Boycotting Zionism

[vimothy]

Oh yeah, and it wasn't until the '90s that India became a capitalist country. (Remember? Or are any non explicitly Communist countries capitalists by virtue of that fact)? For the first years of its life it was solidly Soviet in economic policies. In fact, much of the mechanisms of economic control and command are still in place, FWIW.

 

[wheninrome]

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 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.

Did I say that? Try reading the book in question, examine its sources, and then get back to me.

At the same time, please read Chomsky's article and tell me what's so wrong with his reasoning.

 

[wheninrome]

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.

Your opinions on Mr Chomsky are diversionary, if boringly predictable. It is fine to praise the US and Capitalism (millions dead, but at least they were "democratic"), to praise terror groups like the "CIA" (we wont talk about their members training death squads and torturers) or the occupiers of Iraq (torturing and murdering women and children), but god forbid someone link to an article by an American-Jewish liberal like Noam frocking Chomskys OMFG!!

See the hypocrites dem a galang so...

 

[vimothy]

Your opinions on Mr Chomsky are diversionary, if boringly predictable. It is fine to praise the US and Capitalism (millions dead, but at least they were "democratic"), to praise terror groups like the "CIA" (we wont talk about their members training death squads and torturers) or the occupiers of Iraq (torturing and murdering women and children), but god forbid someone link to an article by an American-Jewish liberal like Noam frocking Chomskys OMFG!!

See the hypocrites dem a galang so...

Yawn - they're hardly diversionary, are they? Chomsky is a genocide-denier. He's here to tell us that only 90 million died under Communism, and anyway more people died in India than in China [EDIT: from poverty, not preventable famine], and that wasn't Communist, so Communism's not that bad. In fact, actually saying thate it is (I don't know, like comparing it to other collectivist disasters like Nazism) is all part of a capitalist plot. Just like Bosnia, in fact.

 

[matt b]

Yawn - they're hardly diversionary, are they? Chomsky is a genocide-denier. He's here to tell us that only 90 million died under Communism, and anyway more people died in India than in China [EDIT: from poverty, not preventable famine], and that wasn't Communist, so Communism's not that bad. In fact, actually saying thate it is (I don't know, like comparing it to other collectivist disasters like Nazism) is all part of a capitalist plot. Just like Bosnia, in fact.

you really are the new Ian Town

 

[Mr. Tea]

you really are the new Ian Town

Pfft, way harsh, dude.

 

[matt b]

Pfft, way harsh, dude.

mmm, vim exists i s'pose

 

[john eden]

[EDIT: from poverty, not preventable famine],

Poverty is of course preventable as well. The decision not to prevent poverty is an ideological one in the 21st century, and has been for some time.

 

[vimothy]

Poverty is of course preventable as well. The decision not to prevent poverty is an ideological one in the 21st century, and has been for some time.

Sweet Jesus - poverty is not created by capitalism, it is the basic condition of all human life.

 

[john eden]

Capitalism has also given us the tools to abolish it, and poverty, forever.

 

[wheninrome]

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.

So to use Daniel Pipes' logic we shouldnt be concerned about Islamic terrorism, because throughout history, the number of Christians killed by other Christians vastly outnumbers the number of Christians killed by Muslims.

This argument is wrong on so many levels that it's difficult to know where to start.

.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I don't care about Daniel Pipes, whoever he is, and my views on Israel and Palestine differ radically from Vimothy's; my argument is that a lot of people who have the luxury of being able to say and write what they like without fear of being dragged out of bed by government agents in the middle of the night are (very rightly, I believe) highly critical of Israel's actions while strangely muted on equally terrible or worse atrocities committed against Muslims by Muslims. It is fallacy to think "X is worse than Y" implies "Y is not worth worrying about", and if you think that's my position you then you have misconstrued me.

I don't particularly care either, in this context, what happened 'throughout history', I'm talking about stuff that's happening right now. And if you can't accept that standards of human rights in the majority of officially Muslim countries are woefully behind those in most secular democracies then all I can say is "there is none so blind as those who will not see".

 

[gek-opel]

Sweet Jesus - poverty is not created by capitalism, it is the basic condition of all human life.

I know this is yr new mantra Vim but this is hardly so is it? A hard menial hand-to-mouth life and early death perhaps, but not poverty (in societies which have developed to live within the means of their raw environmental conditions). And of course non-absolute poverty is precisely created by capitalism.

 

[wheninrome]

I don't care about Daniel Pipes, whoever he is, and my views on Israel and Palestine differ radically from Vimothy's; my argument is that a lot of people who have the luxury of being able to say and write what they like without fear of being dragged out of bed by government agents in the middle of the night are (very rightly, I believe) highly critical of Israel's actions while strangely muted on equally terrible or worse atrocities committed against Muslims by Muslims. It is fallacy to think "X is worse than Y" implies "Y is not worth worrying about", and if you think that's my position you then you have misconstrued me.

I don't particularly care either, in this context, what happened 'throughout history', I'm talking about stuff that's happening right now. And if you can't accept that standards of human rights in the majority of officially Muslim countries are woefully behind those in most secular democracies then all I can say is "there is none so blind as those who will not see".

Daniel Pipe's is the commentator quoted by VImothy, whose point you described as the 'crux' of the matter.

Three points regarding your post.

1. There isnt a conflict on earth that has caused as much destabilisation or has been raging as long as the Israeli occupation.

2. With the possible exception of India/Pakistan, there isnt a conflict on Earth with more potential for apocalyptic consequences than the Israeli occupation.

3. A basic principle of political activism is to focus on areas where you have the best opportunities to bring about change, and where your actions will have the most impact.

Therefore it makes perfect sense to concentrate on the actions of our own governments and our allies. Which is why Western activists, whose governments generally support US military actions focus on American policies, why British activists generally focus on the actions of Britain etc... just as there are activists in Russia protesting against Russian actions against Checnya etc...

Israel is supported and funded by military powers in the West and is essentially a 'Western power'.

That said, there are many types of activists engaged in many types of activism - thats why youll find protests against the economic conditions imposed on third world countries by the IMF and the world bank at the G8 conferences and other events and thats why there were global marches aginst atrocities in Darfur just 2 months ago...

I don't particularly care either, in this context, what happened 'throughout history', I'm talking about stuff that's happening right now. And if you can't accept that standards of human rights in the majority of officially Muslim countries are woefully behind those in most secular democracies then all I can say is "there is none so blind as those who will not see".

Thats a very noble stand. Unfortunately nobody here has taken that position...

 

[vimothy]

I know this is yr new mantra Vim but this is hardly so is it? A hard menial hand-to-mouth life and early death perhaps, but not poverty (in societies which have developed to live within the means of their raw environmental conditions). And of course non-absolute poverty is precisely created by capitalism.

Hardly my new mantra - merely an observation of the absolutely obvious. "Societies which have developed to live within the means of their raw environmental conditions" means simply that they are unable to overcome the same Malthusian limit that we exceeded a couple of hundred yeaers ago. Doesn't stop them being poor.

"Non-absolute poverty is precisely created by capitalism". Have a word. We could end "non-absolute poverty" tomorrow if rich people simply burnt most of their money. Hey presto - the end of "poverty".

 

[vimothy]

This really is a deeply, deeply flawed argument.

Ok - one step at a time. Hopefully I'll be able to dig into this.

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.

I don't want to ignore this - I think it's important. You come to this in a later post (where you actually quote the authors to back up your argument that anyone who quotes it should be laughed out of the room). I want to post separately on that. First though, I want to address the actual goal of my post, which was to find out why HMLT criticises Israel to the exclusion of everyone else (excepting, of course, America).

I notice that while you (and other) have been equivocating plenty, you haven't addressed this.

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?

Let me try and make this clear:

I AM NOT SAYING THAT GIVEN THAT MORE PEOPLE DIED UNDER MAO THAN ANYONE ELSE, HMLT SHOULD SHUT UP ABOUT ISRAEL.

Ok?

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 can't believe you're actually having trouble grasping this ...

[Still looking for a smiley that bangs his against a wall].

And that isn't what he's fucking doing. I've heard HMLT on this subject a lot. He wants to destroy Israel. He's for the apocolyptic conflict - he wants to help it manifest.

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

Patronising wanker - & you can't even be bothered to represent my argument properly.

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

It's not rocket science FFS - all you have to do is look at South Korea, Japan, Germany, France, Bosnia - all countries that have been "occupied" by America, liberated by American arms. There's no law that says that America has to act like an imperialist murderer.

And intentions don't matter - outcomes do. The US government,, if it is to be condemed, should be condemed not for its idealism, not for deposing one of the worst butchers of the 20th C, but for making a total mess of the resulting "peace" (of course, there are others to blame as well).

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

I think you're a bit of twat.

 

[vimothy]

Capitalism has also given us the tools to abolish it, and poverty, forever.

Yes - because Communists are incapable of killing people, aren't they?

 

[wheninrome]

It's not rocket science FFS - all you have to do is look at South Korea, Japan, Germany, France, Bosnia - all countries that have been "occupied" by America, liberated by American arms. There's no law that says that America has to act like an imperialist murderer.

Charming personal insults and temper tantrums aside, can you name a single third world/developing nation or ex colony that has prospered after a US Invasion/occupation?

Just one will do.

Your position on Chomsky is based on ignorance (youve obviously never read anything other than an article or interview), and hypocritical. You dismiss HMLT's argument against Pipes' as essentially playing the man, not the ball, and then you do exactly the same thing.

One other thing - does the Wall Street Journal not have a copyright problem with you channeling their editorials?

 

[vimothy]

Massivbe electrical failure = another lengthy post lost to the void.

[God, I hate this place sometimes...]

 

[vimothy]

Charming personal insults and temper tantrums aside, can you name a single third world/developing nation or ex colony that has prospered after a US Invasion/occupation?

Just one will do.

I've already mentioned several -- in the very quote that preceded your own. For instance, South Korea.

(& I thought you started the charming personal insults, but never mind...)

Your position on Chomsky is based on ignorance (youve obviously never read anything other than an article or interview), and hypocritical. You dismiss HMLT's argument against Pipes' as essentially playing the man, not the ball, and then you do exactly the same thing.

Actually, I've read plenty of articles by Chomsky, and some of his books (like Manufacturing Consent). It has been a while, but I used to be quite a fan. Besides it being largely irrelevant, I also take it then that you've read plenty of Pipes work, so I won't bring that up.

My reaction to Chomsky was purely disbelief that he was being brought up yet again to dispute the numbers killed in democide. Why is it always Chomsky?

And I'm coming to Chomsky's disagreements with the Black Book of Communism, and your own. There's plenty of time, but it will take a while, because, ostensibly, I'm here to work, not argue about politics.

One other thing - does the Wall Street Journal not have a copyright problem with you channeling their editorials?

No - I'm syndicated, mofo.