or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Regardless of whether war is right, unilateral action is wrong.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Regardless of whether war is right, unilateral action is wrong. - Page 10

post #361 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Since there is no such thing as a Pan-African culture, there cannot be several several of them either, there are African cultures, which of course my share commonalities, in varying degrees, with other African cultures with which they interact, but the very term Pan-African is political not cultural.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i_Sabbah
It looks to me like we agree with each other perfectly then. There's no such thing as Pan-African culture. Like I said. Twice. In my posts. WE AGREE WITH EACH OTHER.

Excellent.

Quote:
That's all perfectly fine, however this piece by you posted upthread: is not about hunters-gatherers in Lesotho or Namibia, but about Jews in Israel, about which you're obviously not an expert, as your stereotypes-laden above quoted piece can show.

Quote:
Oh, sorry, my bad. I misunderstood.

So. No racism in Israel then.

No, it's not that there's no racism in Israel, it's that Israel is not inheretly or fundamentally racist; some people there are racist, just like in any normal population, most are not. From my experience, racism is much less pronounced there than in most Western countries.

Quote:
Your comments on this please, from the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs:

[article from the Washington Report]

The notoriously anti-Israeli Washington Report, of which it is said that this is where old State Department Arabists go to die, but nevermind.

The spillt blood scandal was caused by the fear public health civil servants had of the high incidence of AIDS in Africa, which is a legitimate and easily understandable fear.
According to surveys done by the Jewish agency, many Jews in Ethiopia had actually a low incidence of HIV due to the relative isolation of their settlements (the proportions increase though for those who spent long time in Ethiopian refugee camps). But due to the usual bureaucratic miscommunications, the Israeli public health authorities were not duly informed. So they decided to get rid of the blood for fear of contamination but didn't tell the donors so not to hurt their feelings. Given that little remains a secret for long in such a small country, the Ethiopian Jewss naturally felt hurt once learning of it, hence some public expressions of anger, which is understandable too.
That scandals such as these happen is to be expected (nowhere did I describe the situation as idyllic), yet it's very mild in comparison to the problems experienced by the Sefaradim/Mizrahim in the 50s and 60s, which still looked like a garden party in comparison to what is called communal riots in places like Pakistan.

Quote:
And while I'm at it here's another matter which I think deserves clarification:
The Jews and Muslims of North Africa did not get on just fine (although it might have looked that way to the Muslims as long as they were running the show), and while it wasn't as bad as in Europe at the time, it
[snip: Muslims is bad folks, etc.]

How easily you put words in my post, which weren't there to begin with. No, it's not that Muslims is bad folks, it's simply that under Muslim rule in North Africa, Jews had an inferior status, and suffered from persecutions, although it looked benign in comparison to the persecutions suffered by their brethren in Europe.

Quote:
I was told that the Algerian Muslim and Jewish communities lived together without prejudice by Lili Boniche, an 80-year-old Jewish musician and national institution from Algeria. So I can't provide you with a link, only the first-hand testimony of a Jewish man who was born and grew up in Algeria.

If you weren't following, let me reiterate:
Algeria was under French rule from 1830 to 1962, that is French rule as in not Muslim rule. And it was annexed to the republic and then governed as Provence or Burgondy were (and they grew some fine wine in Algeria too) and Algerian Jews have been enjoying full French citizenship from 1870 to 1940 and then from 1945 till now (the hiatus of the Vichy status for the Jews having been extended in Algeria until the end of the war as part of the conditions of surrender of the Algiers Vichystes).
So what your friend actually described to you was in fact the pleasant togetherness experienced under French colonial rule.
It all ended in 1962, when De Gaulle handed Algeria to the F.L.N. on a plate, resulting with the immediate expusion from Algeria of all non-Muslims as well as of those Muslims who sided with France (the Harkis) or who had acquired French citizenship.
While I believed at the time that Algerian independence as inévitable et même souhaitable, I thought it would be a disaster to give it to the far-left nationalists of the F.L.N. and that France should have taken example from the Brits in Malaya and Borneo: winning militarily against the guerilla while preparing for a more sound local regime to which the country was to be handed over. All bygones now.

Part of my extended family had lived in North Africa, Algeria included, so this is a matter I'm rather familiar with.

Quote:
Finally, with regard to African cannibalism, you've provided some vague evidence that in times of famine people have eaten each other. Starving people will do that. It still doesn't make it a distinctly African cultural practice and your sort of arguing that it does is kinda... curious.

I told you I don't care the least about whether there are cultural aspects to the occurences of cannibalism or not, it's an atrocity which has to be stopped, period.
Other than that I have no sensibilty whatsoever to local cultures when it comes to uprooting atrocious practices, which need to be dealt in the way the British Raj dealt with the practice of suttee, just in case you'd ask.
Quote:
Especially in the light of your suggestion that famines in Africa are more to do with a sort of in-built African inability for self-government.

How easily suggestible you are to infer things from what isn't really there.
That those African countries couldn't overcome the economic difficulties which arose from the mid-1970s crisis, with the same measure of success as some East Asian countries did, doesn't have to do with any sort of in-built African inability for self-government (sic) as you put it.
They had simply made some erroneous policy choices, which is only human.
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #362 of 369
It strikes me, Immanuel, that the only way we're going to be able to settle this is in the traditional way, by duel with seconds.

You name the airport foyer and the weapon.

I'm having Jonathan.
What is wrong with laughing before announcing war? -Groverat
Reply
What is wrong with laughing before announcing war? -Groverat
Reply
post #363 of 369
That may be your tradition, but it isn't mine.
Where I come from we don't engage in futile violent sports to console wounded honour, this is a Goyim Nakhes, or furriners' leisure. So I shall decline the invitation.
I'd advise you not to mistake it as an expression of fear or lack of resolve, as such approach from you which might lead you to consequences I would live to regret.
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #364 of 369
I wasn't really demanding a duel. I was joking. Duels are illegal. You can't board a plane with a pair of nail scissors, let alone a fencing epée; no-one fights duels.

I was trying to say that we're being silly; I was trying to back out of a foolish argument about nothing by making a joke.

I don't really want to fight you with a sword or a gun.

If you weren't joking too - as I hope you were - you now look like a prize twat.
What is wrong with laughing before announcing war? -Groverat
Reply
What is wrong with laughing before announcing war? -Groverat
Reply
post #365 of 369
I understood your jest, and responded in kind.
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #366 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
I understood your jest, and responded in kind.

Phew.

What is wrong with laughing before announcing war? -Groverat
Reply
What is wrong with laughing before announcing war? -Groverat
Reply
post #367 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Saddam is evil, for sure, but worse than Hitler it appears to me difficult. Could you elaborate ?

BTW this discussion is not of a tremendeous importance, to be a bad guy you don't really nead to be more worse than Hitler.

Sure, Saddam is resposible for more (a lot more, but i do not know the numbers anymore) than 100 thousand deaths. He is responsible for more muslim deatrhs than any one in history. Hitler was out to further the german people, Saddam has used posion gas against his own people as a political tool to control them. The streets were filled with dead women, children and everybody. If a worker becomes disabled or can not work he is shot. So many stories of torture surround Saddam that I will just give you hilights.
I heard an account on the news the other day of three women that had been in saddam's torture chamber. one had a neice who when she was 16 wrote a comment on a paper in a class about Saddam. The teacher turned her in and they arested her and her whole family. They then video tapped their victims while raping and torturing them. And he would send the video tapes to remaining family or friends.
He has a chemical bath where people are put in a tank of acid and slowly disolve while they are alive.
He has a grinder where a living person is placed in it and is slowly grinded into a liquid slush which he uses to make plastic. the people are grinded up from their toes to their head so that they are alive for as long as possible. Other things he has done is cut out peoples tounges and mailed it to family members. public hanging, beheadings, etc. He has no alegience to anybody. at least hitler had ideals. Hitler was sick and had twisted logic but he actually had good intentions for germany.
Saddam gets off on watching people suffer both physically and emotionally.
Thousands of people dissapear each year in irac. Saddam has mastered the art of being able to rule through fear. Any soldier who steps out of line is shot and his family is tortured and killed as well.
at this point the news says that he has shot five american hostages. If that is all that has happened to them they are lucky.
Saddam has stated many times in the past of killing americans. He is a monster. Just imagine if he ever got a hold of a nuke. believe me Saddam has far more potential for evil than hitler. Hitler hated jews. Every neighbor of saddam including his own people are in terror of him. I do not know if sadam has killed more than hitler yet but it is just a matter of time if he stays in power.
Show your art for free at my online gallery
http://www.thegivinggallery.com/
Reply
Show your art for free at my online gallery
http://www.thegivinggallery.com/
Reply
post #368 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
You do realize that an oil-based economy is extremely centralized and, by its very nature, gives wealth to only a few. Whether that few decide to give the money to the people is the real issue, and in a fractured, devided and scarred country like Iraq, it will be surprising if that happens. WHat makes it all the more unlikely is the Bush Admin's plan to secure the privilaged status of the mid-upper levels of government.

But go on continuing to live in fantasy land.


Yes, I realise that a demacratic society has things like medical benifits, unemployment, etc.
And this is not fantasy land it is actually what bush plans to do
Show your art for free at my online gallery
http://www.thegivinggallery.com/
Reply
Show your art for free at my online gallery
http://www.thegivinggallery.com/
Reply
post #369 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by JC
Sure, Saddam is resposible for more (a lot more, but i do not know the numbers anymore) than 100 thousand deaths. He is responsible for more muslim deatrhs than any one in history. Hitler was out to further the german people, Saddam has used posion gas against his own people as a political tool to control them. The streets were filled with dead women, children and everybody. If a worker becomes disabled or can not work he is shot. So many stories of torture surround Saddam that I will just give you hilights.
I heard an account on the news the other day of three women that had been in saddam's torture chamber. one had a neice who when she was 16 wrote a comment on a paper in a class about Saddam. The teacher turned her in and they arested her and her whole family. They then video tapped their victims while raping and torturing them. And he would send the video tapes to remaining family or friends.
He has a chemical bath where people are put in a tank of acid and slowly disolve while they are alive.
He has a grinder where a living person is placed in it and is slowly grinded into a liquid slush which he uses to make plastic. the people are grinded up from their toes to their head so that they are alive for as long as possible. Other things he has done is cut out peoples tounges and mailed it to family members. public hanging, beheadings, etc. He has no alegience to anybody. at least hitler had ideals. Hitler was sick and had twisted logic but he actually had good intentions for germany.
Saddam gets off on watching people suffer both physically and emotionally.
Thousands of people dissapear each year in irac. Saddam has mastered the art of being able to rule through fear. Any soldier who steps out of line is shot and his family is tortured and killed as well.
at this point the news says that he has shot five american hostages. If that is all that has happened to them they are lucky.
Saddam has stated many times in the past of killing americans. He is a monster. Just imagine if he ever got a hold of a nuke. believe me Saddam has far more potential for evil than hitler. Hitler hated jews. Every neighbor of saddam including his own people are in terror of him. I do not know if sadam has killed more than hitler yet but it is just a matter of time if he stays in power.

Well, if you listen to some people here, the Iraqis love him all the more for it.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Regardless of whether war is right, unilateral action is wrong.