Palestinians destroy Israeli tank

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Arafat is certainly the leader of the Palestinian resistance struggle. What he has done is trying to contain the extremists on his own side -and you never give him credit for that. If he is offered a reasonable deal, he takes it. His agreement with Rabin was working, until Rabin was killed by an Israeli.

Now we know your full of ****. That or your talking about some other Arafat than the one that is the leader of the PA.

[laurentius]

Or maybe he can take a little distance and have more neutral opinion than you?

And for eli's earlier comment.
Hamas terrorist for you, desperate freedomfighter, for palestinians.
Sharon, a great leader for you, a war criminal and butcher for palestinians?

[Eli]

Originally posted by laurentius
Hamas terrorist for you, desperate freedomfighter, for palestinians.

http://www.masada2000.org/oslo.html

Ignore the propaganda, just read who died and how, and then explain how perverted a man needs to be to call this freedom fighting.

Btw, the figures are pretty old, 7 Jews were murdered since the last update.

Sharon, a great leader for you, a war criminal and butcher for palestinians?

Sharon is a war criminal in my opinion too.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

This means I don't have to ask you whether you're a racist or not.

But then again, you´ve already labeled me racist when I first criticized the zionist ideology. And FYI, I judge noone regarding to race/creed/skin colour, I judge regarding to actions. And IMO zionism is a racist ideology.

And no, the palestinians aren´t perfect, far from it, but there´s no question regarding who´s the warmongering agressor here.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
You occasionally meet real Palestinian extremists on forums like this one. Two things about them are easily determined:

1 They are raving mad.

That's why they call them "extreme".

2 They want Arafat´s head on a pole.

then they are truly mad.

Since arafat is infact getting their goal done using sneaky political tactics.

Common sense suggests those are the people responsible for irrational acts of terrorism.

Common sense suggests those people should be arrested, not freed from jails as Arafat did, or invited to palestinian parliament meetings, as Arafat did.

But you sure know there are Jews, both religious and secular, who do not consider themselves represented by Zionism.

Yes there are. So?

That is positively untrue. Noam Chomsky is respected by political scientists around the world,

That's why no major bookstore chain would sell him?

Search the web for "noam chomsky nazi" or something. You'll find he's mainly respected by Nazis.

I read some of his speeches. His main claim is "america is satan and israel is smaller satan".

I read a speech in which he claimed Iran is in no way a foe to the US.

I read a speech in which he claimed that since 1903 or something, USA schools have been inventing other history and teaching it in schools.

I read a speech where he claimed Egypt suggested a peace deal to Israel in 71, but no evidence exist bexist evil Israel destroyed it. Even such a notion is ludicrous since that would be like waving a white flag after 1967! An Arab leader would rather die than do that.

and his writings serve as the base of university courses.

LOL
Maybe at commie anarchist and nazi rallies.

No one except lunatics has ever called him an anti-semite.

If being best friend with French anti-semites and getting your books published through them doesn't prove a tie, I don't know what does.

I believe that they are world´s most dangerous terrorists. Edit, afterthought: I am also not that sure that appeasement works against them, but what else can we do?

I believe that you should have your father spank you on the arse, like any whiney youth are spanked on their arse when they behave stupidly.

True, bush isn't the wises nut. But finally someone with the courage to resist global terror, before it's too late. Otherwise, everytime a terrorist wants to fart, he'll hijack another plane.

Arafat is certainly the leader of the Palestinian resistance struggle. What he has done is trying to contain the extremists on his own side -and you never give him credit for that.

No, we want extremists locked up or dead.

If he is offered a reasonable deal, he takes it. His agreement with Rabin was working, until Rabin was killed by an Israeli.

So what changed?
Peres was there for a year or so.
Plus, Arafat has failed to fulfil his promises, like keeping a militia force no larger than 40K people, fighting terror (instead of letting them out of jails), controlling weapons, and so on and so forth.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Goingonit


Israeli. Singular. One Israeli. I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Yes, this guy was horrible. Yes, he was Jewish. No, that does not incriminate the rest of us.

C´mon, Goit. You know as well as I do (even if you don´t want to admit it) that the hard-line zionists didn´t grieve to much about Rabin being shot and that these hard-liners is being protected by the Israeli government (since they are hard-liners themselves). I mean what´s the punishment for a settler that shoots a palestinian? A slap on the wrist at best...

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by laurentius
Or maybe he can take a little distance and have more neutral opinion than you?

I think cold finland is a bit too distant to ever udnerstand the ME.

And for eli's earlier comment.
Hamas terrorist for you, desperate freedomfighter, for palestinians.

No way brother.

Not in a million years, will I see a person who targets and slaughters in a pre-meditated fashion - children, and innocent civilians, as a "freedom fighter".

They attack miltary targets? Legitimate.

But don't go throwing around leftist objectivist bull****. A murderer of innocent people is a murderer of innocent people, and that's how it goes.

Sharon, a great leader for you, a war criminal and butcher for palestinians?

A) It was never proven in a court of law he was a war criminal
B) It was proven he only had indirect responsibility, due to his command, but was not aware of the butchery until after it ended.
C) He won a libel trial against some american newspaper claiming otherwise.

If Sharon's action makes him a war criminal, then I suggest war criminals Bush and Clinton and Blair be judged first - for fairness.
After all some of their actions took bad turns and caused the deaths of innocent.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Goingonit


I'd call it horrible. Just because Martin Luther King was killed doesn't mean the entire USA was white supremacist.

All it takes is 1 crazy to bring down a politician. You don't need any portion of the population to agree with you.

Maybe not raving nazis, but the US was a awfully racist society in the 60´s (and still are in some parts). And King was killed because he was a threat against the white bourgeois America.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

That's why no major bookstore chain would sell him?

Search the web for "noam chomsky nazi" or something. You'll find he's mainly respected by Nazis.

Wrong, he is respected by intellectuals all over the world (even some bourgeois ones)

Maybe at commie anarchist and nazi rallies.

You think you´re a funny, but you´re just an ignorant ****!

If being best friend with French anti-semites and getting your books published through them doesn't prove a tie, I don't know what does.

This is also a lie. You´re not overly concerned with actual facts in your zionist propaganda, are you, Siro? Below is a letter from NC that categorically dismisses such nonsense:

June 1, 1989
Letter to the editor of the Canadian Jewish journal Outlook, in response
to allegations made by Werner Cohn
Reprinted in Milan Rai, Chomsky's Politics (Verso, 1995), pp. 200-201


Editor
Outlook
6184 Ash St., #3
Vancouver BC V5Z3G9
June 1, 1989

Dear Sir,


Observing the performances of Werner Cohn is a curious experience. An
occasional phrase has a relation to reality, but it takes an effort to
imagine what may lie behind the discourse.

In Outlook, May, Cohn presents a fevered account of a second existence
that he has conjured up for me, in France, where I pursue my secret life
as a neo-Nazi, hoping that no one outside of Paris will notice. He gives
two proofs. The first is what he calls his 'most crucial source': 'a joint
article by Chomsky and his friend Pierre Guillaume, "Une mise au point",'
in Guillaume's book Droit et Histoire. The second is that 'Chomsky could
have published the French version of his Political Economy of Human Rights
(written with Edward Herman) with a commercial publisher, but, in order to
show solidarity with VT [Vielle Taupe], Chomsky insisted on publishing the
book with it.'


Since I never wrote a 'joint article' with Guillaume, I was curious, and
after a search, found the book in question. Indeed, it contains the
chapter 'Une mise au point', written in first-person singular by
Guillaume, with no hint of any collaboration with me. I am mentioned in
it, and fragments of a letter of mine are quoted in which I discuss
changes in the U.S. intellectual climate since the 1960's (with typical
veracity, Cohn describes this as my 'comments on Guillaume's version of
the Chomsky-VT relationship', which is nowhere mentioned). By Cohn's
intriguing logic, I am also the co-author of his various diatribes --
perhaps in my third life, which he will expose in the next instalment.
Cohn asserts that I found 'nothing to correct in Guillaume's' account. He
has not the slightest idea what my reaction to the article is. Recall that
this 'joint article' is his 'crucial source'.

Let us turn to his second decisive piece of evidence. When I learned of
Cohn's fairy tales about the French translation of the book of Herman and
mine, I was intrigued. Of course, it is obvious even without further
inquiry that his claims are outlandish. There is no possible way that he
could know of my intentions (and those of my co-author, Edward Herman, who
somehow seems to have disappeared from the tale; perhaps I invented him as
a cover). But we need not speculate on Cohn's mystical ability to read
minds.


Standard procedure is to leave translations in the hands of the publisher.
I make no attempt to keep track of the innumerable translations of books
of mine in foreign languages. Curious about Cohn's allegations, I
contacted the publisher, who checked their files and located the contract
for the French translation -- with Albin-Michel, a mainstream commercial
publisher, to my knowledge. They did not know whether the translation had
appeared, never having received a copy. The same is true of my co-author
and me.

Note that these are the examples that Cohn selects as the decisive proof
of his theses. A rational person will draw the obvious conclusions about
the rest. Cohn makes two further claims. He says that in defending the
right of freedom of expression in the case of Robert Faurisson, I have
always 'indicated' that my '"diametrically opposed" view was more a matter
of opinion than of scientific knowledge' (a statement that he appears to
attribute to Guillaume); and I have always defended freedom of expression
'in terms that are absolutely incapable of hurting Faurrison [sic].'
Consider these allegations.


In Cohn's 'crucial source', cited above, Guillaume quotes my statement
that 'there are no rational grounds that allow any doubt about the
existence of gas chambers.' Thus Cohn is refuted by his own 'crucial
source.' In my own writings, from the earliest until the present, the
conclusions of standard Holocaust studies are taken simply as established
fact, as Cohn knows perfectly well. In the introduction to my first
collection of political essays, 20 years ago, I add that we have lost our
humanity if we are even willing to enter into debate over the Nazi crimes
with those who deny or defend them. The only particle of truth in Cohn's
absurd charge is that I never use the phrase 'scientific knowledge' in
dealing with any questions of history; my book with Herman, for example,
which is neither science nor mere opinion.

Turning to Cohn's second point, it is taken for granted by civil
libertarians that defense of freedom of expression is independent of the
views expressed. Thus when I sign petitions (and go far beyond that) in
the case of Soviet dissidents, some of whom have absolutely horrendous
views, I never allude to this fact in the slightest way. In signing
petitions supporting Salman Rushdie, I make no comment about whether his
book slanders Muslims. I have no doubt that this practice enrages mullahs
in Qom and commissars in the Kremlin as much as it does Werner Cohn, and
for the same reasons. Where no civil liberties issues arise, I have been
quite explicit about the fact that the views of Faurisson and others are
diametrically opposed to my own firm conclusions about the facts, as in
the statement quoted in Cohn's 'crucial source'.


The remainder of Cohn's ranting has to do with the alleged views of
others, and fanciful comments about France. His conceptions on these
matters are, naturally, of no concern to me.

That Cohn is a pathological liar is demonstrated by the very examples that
he selects. Knowing nothing about him, and caring less, I am in no
position to comment further on what may lie behind this odd and pathetic
behavior.


Sincerely yours,

Noam Chomsky

Originally posted by Goingonit
Noam Chomsky is a self-hating Jew. This means that he wishes to reject his Jewish identity by discrediting Judaism as a whole. He is just as biased as anyone in this issue.

That´s typical zionist statement if I ever saw one, Goit you´re so full of **** that half of it would be enough...

[Sirotnikov]

C´mon, Goit. You know as well as I do (even if you don´t want to admit it) that the hard-line zionists didn´t grieve to much about Rabin being shot and that these hard-liners is being protected by the Israeli government (since they are hard-liners themselves).

That's utter bull****.

You know less than goingonit knows, and far less that I, to read into the reaction of the 'zionists'.

Whether people agreed with the Oslo process or not, such violence was viewed as a very serious threat to Israel's democracy and unity.

And what you're saing is unbased nonsense. Meaning you invented it of the top of your head, or someone did it for you.

You know we still mark Rabin's murder every year, and together with the lessons from the assassination and Rabin's contribution, and the way we're taught every year suggests a huge deal about how the Oslo process is the right and only way to true peace, even though it in actuality crumbled.

So that's the end of your 'zionists don't grieve about rabin and oslo' ramble.

I mean what´s the punishment for a settler that shoots a palestinian? A slap on the wrist at best...

What's that got to do with Rabin?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Maybe not raving nazis, but the US was a awfully racist society in the 60´s (and still are in some parts). And King was killed because he was a threat against the white bourgeois America.

Parts of it were racist.

You're using your assumption and induction tactics again which don't really work in the real world, sorry.

It takes one lunatic to take a whole system down. He just has to be a mighty powerfull one.


But let's use your strategy. If UBL, a muslim arab, made terract, that suggests that the entire muslim arab population, or at least most of it, is one supporting of terror and murder of civilians?

Remember, you have to be consistent here.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Wrong, he is respected by intellectuals all over the world (even some bourgeois ones)

Name one non-extreme leftist intellectial who supports his theories?

You think you´re a funny, but you´re just an ignorant ****!

Thank you.

That means so much coming from a racist brute such as yourself, proving everyday how little do you actually know about Israel, and how much info comes from your nazi-porn magazines.

This is also a lie. You´re not overly concerned with actual facts in your zionist propaganda, are you, Siro? Below is a letter from NC that categorically dismisses such nonsense:

1) Have I mentioned you're an idiotic ****?

2) The zionist propoganda isn't mine to own and your suggestion of this proves again your racist view of jews / zionists as a single bunch following the same mindset, like the Elders of Zion or something.

3) While I meanwhile concede that I had no information about these corrections and this letter, I assure you I'll do my best to find out more about Chomsky's lavish appologetics.

4) Do notice as I said that my opnion on chomsky comes mostly from reading his sociopathic essays, and not as much from that unclear relations with the nazis.

That´s typical zionist statement if I ever saw one, Goit you´re so full of **** that half of it would be enough...

Gee I'm so glad your nazi-porn magazine keeps you updated with "typical zionists statements".

Tell us, what is the typical zionist statement of the day, today?

[Sirotnikov]

Wrong, he is respected by intellectuals all over the world (even some bourgeois ones)

And another thing, is this in any way to suggest bourgeois (or middle to high class, in non revolutionary terms) itellectuals are different that non-bourgeois ones?

I want to clear that up. Perhaps you were just meaning that as an example to convince me. If so, I'd like to see that example.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
But then again, you´ve already labeled me racist when I first criticized the zionist ideology.

I may have called you racist because of the rude way in which you present yourself and your views.

If I indeed called you racist you probably said something racist and I most likely explained what it was.

And FYI, I judge noone regarding to race/creed/skin colour, I judge regarding to actions. And IMO zionism is a racist ideology.

No.
Your problem is that you see nationalis, of which zionism is part of, as racist.

I completely disagree and think you're a bigot.

And no, the palestinians aren´t perfect, far from it, but there´s no question regarding who´s the warmongering agressor here.

Hmmm

Who, does Clinton or Deniss Ross or Bush blame for the violence? They were closest to the action during 2000, after Arafat and Barak.

Who started the intifada in 2000, even though peace talks continued?
Who continued the intifada during the time in which Barak continued peace talks until 2001?
Who released terrorists from their jail cells with the sole intention of getting them back to killing israelis in oct 2000 and since?

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Name one non-extreme leftist intellectial who supports his theories?

Did I say "support"? I said "respected", that´s not the same. And there´s a lot of intellectuals that respects and supports Chomsky. For instance:

Göran Greider, editor-in-chief of the social-democratic newspaper Dala-Demokraten
Jan Guillou, writer/journalist
Bono, artist
John Pilger, journalist

John Pilger inteviews Noam Chomsky

And, Siro, I don´t really give a **** if you think I´m a racist, my views are not uncommon in the swedish leftist enviroment.