Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

And now what?

Expand Messages
  • james tan
    From: swmaerske Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [WisdomForum] And now what? Date: Wed, 01
    Message 1 of 1 , May 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      From: "swmaerske" <SWMirsky@...>
      Reply-To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
      To: WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [WisdomForum] And now what?
      Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 10:44:10 -0000

      While Iraq was once part of the Persian empire it was never Persia.
      THAT was Iran, Mr. Beavitt.

      You have this wrong as you have so much else wrong. You are neither
      clear in your terminology nor consistent in your statements. Instead
      you persist in twisting things about to match your highly prejudiced
      view of the world and reality. You don't like America, that is
      absolutely clear, and will do whatever you can to create and twist
      various facts to suit your "vision" and turn every situation to
      America's detriment.

      There is no room for discussion when others do not process what is
      being said, do not see the points that are being made to them. You
      have evolved a very sophisticated sounding philosophy that is, in
      reality, a smokescreen behind which to hide your prejudices and
      dislikes. I think you should examine your thinking more carefully.

      But I'm sure you will not grant credence to any of what I am saying
      here and will persist in your views, at least for awhile.

      Of course it is always possible that you are right and that others
      (me included) have got it wrong. But that is true in all cases, with
      all of us. You may have it wrong too!

      The difference between us is that I see that and have been willing to
      listen and to try to understand you and others here. You have not
      (though I'm sure you will claim you have).

      This just shows that there comes a time when talk doesn't work. We
      cannot speak rationally with everyone much as some of us might like
      to believe we can. Philosophy is for those with open minds and a
      genuine intellectual curiousity to understand things. Unfortunately,
      it often becomes something else when the aim is not understanding but
      justification and the promulgation of pre-conceived perjudices.

      SWM

      --- In WisdomForum@y..., Tommy Beavitt <tommy@s...> wrote:
      > Chris,
      >
      > >Tommy:
      > >
      > >You said:
      > > >>Now you are twisting my words to make it seem as if I
      advocated the
      > >destruction of 5.9 million Israelis. <<
      > >
      > >Actually, you did say that it is reasonable to call for the
      > >"destruction" of Israel. A nation does not consist of buildings
      and
      > >parks, it is a collection of people The only way to achieve your
      > >call for the destruction of Israel is to destroy the 5.9 million
      > >people who call themselves Israelis. Indeed, you have previously
      > >offered justification for homicide bombers who are doing that very
      > >thing--destroying Israeli people. Thus, I do not see how you can
      > >now claim that you do not favor the destruction of 5.9 million
      > >people. I am not surprised that you now look at what you have
      been
      > >arguing for and find it shocking.
      > >
      >
      > I do regret using the word "destruction" with relevance to the
      > zionist state of Israel if it implied in the minds of any of my
      > readers that I was in favour of the destruction of the people who
      > currently dwell as citizens of that state. Deconstruction is a far
      > better word.
      >
      > A state consists of a constitution, laws, the means to enforce them
      > and citizens who live their lives according to such. When somebody
      > says of me, "he is Scottish", I am at liberty to agree or disagree
      > with that statement. If somebody who is trying to assert this fact
      of
      > me then goes to the public registry office and finds my name on an
      > electoral register or in some other official document and shows it
      to
      > me it becomes harder to refute the statement, "Tommy is Scottish".
      > But I still have the liberty of travelling to Australia on my
      > Australian passport, taking up residence there and insisting that
      > "Tommy is Australian". If I didn't have an Australian passport I
      > could do as my girlfriend is doing and take up residence in a
      > different country, using either my innate talent or a relationship
      > with a citizen of that country to prove the statement, "Tommy is
      the
      > citizen/resident of such-and-such a country". No doubt if you asked
      > my girlfriend, "are you American?", she would answer in a clearly
      > identifiable American accent, "yes", although she might qualify the
      > statement with a statement that she didn't agree with the way the
      > nation was currently acting and preferred to be exiled.
      >
      > But what if America was attacked and destroyed by a foreign power?
      It
      > might then be called The Western Province or something else. Wing
      > Chiu Land might be an adequate title if we are going according to
      the
      > naming convention employed by the European colonialists of four
      > centuries ago. Would my girlfiend then refer to herself as
      American?
      > She might continue to do so, but I don't suppose her daughter or
      > granddaughter would.
      >
      > >The USSR was not destroyed, it disintegrated.
      > >
      >
      > But you concede that the USSR used to exist but no longer does? In
      > which case, the question of whether a particular external pressure
      > caused it to disintegrate from without or whether the pressures
      were
      > all internal could be discussed.
      >
      > I am not calling for any particular destructive force to be
      unleashed
      > against Israel from without. I think that it is internally
      > inconsistent so will collapse from within regardless, just as the
      > USSR did. But this is a shift in my opinion from say five years ago
      > when I might have agreed that it was incumbent on me as a westerner
      > and a member of civilisation to collude in its continuing existence
      > as a "homeland for the Jews".
      >
      > >The U.S. is not proposing to destroy Iraq; rather, it proposes to
      > >topple the regime of Saddam Hussein.
      > >
      >
      > Iraq is currently known as the Republic of Iraq or some such thing.
      > This is a constited body with a head who is known as the President.
      > It becomes a moot point if, subsequent to the violent overthrow of
      > its current titular head and the rewriting of the constitution that
      > keeps that titular head in power by a hostile foreign power, the
      > ensuing entity retains the name, "Republic of Iraq". Not so very
      long
      > ago it was known as Persia.
      >
      > I think that what the US intends is to destroy the state of Iraq in
      > its current form and replace it with a different entity. The main
      > criterion will be a malleable puppet leader who will place the
      > geostrategic interests of the American Empire - and especially its
      > thirst for oil - at the top of the domestic agenda. The euphemism
      for
      > this kind of puppet regime is "democracy".
      >
      > An Iraqi who found this state of affairs too undignified for words
      > and instead chose to emigrate to Australia would be entitled to
      call
      > himself "Australian" once he or she had taken up permanent
      residence
      > there.
      >
      > An Iraqi citizen killed by leukaemia or a smart bomb is no longer
      an
      > Iraqi citizen.
      >
      > What we currently refer to as "Iraq" is not longer the same thing
      as
      > what we would be describing subsequent to the violent overthrow of
      > its regime by a hostile foreign power. It has therefore been
      > destroyed.
      >
      > >If the Palestinians are the "internal enemy" of the Israelis, it
      > >seems to me that is because the Palestinians have declared
      > >themselves to be the Israelis enemies, and not the other way
      around.
      > >
      > >I see no reason for the Israelis to apologize for being
      technically,
      > >militarily and economically superior to any one. I do, however,
      see
      > >a moral problem with murdering children in their beds, blowing up
      > >children's parties and holiday banquets. I have no problem with
      > >people using their own bodies a weapons delivery systems as long
      as
      > >they target military targets.
      > >
      >
      > Your distinction between "civilian" and "military" when talking of
      > Palestinians and Israelis is the most obscene use of language I
      have
      > had the misfortune to encounter for some time. In fact, I was only
      > last night talking to an Israeli about this and he readily admitted
      > that the risk by a civilian of being blown away by a murderous thug
      > in New York City is still higher than the risk of being blown up by
      a
      > suicide bomber in Tel Aviv. He came out with that argument about
      > suicide bombers, how horrible and frightening not to know when you
      > enter a cafe or a club whether someone else in there is about to
      > detonate themselves and oneself, but in the same breath he was
      > talking about the exhilaration of being a soldier in the Israeli
      > army, with a helmet on and looking down the barrel of an assault
      > rifle.
      >
      > What his argument consisted of was an insistence on the right to be
      a
      > soldier by day, on duty, but then to have the right to enjoy "time
      > off" as a civilian, without being targeted by a martyr.
      >
      > What is this distinction between life and work which seems so
      central
      > to the American/Israel way of thinking?
      >
      > >To my knowledge Sharon has never been convicted of war crimes. I
      > >suppose it's too much to accord him a presumption of innocence.
      It
      > >seems that you have indicted, tried and convicted him in your own
      > >mind, which you are doubtless entitled to do, but you really can't
      > >expect to have broad agreement on this point since there has never
      > >been, to my knowledge, even a formal charge of war crimes against
      > >Sharon.
      > >
      >
      > Well, I do know that he will not travel to Europe for fear of being
      > arrested and indicted as was Slobadan Milosevic. I agree that it
      > would be better to call him an alleged war criminal. For one thing,
      > his eventual trial would not be able to reach a safe verdict if we
      > are to refer to him in this way. I do know that one of the key
      > witnesses in his indictment was assassinated a day before he was
      due
      > to travel to the Hague to testify.
      >
      > My sloppy language is down to the exasperation I feel at the likely
      > fact that he will never stand trial.
      >
      > >Your discussion of "holocaust" guilt does not apply to the U.S.
      and
      > >I do not think that it applies to Great Britain or Russia, three
      of
      > >the most important countries involved in the initial recognition
      of
      > >Israel. Besides, the zionist movement began long before WWII.
      > >
      >
      > But it does apply to the West, Chris, and particular to any
      countries
      > in which "holocaust denial" is a criminal offence.
      >
      > Tommy
      >
      > >Chris
      > >
      > >
      > >----- Original Message -----
      > >From: Tommy Beavitt
      > >Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:43 AM
      > >To: WisdomForum@y...
      > >Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: What really happened when
      > >Israeliforceswent into Jenin?
      > >
      > > >At 10:24 pm -0700 29/4/02, Christopher Bobo wrote:
      > >>I disagree. It is not reasonable to demand the destruction of
      > >>nation states. I think it is patently unreasonable to make such
      > >>demands. It may be reasonable to ask for the change or evolution
      of
      > >>nation states, but not for their destruction. To demand the
      > >>destruction of nation states is to demand the destruction of the
      > >>people who constitute it. Therefore, you are demanding the
      > >>destruction of 5.9 million Israelis, and that demand makes you
      > >>little better than Hitler.
      > >
      > >Now you are twisting my words to make it seem as if I advocated the
      > >destruction of 5.9 million Israelis. Which, of course, I did not. I
      > >am not surprised or even particularly disappointed by this since
      this
      > >is the standard tactic of those who would defend the morally
      bankrupt
      > >zionist project.
      > >
      > >What I made very clear in my post and all other posts on this
      subject
      > >is that the state of Israel should be deconstructed. If I used the
      > >word "destroy" it was in a particular context and certainly not one
      > >where we were talking about genocide.
      > >
      > >It is patently not true that to demand the destruction of a nation
      > >state is to demand the destruction of the people who constitute it.
      > >Even the bloodiest conflicts in history, resulting in the downfall
      of
      > >states, sometimes their borders being redrawn, sometimes subsumed
      > >into other national entities, sometimes renamed and reconstituted,
      > >have left some people alive. Many of these changes are almost
      > >bloodless. Look at the destruction of the USSR.
      > >
      > >I believe that the leadership of your fine country is currently
      > >considering arming to the teeth 250,000 of your young men and women
      > >and sending them to effect the bloody destruction of another nation
      > >in the Middle East?
      > >
      > >If Iraq was spending large amounts of military and economic aid
      > >supplied by a power bloc with which I was aligned in oppressing its
      > >indigenous population on account of their race or religion then I
      > >would be calling for its "destruction" too. I admit that to be
      > >even-handed about justice as it appears in the policies of nation
      > >states one would have to start questioning many states and their
      > >views of themselves. But Israel is a particular case in point
      because
      > >they are so keen to make their battle my battle. I reject this. If
      I
      > >am to be drawn into this conflict then I will make sure that I am
      > >scrupulously in observance of the perspective of the oppressed
      people
      > >who constitute Israel's internal enemy.
      > >
      > >I am not calling for military but moral pressure to be brought
      > >against "Israel". I do not advocate violence. But I do call into
      > >question the objection in moral terms of a people, grievously
      > >oppressed by other people using a grossly disproportionate
      technical,
      > >military and economic superiority, using their own bodies as
      weapons
      > >in getting back at their oppressors.
      > >
      > >I think the evolutionary approach to change is probably not
      possible
      > >in Israel's case. I would love to be proved wrong, but I cannot see
      > >how the country can be expected to manage this when they are busy
      > >electing war criminals like Sharon to power. So there is an onus on
      > >those of us who are at a relative remove from this conflict to
      > >attempt to guide or even force the necessary change.
      > >
      > >The state of Israel is built on rotten foundations. It is an
      > >indictment not of the indigenous people of Palestine but of Europe
      > >and the West, from whence most Israelis draw their inspiration,
      that
      > >the state was set up in the first place. It is not surprising that
      > >our guilt at the 'holocaust' and pogroms led us to make this flawed
      > >decision. What is becoming very clear (in spite of the fact that
      > >'holocaust denial' is a criminal offence in many countries) is that
      > >we have let ourselves be bullied into acceding to something that is
      > >profoundly wrong, an embarrassment to the cause of 'civilisation'
      > >with which we identify, due to our elevation of this particular
      > >genocide to a status over and above other genocides.
      > >
      > >Tommy B
      > >
      > >
      > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > >WisdomForum-unsubscribe@y...
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
      > ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.









      _________________________________________________________________
      Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.