Boycotting Zionism

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
"As one in daily communication with them at all levels, from government ministers, university presidents, professors, teachers, doctors, nurses and many involved in further education, not least the students, I can assure you that they are overwhelmingly in favour of the call for a debate, preferring that to a straight call for a boycott without debate."

Well I would assume the Palestinians of all people would probably have the best idea about what this boycott could do for their situation, so if they're in favour of it - or at least in favour of debating it further - then it seems like a positive step.
 

vimothy

yurp
Um, I think the burden of explanation falls squarely on your shoulders. Do you think you can explain "islamofascism" (for me "fascism" implies a particular kind of class conflict) without a lot of extraneous dick-pumping over "4GW" jargon?

New thread hopefully coming soon on Islamofascism. In the meantime, read the fascist murderers in their own words:

"As soon as we entered, we encountered the car of a Briton, the investment director of the company, whom Allah had sent to his death. ... We left him in the street. We went out, and drove our car. We had tied the infidel by one leg [behind the car]. ... The infidel's clothing was torn to shreds, and he was naked in the street. The street was full of people, as this was during work hours, and everyone watched the infidel being dragged, praise and gratitude be to Allah.

We told [Muslims], 'Calm down, don't be afraid, we don't want you. We want only the Americans. ... We are Mujahideen, and we want the Americans. We have not come to aim a weapon at the Muslims, but to purge the Arabian Peninsula, according to the will of our Prophet Muhammad, of the infidels and the polytheists'

We entered one of the companies' [offices], and found there an American infidel who looked like a director of one of the companies. I went into his office and called him. When he turned to me, I shot him in the head, and his head exploded. We entered another office and found one infidel from South Africa, and our brother Hussein slit his throat.

We entered and in front of us stood many people. We asked them their religion, and for identification documents. We used this time for Da'wa [preaching Islam], and for enlightening the people about our goal. We spoke with many of them. At the same time, we found a Swedish infidel. Brother Nimr cut off his head, and put it at the gate [of the building] so that it would be seen by all those entering and exiting. We continued in the search for the infidels, and we slit the throats of those we found among them. ... We found Filipino Christians. We cut their throats and dedicated them to our brothers the Mujahideen in the Philippines. [Likewise], we found Hindu engineers and we cut their throats too, Allah be praised. That same day, we purged Muhammad's land of many Christians and polytheists. Afterwards, we turned to the hotel. We entered and found a restaurant, where we ate breakfast and rested a while. Then we went up to the next floor, found several Hindu dogs, and cut their throats. ... We utilized the time for [teaching] the Koran to the Muslims who remained. We taught them how to read [Surat] Al-Fatiha properly. They were amazed by us"

- http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP73104
 

vimothy

yurp
Now check this out, an interview with the head of al Jazeera. This is the sort of idiotic self-delusion that lies beneath the War on Terror, IMO. As if destroying Israel would somehow transform the prospects of the Middle East! It's pure scapegoating. Israel's survival "hurts our collective ego". Nothing to do with human rights and nothing to do with Palestinian rights, everything to do with wanting to defeat Israel for the sake of it.

At whom are you angry?

It's not only the lack of democracy in the region that makes me worried. I don't understand why we don't develop as quickly and dynamically as the rest of the world. We have to face the challenge and say: enough is enough! When a President can stay in power for 25 years, like in Egypt, and he is not in a position to implement reforms, we have a problem. Either the man has to change or he has to be replaced. But the society is not dynamic enough to bring about such a change in a peaceful and constructive fashion.

Why not?

In many Arab states, the middle class is disappearing. The rich get richer and the poor get still poorer. Look at the schools in Jordan, Egypt or Morocco: You have up to 70 youngsters crammed together in a single classroom. How can a teacher do his job in such circumstances? The public hospitals are also in a hopeless condition. These are just examples. They show how hopeless the situation is for us in the Middle East.

Who is responsible for the situation?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most important reasons why these crises and problems continue to simmer. The day when Israel was founded created the basis for our problems. The West should finally come to understand this. Everything would be much calmer if the Palestinians were given their rights.

Do you mean to say that if Israel did not exist, there would suddenly be democracy in Egypt, that the schools in Morocco would be better, that the public clinics in Jordan would function better?

I think so.

Can you please explain to me what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to do with these problems?

The Palestinian cause is central for Arab thinking.

In the end, is it a matter of feelings of self-esteem?

Exactly. It's because we always lose to Israel. It gnaws at the people in the Middle East that such a small country as Israel, with only about 7 million inhabitants, can defeat the Arab nation with its 350 million. That hurts our collective ego. The Palestinian problem is in the genes of every Arab. The West's problem is that it does not understand this.

- http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=395
 

vimothy

yurp
I think there is a good bit of controversy about whether this was genocide (the ICTY ruled it was not, although it was certainly an atrocity). This article is worth a look: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8244

Does anyone believe actually believe this nonsense? It's just the same noxious rubbish that Living Marxism magazine used to peddle to try and drum up some interest in their irrelevant rag. Unfortunately for them, they pushed out the boat rather too far, accused ITN of fabricating a story about Bosnia, were sued for libel and went bankrupt. None of that has stopped Chomsky (the chief populiser of this theory) from repeating the same line, because although he once again ended up supporting reactionary fascists (Serb nationalists), he's only really interested in finding a stick to beat the west with.

Anyway, according to international law Sebrinica was an act of genocide - the slaughter of Muslim men because they were Muslim. The systematic execution at Sebrinica of 8,000 unarmed men and boys by Serb forces was in fact the worst atrocity (it was an atrocity as well as genocide) on European soil since WWII. The parallels to denials of other acts of genocide are obvious. You can read the response of some survivors to these claims, which Chomsky and Johnstone (of LM) put about in the Guardian a few years ago: http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2137

The idea that America has some sinister "other" purpose for interevention is clearly ridiculous. The Balkans is of no strategic interest to America, none whatsoever. That is a simple fact. You might dispute the effects of intervention, but the intent was obviously humanitarian (ear-bleedingly so).
 

vimothy

yurp
Remembering Srebrenica:

SREBRENICA, Bosnia-Herzegovina (AP) - Hundreds of newly identified victims of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre were reburied Wednesday, their relatives sobbing as the thin green coffins were laid in the ground on the 12th anniversary of the mass wartime killing.

More than 30,000 people turned out for the ceremony where a child read aloud the names of the 465 victims identified after being found in the many mass graves around Srebrenica. Before the ceremony, sobbing women moved among the coffins, searching for their loved ones' names and hugging each other for comfort.

Up to 8,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed by Serb forces who separated men and boys from women on July 11, 1995, and killed the males over several days. It was the worst mass slaughter in Europe since World War II.

Every year, more victims' bodies are found in dozens of mass graves around Srebrenica. DNA tests and other forensic methods have led to the identification and burial of more than 3,000 victims, including Wednesday's 465.​
 
As the pariah state turns the Gaza Strip into a giant concentration camp, continues its murderous attacks and incursions, summarily dismisses yet another Hamas ceasefire offer, launches an air strike on northern Syria, and escalates its belligerent bombing threats against Iran (having already drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons), Britain's University and College Union, whose academic members had proposed a boycott of Israeli universities in protest at the continued oppression of Palestinians, chooses to lie down and die.


According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, PCHR, Israeli Occupation Forces (the Israeli Army) crimes against the Palestinians during the period of 16 -22 August, 2007 were:

· 16 Palestinians, including 3 children, were murdered by IOF in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
· 10 of the victims were extra-judicially executed by IOF.
· 18 Palestinians were wounded by IOF gunfire in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
· IOF conducted 30 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank and two ones into the Gaza Strip.
· IOF arrested 44 Palestinian civilians, including a child, in the West Bank.
· IOF shelled fishing boats and arrested 8 Palestinian fishermen in Rafah.​
 

vimothy

yurp
How come you don't write posts like that when Hamas are brutally murdering Palestinians on the street whilst teenage boys stand about taking pictures with their mobile phones, when they're throwing Paestinians off buildings, when they're fighting their sectarian rivals in Palestinian hospitals?
 

vimothy

yurp
Here we go. This is what I'm talking about:

Conflicts since 1950 with over 10,000 Fatalities
1 40,000,000 Red China, 1949-76 (outright killing, manmade famine, Gulag)
2 10,000,000 Soviet Bloc: late Stalinism, 1950-53; post-Stalinism, to 1987 (mostly Gulag)
3 4,000,000 Ethiopia, 1962-92: Communists, artificial hunger, genocides
4 3,800,000 Zaire (Congo-Kinshasa): 1967-68; 1977-78; 1992-95; 1998-present
5 2,800,000 Korean war, 1950-53
6 1,900,000 Sudan, 1955-72; 1983-2006 (civil wars, genocides)
7 1,870,000 Cambodia: Khmer Rouge 1975-79; civil war 1978-91
8 1,800,000 Vietnam War, 1954-75
9 1,800,000 Afghanistan: Soviet and internecine killings, Taliban 1980-2001
10 1,250,000 West Pakistan massacres in East Pakistan (Bangladesh 1971)
....
47 60,000 Zimbabwe, 1966-79; 1980-present
48 60,000 Nicaragua, 1972-91 (Marxists/natives etc,)
49 51,000 Arab-Israeli conflict 1950-present

This grisly inventory finds the total number of deaths in conflicts since 1950 numbering about 85,000,000. Of that sum, the deaths in the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1950 include 32,000 deaths due to Arab state attacks and 19,000 due to Palestinian attacks, or 51,000 in all. Arabs make up roughly 35,000 of these dead and Jewish Israelis make up 16,000.

These figures mean that deaths Arab-Israeli fighting since 1950 amount to just 0.06 percent of the total number of deaths in all conflicts in that period. More graphically, only 1 out of about 1,700 persons killed in conflicts since 1950 has died due to Arab-Israeli fighting.

(Adding the 11,000 killed in the Israeli war of independence, 1947-49, made up of 5,000 Arabs and 6,000 Israeli Jews, does not significantly alter these figures.)

In a different perspective, some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.

I notice that you've not responded to my question though, HMLT. Why Israel?
 
Here we go. This is what I'm talking about:

Once again, you reveal your credentials by quoting a source, Daniel Pipes, who is widely condemned as one of the world's most viscerally racist Zionists and Islamophobes [in line with such other bullying nutters as David Horowitz and David Toube] , whose views towards Arabs and Muslims [at a time when the West continues to commit genocide against them - in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Palestine, while blood-lusting for yet more - against Iran] are clearly comparable in their crazed, hysterical madness to those of Nazi antisemitism in the last century. Congratulations.


In April 2003, George W. Bush nominated Pipes for the board of the federally sponsored U.S. Institute of Peace, on which Douglas Feith was already serving. Some questioned how Pipes made a good appointee to work at the Institute of Peace when he had previously said that no peaceful resolution is possible in many world conflicts and had written a year earlier, "[D]iplomacy rarely ends conflicts."

Soon afterwards, a broad array of Arab-American, American Muslim, and other groups vehemently denounced the appointment, claiming that Pipes was an "anti-Islamic extremist." A Washington Post editorial suggested that many Muslims viewed Pipes' nomination as a "sort of cruel joke." The Arab American Institute, headed by James Zogby, stated "For decades Daniel Pipes has displayed a bizarre obsession with all things Arab and Muslim. Now, it appears that his years of hatred and bigotry have paid off with a presidential appointment. One shudders to think how he will abuse this position to tear at the fabric of our nation." Christopher Hitchens, who is also a prominent critic of Islamists, also expressed "bafflement" at this appointment in a critical essay entitled "Daniel Pipes is not a man of peace" in Slate. Hitchens wrote that Pipes "employs the fears and insecurities created by Islamic extremism to slander or misrepresent those who disagree with him" and that this contradicted the USIP's position as "a somewhat mild organization [...] devoted to the peaceful resolution of conflict." Hitchens concluded his opposition to Pipes' nomination by saying that Pipes "confuses scholarship with propaganda" and pursues "petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity."

Pipes' think tank the Middle East Forum sparked controversy in September 2002 when it established a website called Campus Watch, which identified what it saw as five problems in the teaching of Middle Eastern studies at American universities: "analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students." Students were encouraged to submit reports regarding teachers, books and curricula. The project was accused of "McCarthyesque intimidation" of professors who criticized Israel when it published a "blacklist" of professors. In protest, more than 100 academics demanded to be listed as well. Campus Watch subsequently removed the list from their website.

In October, 2001 Pipes said, before the convention of the American Jewish Congress. "[The] increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews."

He wrote in Commentary in April 1990: "There can be either an Israel or a Palestine, but not both. To think that two states can stably and peacefully coexist in the small territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is to be either naïve or duplicitous. If the last seventy years teach anything, it is that there can be only one state west of the Jordan River. Therefore, to those who ask why the Palestinians must be deprived of a state, the answer is simple: grant them one and you set in motion a chain of events that will lead either to its extinction or the extinction of Israel."

In 1987, Pipes encouraged the United States to provide Saddam Hussein with upgraded weapons and intelligence, ostensibly to counterbalance Iran's successes in the Iran-Iraq War ... Pipes was a strong backer of the Iraq War, saying that Saddam Hussein posed an "imminent threat" to the United States. In a New York Post article published April 8, 2003, Pipes expressed his opposition to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's concerned prediction that "[the] war [in Iraq] will have horrible consequences...Terrorism will be aggravated...Terrorist organizations will be united...Everything will be insecure." Though this concern was echoed by various other politicians and academics cited by Pipes in his article, Pipes argued that "the precise opposite is more likely to happen: The war in Iraq will lead to a reduction in terrorism."

Pipes expressed his support of "the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II because...given what was known and not known at the time...the U.S. government made the correct and sensible decisions."​


Meanwhile, back to the issues raised by the shutting of all discussion about a boycott.
 

vimothy

yurp
Your opinions on Mr Pipes are diversionary, if boringly predictable. It is fine to praise Lenin and Communism (millions dead, but at least they were "strong"), to praise religious terror groups like the "Party of God" (we wont talk about their members throwing acid in the faces of un-scarfed women) or the Iraqi insurgency (torturing and murdering women and children), but god forbid someone link to an article by an American-Jewish conservative like Daniel frocking Pipes or David Horowitz!! OMFG!!!

To compare them to Nazis (get it? because they're jews -- so it's almost funny!!!), is pathetic, and shows us on what side of the fence you're sitting. There is one group of people calling for the total extermination of a specific race in the Middle East, and they are not Israeli. (Related question: If Zionists = Nazis, why don't Palestinians = Jews? Or, to put it another way, why is there still a Palestinian people and not a smoking pile of bones and some stern words from the UN? I know what other Arab countries would do if they were in Israel's place).

Your tirade about "Islamophobes" (scare quotes because because you should know that it is Islamism not Islam that is in question) is nonsensical. (Why are you still trying to construct this straw man, FFS)? "The West continues to commit genocide against them [Arabs and Muslims] - in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Palestine, while blood-lusting for yet more - against Iran." Who's bloodlusting? You're not. No one is, in this country. I am only familiar with a very limited number of (US) writers calling for military intervention in Iran. (Even Ledeen is against it). And even then, none of them have the President's ear. And even then, there is no chance that the military could invade Iran, logistically speaking.

In Iraq and Afghanistan the majority of people killing Muslims are (suprise, suprise) other Muslims. (Why is this so hard for you to take on board)? This is entirely in keeping with Heinsohn's list of casualties: 90% of Muslims killed in conflicts over the last fifty years were killed by other Muslims. To describe Western actions in Iraq and Afghanistan as "genocide" is pretty fucking low, even for you, given that the chief focus of Western forces in those countries is protecting people and rooting out the death squads who try to kill them (all with the idea of making the West go away so that they can carry on killing them in the manners and traditions to which they are accustomed). I don't think that you care what you say, sometimes.

And Palestine, to return to my original question? And Israel?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
This is the crux:
In Iraq and Afghanistan the majority of people killing Muslims are (suprise, suprise) other Muslims.

Of course it does not justify the killing of Muslims by non-Muslims, but it does put it in perspective.
 
Here we go. This is what I'm talking about:

Conflicts since 1950 with over 10,000 Fatalities
1 40,000,000 Red China, 1949-76 (outright killing, manmade famine, Gulag)
2 10,000,000 Soviet Bloc: late Stalinism, 1950-53; post-Stalinism, to 1987 (mostly Gulag)
3 4,000,000 Ethiopia, 1962-92: Communists, artificial hunger, genocides
4 3,800,000 Zaire (Congo-Kinshasa): 1967-68; 1977-78; 1992-95; 1998-present
5 2,800,000 Korean war, 1950-53
6 1,900,000 Sudan, 1955-72; 1983-2006 (civil wars, genocides)
7 1,870,000 Cambodia: Khmer Rouge 1975-79; civil war 1978-91
8 1,800,000 Vietnam War, 1954-75
9 1,800,000 Afghanistan: Soviet and internecine killings, Taliban 1980-2001
10 1,250,000 West Pakistan massacres in East Pakistan (Bangladesh 1971)
....
47 60,000 Zimbabwe, 1966-79; 1980-present
48 60,000 Nicaragua, 1972-91 (Marxists/natives etc,)
49 51,000 Arab-Israeli conflict 1950-present

This grisly inventory finds the total number of deaths in conflicts since 1950 numbering about 85,000,000. Of that sum, the deaths in the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1950 include 32,000 deaths due to Arab state attacks and 19,000 due to Palestinian attacks, or 51,000 in all. Arabs make up roughly 35,000 of these dead and Jewish Israelis make up 16,000.

These figures mean that deaths Arab-Israeli fighting since 1950 amount to just 0.06 percent of the total number of deaths in all conflicts in that period. More graphically, only 1 out of about 1,700 persons killed in conflicts since 1950 has died due to Arab-Israeli fighting.

(Adding the 11,000 killed in the Israeli war of independence, 1947-49, made up of 5,000 Arabs and 6,000 Israeli Jews, does not significantly alter these figures.)

In a different perspective, some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.

I notice that you've not responded to my question though, HMLT. Why Israel?

This really is a deeply, deeply flawed argument.

Lets just ignore for a moment that the source is deeply unreliable (anyone who quote the 'black book of communism' should be laughed out of the room), lets also ignore the fact that the figures given are also highly innacurate.

So - with the assumption that everything above is factually true, let me ask you a question

Is this an argument you would have made against Anti-Apartheid campaigners? Against Solidarity in Poland? Against Iraqi's living under Saddam? Against any group that has resisted injustice or unlawful occupation but haven't suffered enough deaths to make it onto Mr Pipes' list?

Im also wondering if you really expect people to pay more attention to, or campaign against conflicts that ended 50 years ago or a conflict thats happening now and threatens apocalyptic consequences if it escalates.

I mean... :slanted: you can do better than this lazy garbage surely?

To describe Western actions in Iraq and Afghanistan as "genocide" is pretty fucking low, even for you, given that the chief focus of Western forces in those countries is protecting people and rooting out the death squads who try to kill them (all with the idea of making the West go away so that they can carry on killing them in the manners and traditions to which they are accustomed).

Even after all thats happened in Iraq right in fornt of your eyes, you actually believe this dont you?

The mind boggles at the naivety and historical ignorance... :confused:
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Lets just ignore for a moment that the source is deeply unreliable (anyone who quote the 'black book of communism' should be laughed out of the room)

Why? Because communists are nice people deep down under that rugged exterior, unlike those nasty fascists?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I haven't read it, but I have read of it, and I am not aware of any serious claim that is had been debunked.
Are you seriously denying that communist regimes - or, for the pedantic apologist, regimes-claiming-to-be-communist - have been responsible for at the very least tens of millions of violent or otherwise avoidable deaths? A bit off-topic, but nonetheless an important point, I think.
 
:rolleyes: No Im not you numpty.

Im simply saying that that particular book is full of illogical arguments, specious reasoning, and is such a blatant example of cold war propaganda that is so ideologically skewed that no scholar would ever take it seriously.

Two of the other authors, Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin, sparked a debate in France when they publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois's statements in the introduction about the scale of Communist terror. They felt that he was being obsessed with arriving at a total of 100 million victims. They instead estimated that communism has claimed between 65 and 93 million lives[1]. They rejected his equation of Soviet repression with Nazi genocide. Werth, a well-regarded French specialist on the Soviet Union whose sections in the Black Book on the Soviet Communists are sobering and damning, said there was still a qualitative difference between Nazism and Communism. He told Le Monde, "Death camps did not exist in the Soviet Union" [2], and "The more you compare communism and nazism, the more the differences are obvious."

Critics have argued that, if one were to apply the Black Book's standards to capitalism, it could be held responsible for just as many deaths as communist states, or perhaps more according to some scholars (see The Black Book of Capitalism). Among the alleged crimes of capitalism are deaths resulting from colonialism and imperialism, repressions of the working class and trade unions in the 19th century and 20th century, pro-western dictatorships during the Cold War, and the sharp return to capitalism in former communist states after 1990. [13] [14] Le Monde Diplomatique points out that the Black Book incriminates the communist side in many wars and revolutions without mentioning the deaths and other crimes committed by the anti-communist side at the same time. [15] Noam Chomsky, an anarchist, holds that the arguments used by capitalists to justify such deaths are very similar to the arguments used to defend the communist states. For example, it is alleged that colonialism and imperialism did not represent true capitalism, and that the deaths under pro-western dictatorships in the Cold War were necessary in order to fight communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_of_Communism

Like others, Ryan reasonably selects as Exhibit A of the criminal indictment the Chinese famines of 1958-61, with a death toll of 25-40 million, he reports, a sizeable chunk of the 100 million corpses the "recording angels" attribute to "Communism" (whatever that is, but let us use the conventional term). The terrible atrocity fully merits the harsh condemnation it has received for many years, renewed here. It is, furthermore, proper to attribute the famine to Communism. That conclusion was established most authoritatively in the work of economist Amartya Sen, whose comparison of the Chinese famine to the record of democratic India received particular attention when he won the Nobel Prize a few years ago. Writing in the early 1980s, Sen observed that India had suffered no such famine. He attributed the India-China difference to India's "political system of adversarial journalism and opposition," while in contrast, China's totalitarian regime suffered from "misinformation" that undercut a serious response, and there was "little political pressure" from opposition groups and an informed public (Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen, Hunger and Public Action, 1989; they estimate deaths at 16.5 to 29.5 million).

The example stands as a dramatic "criminal indictment" of totalitarian Communism, exactly as Ryan writes. But before closing the book on the indictment we might want to turn to the other half of Sen's India-China comparison, which somehow never seems to surface despite the emphasis Sen placed on it. He observes that India and China had "similarities that were quite striking" when development planning began 50 years ago, including death rates. "But there is little doubt that as far as morbidity, mortality and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India" (in education and other social indicators as well). He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: "India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame," 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen).

In both cases, the outcomes have to do with the "ideological predispositions" of the political systems: for China, relatively equitable distribution of medical resources, including rural health services, and public distribution of food, all lacking in India. This was before 1979, when "the downward trend in mortality [in China] has been at least halted, and possibly reversed," thanks to the market reforms instituted that year.

Overcoming amnesia, suppose we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers to the full story, not just the doctrinally acceptable half. We therefore conclude that in India the democratic capitalist "experiment" since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of the "colossal, wholly failed...experiment" of Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, tens of millions more since, in India alone. The "criminal indictment" of the "democratic capitalist experiment" becomes harsher still if we turn to its effects after the fall of Communism: millions of corpses in Russia, to take one case, as Russia followed the confident prescription of the World Bank that "Countries that liberalise rapidly and extensively turn around more quickly [than those that do not]," returning to something like what it had been before World War I, a picture familiar throughout the "third world." But "you can't make an omelette without broken eggs," as Stalin would have said.

http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
So the authors of TBBOC are biased propagandists with a political axe to grind, while Chomsky is a beacon of truth and fairness?

Look, I'm not here to defend capitalism or any kind of system or ideology, but surely you can see that calling the book a 'discredited load of propaganda' is going to make you sound like you're defending (edit: or rather denying, or at least downplaying) Soviet and Maoist crimes? Anyway, this whole argument is side-tracking us from Vimothy's original argument, which is that Muslim victims of violence or oppression by Israeli (and, by extension, American) forces are massively outnumbered by Muslim victims of Islamic states or non-state militias.
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
I can't believe you're quoting Chomsky, of all fucking people. The man lives to dispute the numbers that have died under totalitarian or reactionary regimes (Bosnia, anyone) with the single goal of making democracies look bad... I have a meeting shortly, so probably this will be a little bit difficult at the moment, but will try to get onto all this later or tomorrow.
 
Top