re: alain's message on israel

[Mindy]

Re: is 'chompsky' spelled with a "p"?

i suppose you're changing the world by posting on a messageboard for an artist you don't even like (which is somehow less pathetic than posting on a messageboard for one you do like) and telling everyone how stupid they are for wasting time discussing politics (even though you also discussed your political views). you are a self-important asshole. please take your (unearned) elitism elsewhere.

 

[CrushingBore]

Re: is 'chompsky' spelled with a "p"?

> You know what? You are not a "crushing bore" you are a
> "f***ing bore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

More of a CelibateBore at present. If I bore you so much, why do you get so outraged at my postings.

> You and everyone on this message board represent the worst aspects that a
> capitalist society has to offer. For god's sake, you mix talking about
> Morrissey (totally inane) with talking about global affairs (something
> actually important) I assume that in your mind there is no
> difference--well, you can thank capitalism for that! In your mind, there
> is no moral, philosophical or ethical problem with that.

a) There's nothing inane about talking about Moz unless you do so in an inane manner.
b) I talk about global affairs in a lot of fora. I don't usually initiate such discussion here. But if I see something I agree/disagree strongly with I'll respond because I have the courage of my convictions. I have no idea why you think this relates to capitalism in any way!

What year were
> you born 1990?

1973 - try again.

> Why don't you go out and change the world. March in the streets for what
> you believe in--whatever!

I do that too.

> I don't give a f***--but why would you come here
> in this vapid space of the total imaginary to "chat" about this?
> The answer to this question--which no one seems to be able to answer--is
> beyond me. If you can answer that question, then I would actually engage
> in your pseudo-arguements. But until then goodbye!

OK - I've answered it. Look forward to seeing you here soon.

 

[CrushingBore]

Re: hey, can i have some of whatever you're smoking?

> please f*** off sandra/andrew.

Mindy - do you know this person?
If it weren't for the fact they can spell I would have sworn Ears with Feet was back amongst us!

 

[CrushingBore]

> Being Anti-Israeli is quite the same as being Anti-Semitic.

NO IT IS NOT! Taking a stance on a geo-political conflict in no way relates to having hatred towards a particular race of people.

> Israel was supposed to be the solution for the Jewish people, in light of
> the holocaust. Now they try on destroying it as well, for no apparent
> reason, the same way they initiated the holocaust for no reason.

No, because all reasonable advocates of a peace process in the region envisage a dual-state solution which will retain an Israeli state.

> It seems the world has forgotten the purpose for which Israel was
> established.
> How quickly they forget.

> For god's sake, you're talking about 4 million people on a tiny piece of
> land, and portray it as the world's biggest problem, ignoring common sense
> and logic.
> You should look at the map for a change.

It's not about the size of the problem on a map - it's about the size and duration of the problem in terms of ongoing human suffering (both Palestinian and Israelis).

 

[CrushingBore]

> "Since every country gets representation in the UN, and since there
> are way too
> much Arab states (divided arbitrarily by the British) they have more
> influence than they obviously should have."

Well, that's just silly. All this proves is that the concept of a state is arbitrary, and once humanity has reached the level of global complexity that we now have, it's really pretty meaningless.

> Israel was established only in 1948, after the Arabs rejected the plan of
> partition offered by the UN in 1947, which talked about two states.
> Israel would have liked to abide, but the Arabs started a war, which they
> lost. They began a war again 1967 and 1973 and lost again.
> After they'll get a state, they'll try again, until they win.

The Arabs did NOT start the 1947 war. Civil wars are invariably complex, and blame can be apportioned to both sides. But the Israelis began the overt military operations. 1967 may have been in response to Arab incursions, but it was Irael conducting overt invasions.

 

[Eyes wide shut]

Obviously you haven't read the rest of my posts.
Had you read them you would know there are plenty of reasonable
solutions out there, but no one wants to solve the problem.
When you abortion the blame over a specific people, for no
logical reason, you are racist.

> NO IT IS NOT! Taking a stance on a geo-political conflict in no way
> relates to having hatred towards a particular race of people.

When you take a stance, which is obviously wrong, just because you
are against a specific people and for no apparent reason but their
race, that is to me racism.

> No, because all reasonable advocates of a peace process in the region
> envisage a dual-state solution which will retain an Israeli state.

Again, had you read my other posts, you would understand that this is
not a solution. It is only a step towards the complete annihilation of
Israel. No other two people in the world live in peace, in the same
stretch of land.

> It's not about the size of the problem on a map - it's about the size and
> duration of the problem in terms of ongoing human suffering (both
> Palestinian and Israelis).

From looking at the map, you can easily see how everything you've suggested
is inapplicable and how simple it really is to solve this conflict.
If you'd just put your prejudice aside, name the two elements, say, element A and B, and try to find a solution, you'd see how simple everything is.

There is a variety of much greater problems in the world than this one, which
spread over a longer duration.

Take a moment and think in an unbiased way, why the focus is on Israel, and not on the poor black people in Africa, who are in much greater need than any Palestinian

 

[Eyes wide shut]

> Well, that's just silly. All this proves is that the concept of a state is
> arbitrary, and once humanity has reached the level of global complexity
> that we now have, it's really pretty meaningless.

If you want democracy, then China and India, would have the majority in every vote in the UN.

That's not the way the world works, nor would I want to see it work like that.

That would mean, that because the Arabs have a population of a billion people, and Israel only has 6 million, the Arabs could vote that the UN, for example, should attack it.

Who ever has the power makes the decisions and that is why the US is the world's policeman.

Because of the majority the Arabs have in the UN, its decisions are rendered irrelevant.

> The Arabs did NOT start the 1947 war. Civil wars are invariably complex,
> and blame can be apportioned to both sides. But the Israelis began the
> overt military operations. 1967 may have been in response to Arab
> incursions, but it was Irael conducting overt invasions.

The Arabs rejected the partition plan offered by the UN in 1947.
When Israel was established as a state, the Arabs attacked it and lost.
During all of the days prior to this the Arabs used terrorism against the
Jewish population and were aided by the British mandate.
Things haven't really changed when you think about it.

In 1967 and 1973, they again lost, it doesn't matter who exactly started it.
The fact of the matter remains, that the Arabs didn't want peace then and they do not want peace now.
It is just another step towards Israel the Arabs state.

 

[Eyes wide shut]

Re: Correction: Apportion the Blame, Sorry

 

[Mindy]

Re: hey, can i have some of whatever you're smoking?

dear bore, sandra is an ex-friend of a friend who is somehow trying to use me to get at him. and don't be fooled. sandra may be able to spell, but that doesn't stop her posts from being illogical.

 

[Mindy]

i think it's useless to argue with these ignorant people, bore. they don't like your argument, so they just say you're racist. there's nothing you can really do or say to prove that you aren't. it's just a cheap argument on their part. really, the whole fear of being called racist is half the reason the united states lets israel get away with murder anyway.

 

[sandra]

Re: is 'chompsky' spelled with a "p"?

Ok Crushing Bore-- I will respond to you, but after that I vow not to post again if I can help it. The reason that I am here in the first place is so absurd I can hardly believe myself--but that is a different matter and I have neither the time nor that will to discuss that.

I'm glad to hear that you are doing something (whatever that is) to improve the world. I am truly glad for you. I am happy that you have found something worthwile to fight for, against, with, without, etc. I am glad for you and glad for the people, objects, things, whatever that you are helping, improving, hurting, changing etc.

My only point which was born out of frustration was this--I find the blending of important issues with inane ones disturbing and unethical.
Maybe calling the discussion of Morrissey inane was too strong of a word--but it was only used to prove a point. Anyway, I couldn't find exactly what I was looking for in Jameson but I came across some related passages that I though you might like to read. Crushing Bore, this one's for you:

Jameson:

...Rather, I want to suggest that our faulty representations of some immense communicational and computer network are themeselves but a distorted figuration of something even deeper, namely, the whole world system of present-day multinational capitalism. The technology of contemorary society is therefore mesmerizing and fascinating not so much of its own right but becasue it seems to offer some priviledged representational shorthand for grasping a network of power and control even more difficult for our minds and imaginations to grasp: the whole new decentered global network of the third stage of capitalism itself. This is a figural process presently best observed in a whole mode of contemporary entertainment....

..Meanwhile, for political groups which seek actively to intervene in history and to modify its otherwise passive momentum (whether with a view toward channeling it into a social transformation of society or diverting it into the regressive reestablishment of some simpler fantasy past) there cannot but be much that is deplorable and reprehensible in a cultural form of image addiction which, by transforming the past into visual mirages, stereotypes, or texts effectively abolishes any practical sense of the future and of the collective project, thereby abandoning the thinking of future change to fantasies of sheer catastrophe and inexplicable cataclysm, from visions of "terrorism" on the social level to those of cancer on the personal."...