Thanks to some whiny people I don't get to read Tuesday Morning Quarterback any more

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

In this regard, I'd be with you if GePap himself separated the Jews from Argentina from other Argentinians in general. However, in the case of an attack, the target is largely determined by the intent of the attacker.
If the Hezbollah wanted a cheap spot on Jews somewhere unexpected on Earth, the attack was against Jews. If the Hezbollah wanted to destabilise Argentina, and their attack happened to blow up a Jewish Center, the attack would have been against the Argentines.

In your opinion, was the US attack on Iraq aimed against the Saddam regime, or against the children of Iraq ? Many Iraqi children died in the process, yet the target of the war was clearly the Saddam regime.
If the Hezbollah defined its target as "the Jews", then their target was "the Jews". No matter what GePap actually thinks of the integration of Jews in the Argentinian society.

I would have been with you if the FARC attacked some Colombian top leader happening to be a Jew, and if GePap had said "This is an attack against the Jews of the world, not against the Colombian government". But in the case of the Hizbollah, I fear you are acting according to your own fears.

he didnt just say it was not an attack on the Argentinian govt - he said it was not an attack on Argentina. If Alqaeeda dropped a bomb on Paris, say Le Marais, with the intent of killing Jews, would that make it an NOT an attack on France? If they killed me this minute, would it not be an attack on the US? The US never denied that we attacked Iraq - we may have done so in order to liberate the people, but even if we had attempted only to assasinate Hussein, we never denied that he was an Iraqi. What if we had said that he didnt count cause he was a sunni, and we didnt thing Sunnis were true Iraqis? Would you say that yes, we didnt attack Iraq, because we only attacked a Sunni, and we didnt think Sunnis are true Iraqis? Does Hezbollah get to define who is an Argentinian citizen? They DID not attack ISRAELIS who happened to be in Argentina - they attacked ARGENTINIAN CITIZENS - regardless of the motive, that makes it an attack on Argentina. The govt of Argentina certainly considers it to be one.

Now i must ask you what i asked GEpap - do you consider the Jews killed in Buenos Aires to have been Argentian citizens? If not , why not? If so, how was it not an attack on Argentina?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Because in this case their fears have legitimate historical roots

And in this case they led them to attack something as anti-semetic that even you admit wasn't.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
do you consider the Jews killed in Buenos Aires to have been Argentian citizens?

Obviously

If not , why not? If so, how was it not an attack on Argentina?

While I myself Spiffor consider these people to be Argentinian citizens, I highly doubt it was the reason why they were targetted by the Hizbollah. I think it is likely that the Hizbollah attacked these people because of their Jewishness, regardless of their nationality. And I assume the Hizbollah attacked in Argentina because it was convenient, and not because of an anti-Argentine agenda.

As to your question: if an antisemitic terrorist organization bombed Paris with the intent of killing Jews, I'd call this an "attack against Jews", regardless of the religion of its victims. If a terrorist organization bombed Paris to destabilize France (like it happened in 1995, when Algeria's Islamic Armed Group bombed the subway repeatedly and indiscriminately), I would call it an "attack against France". Because the target is in the eye of the beholder.

[Tuberski]

Ifind it funny that LoTM is defending the people that got this guy fired.


You don't get it do you? Ever hear of Chicken Little? If you keep calling 'racism' and 'anti-semitism' every time you turn around all you do is make people sick of hearing those words.

Choose your battles carefully, save it for remarks that are truly anti-semitic. You are fighting a lost cause if you argue over everything.

ACK!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Tuberski

You don't get it do you? Ever hear of Chicken Little? If you keep calling 'racism' and 'anti-semitism' every time you turn around all you do is make people sick of hearing those words.

Well said, most people are pretty sick of their constant *****ing on racism and anti-semitism. Say something against France, you are an all-American hero. Say something against Bush, you are a liberal champion. Saw something against Jews, you are an anti semite nazi supremacist racist bigot. Poof. Your career is over.

[yavoon]

god damn pc police need to shutup. what made him great was his opinion.

[badams52]

getting back to the original topic, does anyone know where TMQ is going to be published for this week???

I noticed it last week that all of TMQ was gone and Gregg Easterbrook was no longer listed on the columnists on P2 when I went late (last Friday I think) to find his column and to see no trace of it or himself. Fortunately a search on the ESPN site turned up his TMQ for week 6 (lucky me). But I digress.

[notyoueither]

I understand where LotM is coming from. There are certain things that simply should not be said, even if they are said with 'good' motives.

The N word is a good example. You are simply inviting a heap of trouble if you are not black and you use it. Why? Because if one honky can use it harmlessly, then it is perpetuated for use by all honkies who would use it with malice. I can see the POV which says I shouldn't ever use the word, and I can respect it enough to abide by it.

This guy used the Shylock phrase, as it were. Even though he intended no harm, there are those who can not find it in themselves to excuse it. LotM excuses it, but he can appreciate the POV of those who will not.

BTW, he also pointed out that the guy was likely turfed for criticising his boss publicly. That's not PC bullsh*t, that's professional suicide.

[pchang]

Originally posted by notyoueither
BTW, he also pointed out that the guy was likely turfed for criticising his boss publicly. That's not PC bullsh*t, that's professional suicide.

Only if you work for someone vindictive. Easterbrook can now join the company of Katzenberg and Ovits.

[MrFun]

Conservative political correctness says that it's offending to find anything that offends you, as being offensive.

[Drake Tungsten]

Conservative political correctness says that it's offending to find anything that offends you, as being offensive.

Can anyone else figure this out? I'm drawing a blank.

[notyoueither]

It says that conservative PC is self-offensive, whatever the hell that means.

[Dis]

Originally posted by badams52
getting back to the original topic, does anyone know where TMQ is going to be published for this week???

I noticed it last week that all of TMQ was gone and Gregg Easterbrook was no longer listed on the columnists on P2 when I went late (last Friday I think) to find his column and to see no trace of it or himself. Fortunately a search on the ESPN site turned up his TMQ for week 6 (lucky me). But I digress.

I think I forgot to read week 6, let me find that one

I should e-mail Fox News website and ask them to pick him up. He would fit in more over there anyways.

Disney is a strange company. They seem to have no problems with Kill Bill. Strangely that film isn't causing them any controversy.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
"Is it me, or the thread title has just been edited by the mods ?"

how very ironic!

maybe a whiny jew told the mods?

ROFL!

[Dis]

I sent Fox sports a suggestion telling them to pick up TMQ