment they experience to the horror. I see that as a bit different then say people in Canada who are safe and secure making hate statements. As for terrorists the reason I hate them so much is because they insult the peace loving people on both sides of the conflict who have been through the exact same experience as the terrorists but have not chosen to engage in savage murderous behaviour but overcome their grief and transcend their hatred. They are my heroes not the terrorists. To me a terrorist is someone who tries to justify savagery by saying it has justifiable reasons. There can be no justification for violence on ANY terms. That I guess I am an extremist on.

So yah you have a point!

[BC_chick]

To me a terrorist is someone who tries to justify savagery by saying it has justifiable reasons.

Even though the term is still very broadly defined, by that definition everyone is a terrorist to some degree.

[sharkman]

Even though the term is still very broadly defined, by that definition everyone is a terrorist to some degree.

Interesting, tell us, what savagery have you committed? Personally I don't commit savagery, I believe in letting live.

[scribblet]

To me a terrorist is someone who tries to justify savagery by saying it has justifiable reasons.

Even though the term is still very broadly defined, by that definition everyone is a terrorist to some degree.

Really - everyone ! I don't recall bombing anyone lately or plotting to blow a building up, or even hurt a neighbour's cat.

[kuzadd]

I thought a terrorist was every individual LABELLED as "looney lefty," "anti-american" ,"Bush Hating", "anti-semetic","terrorist-loving" by someone who identifies themselves as being politically "right"?

[Guest chilipeppers]

To me a terrorist is someone who tries to justify savagery by saying it has justifiable reasons.

Even though the term is still very broadly defined, by that definition everyone is a terrorist to some degree.

I guess you need to define your statement, I'm confused I'm not a terrorist.

[BC_chick]

To me a terrorist is someone who tries to justify savagery by saying it has justifiable reasons.

Even though the term is still very broadly defined, by that definition everyone is a terrorist to some degree.

Really - everyone ! I don't recall bombing anyone lately or plotting to blow a building up, or even hurt a neighbour's cat.

Try reading the definition again, it certainly had nothing to do with blowing up cats.

[BC_chick]

To me a terrorist is someone who tries to justify savagery by saying it has justifiable reasons.

Even though the term is still very broadly defined, by that definition everyone is a terrorist to some degree.

I guess you need to define your statement, I'm confused I'm not a terrorist.

It wasn't my definition, it was Rue's. Rue said that terrorism is justifying savagery and violence. I disagreed and said everyone does that to some degree - whether it's justifying bad behaviour on the part of soldiers or George Bush, or whether it's justifying ramming planes into buildings or blowing up innocents.

[Guest chilipeppers]

To me a terrorist is someone who tries to justify savagery by saying it has justifiable reasons.

Even though the term is still very broadly defined, by that definition everyone is a terrorist to some degree.

I guess you need to define your statement, I'm confused I'm not a terrorist.

It wasn't my definition, it was Rue's. Rue said that terrorism is justifying savagery and violence. I disagreed and said everyone does that to some degree - whether it's justifying bad behaviour on the part of soldiers or George Bush, or whether it's justifying ramming planes into buildings or blowing up innocents.

Thanks, I am not going back to read over the whole thread I'll take your word for it.

[BC_chick]

Thanks, I am not going back to read over the whole thread I'll take your word for it.

You don't need to find it, just look at the quotes in your post.

[sharkman]

To me a terrorist is someone who tries to justify savagery by saying it has justifiable reasons.

Even though the term is still very broadly defined, by that definition everyone is a terrorist to some degree.

I guess you need to define your statement, I'm confused I'm not a terrorist.

It wasn't my definition, it was Rue's. Rue said that terrorism is justifying savagery and violence. I disagreed and said everyone does that to some degree - whether it's justifying bad behaviour on the part of soldiers or George Bush, or whether it's justifying ramming planes into buildings or blowing up innocents.

That is not what she said, compare your phrase, "terrorism is justifying savagery and violence" and hers, "To me a terrorist is someone who tries to justify savagery by saying it has justifiable reasons."

And either definition is a long way from merely justifying bad behaviour.

[scribblet]

Well, Rabble.ca/babble is definitly left wing where they are publicizing the latest Israeli Boycott, the one at Chapters-Indigo, for no reason other than the fact that a Jewish woman owns the stores

Why are there no denunciations or boycots of the police state totalitarianism which is the norm in most ME countries (except of course - Israel). Why is there no boycott of Iran for beating and abusing women because their hijab is 'too thin'.

The silence is deafoning re: the recent move by Dictator Hugo Chavez to suppress dissent by the media - in his leftist regime.

.

[BC_chick]

Well, Rabble.ca/babble is definitly left wing where they are publicizing the latest Israeli Boycott, the one at Chapters-Indigo, for no reason other than the fact that a Jewish woman owns the stores

I just checked out the rabble.ca site and went on to the site for Coalition for boycott against Israel. What you fail to mention here is that they are calling for a boycott against Ms Reisman not because she's Jewish, but because she is the founder of the "lone soldier" program which provides funding for non-Israeli Jews to go on and fight in the Israeli army. There is a clip of Ms. Reisman on the site and she refuses to answer any questions on the subject, preferring instead of walk away from justifying her position. She had an opportunity to vindicate herself, she didn't.

I am not advocating a boycott, and I I order books from Chapters. But if you're going to bring something up, you may as well try and be truthful about your presentation of the facts surrounding the situation.

[scribblet]

Oh sure it is, or maybe they are just hot because the owners changed from Liberals to Conservatives LOL I'm making a point to shop there tomorrow.

[BC_chick]

Shop there all you want, just be truthful in your posting.

In the question and answer period, CAIA activists questioned Reisman about her support for the Heseg Foundation for Lone Soldiers, a program of financial support for former “lone soldiers” in the Israeli military. Reisman refused to answer the questions posed to her and instead, shut down the event and walked out.

snip

At its peak, Heseg will distribute up to $3M per year to provide scholarships and other support to former “Lone Soldiers” in the Israeli military. ‘Lone Soldiers’ are individuals who have no family in Israel but decide to join the Israeli military. As Israeli soldiers, they participate in a military that operates checkpoints that restrict Palestinian freedom of movement, enforces the occupation of Palestinian land, and has a documented history of human rights violations. At any time there might be 5,000 ‘Lone Soldiers’ in the Israeli military in all capacities including in combat units.

http://www.caiaweb.org/node/214

[Figleaf]

... if you're going to bring something up, you may as well try and be truthful about your presentation of the facts surrounding the situation.

Wouldn't that just totally defeat their purpose though?

[scribblet]

Oh gee, sounded like Germany in the 1930s - protestors outside a Jewish-owned store warning anyone attempting to enter not to shop there, heck this store is owned by a certain type of person - one of 'them' you know....hummm

So they support the Heseg Achievement Foundation which awards scholarships to Israeli soldiers who have no family so are given financial help to attend university. The money does no go to buy arms or other military purposes it iss purely humanitarian so let not let facts get in the way of a good anti Jewish protest huh - nah beats protestings some of those M.E. owned embassies and businesses nearby which directly support all kinds of cheery policies, like hum..genocide in Darfur , the arrest and torture of homosexuals, Christians and labour and feminist leaders and so on. Better not bother those nice folks.

[M.Dancer]

Oh gee, sounded like Germany in the 1930s - protestors outside a Jewish-owned store warning anyone attempting to enter not to shop there, heck this store is owned by a certain type of person - one of 'them' you know....hummm

There are only so many cards in the anti-jew deck....bound to be played over and over

[Rue]

BC Chick you mistated what I said. I stated and quite frankly I don't know how you could manage to do that after re-writing it again.

I stated; "To me a terrorist is someone who tries to justify savagery by saying it has justifiable reasons."

You then misquoted it by saying;

"It wasn't my definition, it was Rue's. Rue said that terrorism is justifying savagery and violence."

I never stated what you stated. You completely altered what I stated and gave it a different meaning.

What I find funny, is that you quoted me verbatum, then misquote and change the words? Why?

There is a huge difference in what I stated and what you have.

With due respect BC Chick it would appear you are either;

1-trying to discredit what I said by changing it;

2-in a rather clumsy way are trying rationalize or intellectualize in an effort to make terrorism seem normal and something everyone does.

I go back to what I stated. A terrorist engages in violence to express his or her political will. Then they use political words to explain why they did what they did. There is nothing complicated about what I said.

Trying to justify savagery and violence after the fact with political words is what I am getting at. Your spin that terrorism justifies savagery and violence is the exact opposite of what I said.

I will say it in even simpler terms-NO political opinion can or should be justified by expressing it with violence or acts of terror.

To me terrorism is nothing more then the act of using violence and terror to express political will. No more, no less.

Now your comments are absurd. To suggest we are all terrorists is absurd. The fact is each day, the vast majority of us may disagree with each other politically, but do not choose to kill each other or engage in terror and violence to express our will. We instead vote, or become involved in social causes or write on political forums, or do nothing etc.

No we are notall terroristsin precisely because we choose to rational and reason over emotion and physical action and repress or primative and primal need to kill and be violent in order to live in a civil society and co-exist with one another.

Your are taking the fact that humans may very well have a primal urge to kill or destroy and twisting that to suggest its normal for people to have terrrorist tendencies. Most of us agree a person who resorts to violence and killings has somehow failed to be civilized.

I most certainly do not agree with your attempted effort to intellectualize terrorism and misquote my words to do so.

[Rue]

I have stated in other posts and will state it again the use of words like "terrorism" and "genocide" have become meaningless as people now use them constantly in many subjective contexts to gain the moral upper ground when arguing or advocating their political views. We also see people who try sanitize terrorism by using sanitary non threatening words like "freedom fighting" or "liberation fighting" " or struggle to achieve self-determination", etc.

From a legal perspective the international treaties regarding terrorism are outmoded. The international conventions contemplate conflict between two uniformed military entities and that these military entities are armed forces of sovereign governments.

Today most terrorist cells are in fact para-military organizations. They are not armed forces of a soevriegn nation. They are in fact vigilante groups, autonomous operations that act outside the law. Their operatives do not wear uniforms and in fact use the guise of pregnant women, old women,t he disabled, journalism trucks, children, hospitals, ambulances, moques, schools, community centres, nun's uniforms, priest uniforms, rabbiah uniforms, etc., to disguise themselves.

More importantly they deliberately target civilians not soldiers and even if they do target soldiers they do not fight one on one but passively by placing bombs avoiding direct confrontation.

New international laws are needed to update what terrorism is and provide it a definition that can't be misappropriated every time someone feels they can use such a term to criticize someone they disagree with.

To me a terrrorist organization is Hamas. It has a charter that calls for violence and killings of innocent civilians. Terrorists engage in actions designed to frighten people en masse. Its part of the psychological component to terror-the idea is that if you scare and traumitize people by your actions you can defeat them.

There is a fine line when a conventional army engages in psychological warfare and terrorism and that is why the old conventions are outmoded. There is a very fine line legally between terrorists and say a conventional soldier torturing a civilian to get information if that civilian is innocent.

Its not an easy thing to define legally. While organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah make it easy to define because of their charters, it gets quite murky when we have terrorist cells using charities and corporations to raise funds for them or when they use banks to launder their money.