Comments on: Excused Horrors – by Walter Williams

By: Manhattanite

Manhattanite — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:06:44 +0000

No sensible discussion may be attempted with a bigot. Arguing with one is a stupidity of the highest order and a total waste of time. I do not seek to arouse any feelings in you. I was hoping for a rational argument as opposed to an encounter with something resembling an abridged Mein Kampf.

By: Manhattanite

Manhattanite — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:34:49 +0000

I am not abusing the “critics” here. I am responding to a libel being presented as a critique.

By: andyFree

andyFree — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:20:13 +0000

So when you've comprehensively lost the argument, you'll announce that “the world Jew” is now my enemy and that attempting sensible discussion will simply get me ignored. I wonder what feelings you seek to arouse with such a bizarre and ridiculous statement and which particular antisemitic libel you are determined I should believe.

By: andyFree

andyFree — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:35:47 +0000

Abusing the critics of Israel is all you have left. All the “truths” are against you!

By: imgood

imgood — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:56:38 +0000

Good point, Manhattanite

By: imgood

imgood — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:53:46 +0000

Mr. Free, I was simply answering the question why commies get a free ride here; the most reasonable answer is that the academics–and their cohort in the media–are overwhelmingly sympathetic to radical, typically anti-American movements. Describing their attitudes is doing nothing more than stating a well-known fact.
Whatever success Chomsky may have had in putting forth a philosophy of language (and even that has some significant critics; see Professor Paul Postal, among many others), his political writing barely merits serious consideration. His enthusiastic, and lonely, support for the Khmer Rouge even among the hard left, even after the revelations of mass murder had come to light, reveal Chomsky to be not only a thoroughgoing moral reprobate, but also less than impressive as a scholar.
The chief lesson from Vietnam is that military and moral superiority are insufficient to win a war. A nation needs the will to do so as well. Had we prevailed and kept South Vietnam free, it might well have been the economic success story that South Korea is today.

By: bubba4

bubba4 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:28:52 +0000

Whatever gets you through the night….

By: Manhattanite

Manhattanite — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:25:53 +0000

The little, vain, inane charlatan, pseudo-scientist Chomsky – a giant of schiolarship?! What a travesty.

By: Manhattanite

Manhattanite — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:20:32 +0000

Both you and Paul Sheldon Foote are cavemen. I am sorry, but I find it challenging to counter your “truths” just like it would be pointless to argue that wine is preferrable to piss.

By: Manhattanite

Manhattanite — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:12:42 +0000

AndyFree, man – the wrld Jew also wants to have you by the balls and eat you up alive. You are an idiot, dude. And this is all there is to understand, I am afraid.

By: Manhattanite

Manhattanite — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:06:59 +0000

In fact, from the way things look at the moment, Obama is not trying to wrap them up – he is neither here nor there, he is indecisive at best. There will always be enough people to protest no matter which line the government decides to tout. But the leader must have some backbone and be capable and not afraid of making decisions. There will always be risks involved. But grand speeches and apologies won't make up for it.

By: Manhattanite

Manhattanite — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:52:06 +0000

Bush did not exactly start the war in Iraq. That war started back in 1990 and was never finished. Bush actually tried to put an end to it by a forceful military action, which itself followed a string of military/terrorist attacks on the U.S. interests both within the country and abroad, by moslems, in the name of Islam, to which the U.S. never properly responded, and which then culminated in 9/11 massacre.

Many things went awry. But, looking back in time, no conflict in human history, followed the perfect line. So, it is too early to pronounce a judgement on the events.

On the other hand, many catastrophic failures were caused by indecision and bickering in the higher echelons of the government. One example which comes to my mind was the Gallipoli campaign fought in the middle of World War I.

By: Manhattanite

Manhattanite — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:34:49 +0000

Democracy is often defended with guns as well. How do you judge one to be a criminal?

By: paulsheldonfoote

paulsheldonfoote — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:04:15 +0000

The interview "Norman Finkelstein: Israel is a Satanic state" provided details about why Israel will not permit him to visit Israel or the West Bank.
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2009/01/n...

Paul Sheldon Foote

By: andyFree

andyFree — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:17:22 +0000

Looks to me as if you're antidemocratic. Obama could not do as much damage to the US as Bush succeeded in doing even if he tried.

By: andyFree

andyFree — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:13:44 +0000

It looks to me as if Paul Sheldon Foote has interesting points of view that he's keen to share with us. It looks to me as if you have nothing to add.

By: andyFree

andyFree — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:11:43 +0000

As best I understand it, Norman Finkelstein is a main-stream Zionist who believes in Israel within the pre-1967 borders.

He is hated because he believes that Holocaust survivors have been deliberately robbed of their compensation and because he's probably correct. It's not because he's anti-Israel!

By: andyFree

andyFree — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:07:44 +0000

Imgood – accusing your ideological opponents of being “Western professoriate and academicians in general are sympathetic to communism and socialism” is no explanation whatsoever.

Nor does knocking Noam Chomsky, one of the giants of scholarship, do anything for your case whatsoever.

Most importantly, the backwoodsmen talk about the “Lessons of Vietnam” and yet seem completely incapable of learning them.

Remind us – what lessons did the US learn from the horrors it perpetrated in Vietnam? That nations other than the US could be re-united by force? Well, Vietnam doesn't suit your cause – it's one of the only nations in the world ever to have been divided by force!

By: andyFree

andyFree — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:56:23 +0000

Because they're the only people who have credibly threatened to blow up me and the Vatican - do you have a second question?

Oh, and of course, they're the only people in the world to have been granted possession of territory they took by force (UN Resolution 242) and they've come came back for a second bite of the cherry - they seem to want the entire West Bank as well. (I thought sending your armies to seize "living room to the East" had gone out of fashion, but one can never be sure).

And they're the only country in the world to have legalised torture.

And they're the only country in the world to still be operating apartheid.

But most of all, I'm obsessed by Israel because, in places like this, I find people defending quite obvious criminal behaviour. Nobody defends what's happening in Darfur or Tibet or Chechnya, gun-law reigns in those places but the UN isn't yet ready to take on and fight big nations to enforce its decisions. But Israel is the UN's own creation, and its tiny. I want the UN to enforce all the dozens of resolutions that Israel is defying as a first step to dealing with other gross injustices in the world.

Is that somehow difficult to understand?

By: bubba4

bubba4 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:46:58 +0000

The official caption to most of FPM photos is:

BE AFRAID…BE VERY AFRAID