Re: Mindless and Heartless
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This guy's head -- and apparently, his heart -- is > completely empty. > > Dave I'd say that that description is much more accurate of the anti-war movement that's cruelly using this poor woman. In this case, you're dealing with someone who has _already_ met the President, and who also deals in pathetic anti-Semitism, incidentally. Christopher Hithens dealt quite well with such things in Slate, amongst many other people. http://www.slate.com/id/2124500/ Out of curiosity, had I been killed in Iraq, would that mean that my parents would then have the right to demand a _second_ meeting with the President and insist that he continue the war so that my death was not wasted, or does such a privilege only go to people who agree with you? What I would ask also is, has the anti-war movement no sense of decency, using this poor woman as a prop in its attempts to attack the President? How do you feel rallying to someone supported by David Duke (http://www.davidduke.com/index_print.php?p=350) - it seems to me that people willing to exploit a poor, bereaved woman as she lashes out to assuage her grief should be comfortable in his company. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Gautam, --- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This guy's head -- and apparently, his heart -- is completely empty. I'd say that that description is much more accurate of the anti-war movement that's cruelly using this poor woman. She went there of her own accord. What others do with that is their choice. Some, like the neo-con echo-chamber, are cruelly abusing her. That's their choice, too. In this case, you're dealing with someone who has _already_ met the President, As has been loudly trumpeted in that same echo-chamber. And answered. She and a group of others met with him prior to the revelations that this war of choice was entered into on a foundation of lies. She was mildly polite about their last meeting, and has changed her mind as the falsehoods that cost her son his life have piled up. But I forget: although they drive around with bumper stickers that say "Jesus Allows U-Turns", anyone who changes their mind is labeled a flip-flopper by the neo-cons. and who also deals in pathetic anti-Semitism, incidentally. Christopher Hithens dealt quite well with such things in Slate, amongst many other people. http://www.slate.com/id/2124500/ In the piece cited by this Bush apologist, I do not find the claim of anti-Semitism claim that you assert. He quotes her noting the PNAC pro- Israel basis for the war as a reason that her child died. Do you confuse her rejection of blind support for Israel as anti-Semitism? I guess it is no longer permitted to criticize Israel. I'm sick of people shouting anti-Semitism every time Israel is criticized. Out of curiosity, had I been killed in Iraq, would that mean that my parents would then have the right to demand a _second_ meeting with the President and insist that he continue the war so that my death was not wasted, or does such a privilege only go to people who agree with you? I support people with whom I agree, so I probably wouldn't get behind the Mukundas' pro-war rally. Nonetheless, they would be as much under Maureen Dowd's claim that "The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute." as Cindy Sheehen is. I would disagree with their stated aim, but endorse their right to declare it. What I would ask also is, has the anti-war movement no sense of decency, using this poor woman as a prop in its attempts to attack the President? Asked and answered. She went there of her own accord. What other people do with her actions is their choice. Freedom isn't free, and it isn't always convenient. How do you feel rallying to someone supported by David Duke (http://www.davidduke.com/index_print.php?p=350) - it seems to me that people willing to exploit a poor, bereaved woman as she lashes out to assuage her grief should be comfortable in his company. I don't play that game with you, and it is a game. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gautam, > > > --- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> This guy's head -- and apparently, his heart -- > is completely empty. > > > > I'd say that that description is much more > accurate of the anti-war > > movement that's cruelly using this poor woman. > > She went there of her own accord. What others do > with that is their > choice. Some, like the neo-con echo-chamber, are > cruelly abusing her. > That's their choice, too. Dave, you flawlessly agree with everything everybody on the antiwar left says. I really don't think the echo-chamber thing is really something you want to bring up. > She and a group of others met with him prior to the > revelations that > this war of choice was entered into on a foundation > of lies. She was > mildly polite about their last meeting, and has > changed her mind as the > falsehoods that cost her son his life have piled up. There used to be a photo on her family website of the President kissing her. Possibly she's (at the urging of people like Michael Moore) changed her story? The evidence suggests that this is the case. > In the piece cited by this Bush apologist, I do not > find the claim of > anti-Semitism claim that you assert. He quotes her > noting the PNAC pro- > Israel basis for the war as a reason that her child > died. Do you confuse > her rejection of blind support for Israel as > anti-Semitism? I guess it > is no longer permitted to criticize Israel. I'm sick > of people shouting > anti-Semitism every time Israel is criticized. Hitchens is a socialist and an atheist, incidentally. Clearly a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy. Not everyone who defends the war is a Bush apologist. Many of us are capable of independent thought. Since you parrot the far-left anti-war movement flawlessly, who are you an apologist for, exactly? You clearly don't know much about PNAC (I even applied for a summer internship there once - quite a Jewish conspiracy that would have made, with the Hindu guy in the background). But I think her belief that we fought this war for Israel at the behest of a Jewish cabal is pretty obviously anti-semitic. If you believe that, have the balls to say so. If you don't, have the decency to repudiate it. > I support people with whom I agree, so I probably > wouldn't get behind > the Mukundas' pro-war rally. Nonetheless, they would > be as much under > Maureen Dowd's claim that "The moral authority of > parents who bury > children killed in Iraq is absolute." as Cindy > Sheehen is. I would > disagree with their stated aim, but endorse their > right to declare it. That is the most intellectually vapid argument it is possible to make. You have the _right_ to declare that you are an armadillo. No one is suggesting that you don't. The point is, would President Bush (or, say, Howard Dean) be mindless and heartless for refusing to meet with them? You can't have it both ways. Unless you are, of course, mindless and heartless and just using this poor woman to make political points. > > How do you feel rallying to someone supported by > David Duke > > (http://www.davidduke.com/index_print.php?p=350) - > it seems to me that > > people willing to exploit a poor, bereaved woman > as she lashes out to > > assuage her grief should be comfortable in his > company. > > I don't play that game with you, and it is a game. > > Dave Well, Dave, line up with the anti-semites and people are going to draw conclusions. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:28 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > In the piece cited by this Bush apologist, I do not find the claim of > anti-Semitism claim that you assert. He quotes her noting the PNAC pro- > Israel basis for the war as a reason that her child died. Do you confuse > her rejection of blind support for Israel as anti-Semitism? I guess it > is no longer permitted to criticize Israel. I'm sick of people shouting > anti-Semitism every time Israel is criticized. That's not what goes on, David. It's when lies about the Jews that have their roots in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (actually they predate that by a good bit but it's the basic source for much of the modern Jewish conspiricy theory comes from) are repeated. One of the classics is that the conspiricy of Jews are secretly controlling the great nations for their own purpose. David Dukes recognizes it; why do you think he's supporting her? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
Dave Land wrote: > This is what the President had to say when reporters asked how it was > that he had time to ride a bicycle on Saturday, but didn't have time to > meet with Cindy Sheehan. > > This guy's head -- and apparently, his heart -- is completely empty. Imo, his response sounds like one of those classic "non-answers" that politicians give when they know that truth would be unpopular. It isn't that Bush is dumb - he's just determined not to back down or show any sign of doubt. If he were to say that the war was a mistake his own supporters would probably rip him apart (metaphorically) and he'd seriously damage the chances of the next Republican presidential candidate in 2008. So he's staying the course and ignoring anyone who criticizes his policies. I'm afraid that Ms. Sheehan isn't going to get any satisfaction from Mr. Bush, no matter how long she waits for him. Kevin Street -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 8/15/2005 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: She and a group of others met with him prior to the revelations that this war of choice was entered into on a foundation of lies. She was mildly polite about their last meeting, and has changed her mind as the falsehoods that cost her son his life have piled up. There used to be a photo on her family website of the President kissing her. Possibly she's (at the urging of people like Michael Moore) changed her story? The evidence suggests that this is the case. What evidence? A Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy? Is that really the best you can do? You must be unusually busy right now. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 9:34 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: What I would ask also is, has the anti-war movement no sense of decency, using this poor woman as a prop in its attempts to attack the President? How do you feel rallying to someone supported by David Duke (http://www.davidduke.com/index_print.php?p=350) - it seems to me that people willing to exploit a poor, bereaved woman as she lashes out to assuage her grief should be comfortable in his company. That's also pathetic, Gautam -- or are you happy rallying behind a president supported by a porn star? By this logic, you are on the side of the rednecks who decided to "protest" Sheehan by destroying some of the crosses left near her vigil point (vandalism is illegal, last time I checked), and clearly are on the side of "hunters" who fire off *shotguns* in an attempt to intimidate American citizens who have PEACEABLY ASSEMBLED to protest something (in many parts of the US it's illegal do discharge a firearm within 1/4 mile of a public right-of-way), *and* who have made it clear they're not at all happy about their fellow citizens EXERCISING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. If we apply your "Duke" illogic to you, we find that you're speaking out in support of vandals, criminals, bullies and those who would suppress the rights of others, in much the same way that certain Iraqi leaders used to. So if you're going to play the "whose side are you on" game, there's plenty of muck to lob in *both* directions. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
--- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 16, 2005, at 9:34 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > > What I would ask also is, has the anti-war > movement no > > sense of decency, using this poor woman as a prop > in > > its attempts to attack the President? How do you > feel > > rallying to someone supported by David Duke > > (http://www.davidduke.com/index_print.php?p=350) - > it > > seems to me that people willing to exploit a poor, > > bereaved woman as she lashes out to assuage her > grief > > should be comfortable in his company. > > That's also pathetic, Gautam -- or are you happy > rallying behind a > president supported by a porn star? > > By this logic, you are on the side of the rednecks > who decided to > "protest" Sheehan by destroying some of the crosses > left near her vigil > point (vandalism is illegal, last time I checked), > No, of course not. You're an editor, Warren, you can do better than this. My point is (obviously) that this person has made claims that draw the specific support of anti-semites, and according to our list's self-apponted arbiters of all that is good and compassionate, we're supposed to defer to her moral judgemnt, blah blah blah. But, of course, it's not a coincidence that the David Duke's of this world have rallied particularly to her claims. They agree with them. This tells us something. Now I think this is just "no enemies to my left." Anti-semitism (lots of people), anti-Americanism (Michael Moore, for example), and actually wanting the Iraqi "insurgents" to win (George Galloway) are all fine, as long as these people oppose the war. So here we've got a case where this poor woman has, under the influence of far-left figures, made claims that echo the traditional anti-semitic slanders, and been supported in those claims by some of the most prominent anti-semites in the United States. And guess what? We find out that very prominent members of the anti-war movement - and even ones on the list - are just fine with those statements and the people who make them. This doesn't surprise me, of course. But when someone makes _exactly_ the same statements that David Duke would make _on the traditional topics of anti-semitic slander_, it is, to put it mildly, highly significant, and it tells us something about the people who are willing to exploit her grief for their cause. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
I apologize in advance, because this letter was addressed to someone else. But... Gautam Mukunda wrote: > ...But, of course, it's not a > coincidence that the David Duke's of this world have > rallied particularly to her claims. They agree with > them. This tells us something... It does? I don't quite follow. Shouldn't a claim (of any type) be evaluated for truth or falsity on its merits, rather than incidental factors like the nature of the people who believe in it? I mean, if David Duke suddenly said that he completely supported Newtonian Mechanics, that wouldn't mean that the rest of us had to stop believing in Newton's Laws... Kevin Street -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 8/15/2005 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Kevin Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 2:24 PM Subject: RE: Mindless and Heartless > I apologize in advance, because this letter was addressed to someone else. > But... > > Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > ...But, of course, it's not a > > coincidence that the David Duke's of this world have > > rallied particularly to her claims. They agree with > > them. This tells us something... > > It does? I don't quite follow. Shouldn't a claim (of any type) be evaluated > for truth or falsity on its merits, rather than incidental factors like the > nature of the people who believe in it? I mean, if David Duke suddenly said > that he completely supported Newtonian Mechanics, that wouldn't mean that > the rest of us had to stop believing in Newton's Laws... If David Duke were to state he supported the Copenhaugen school of QM interpretation, I'd make an "even a blind squirrel" statement and laugh it off. But, the political support of Mr. Duke is another matter. I think that it is fair to say that Mr. Duke has his antenna out for chances to promote his anti-Semetic and racist idology. Given the the letter to ABC news contained a classic anti-Semetic claim, and that Mr. Duke weighed in in support, why isn't it reasonable to think that his political sense has not faded with time. Howard Dean, when anti-Semetics tried to jump on the bandwagon, kicked them off. While I think the support of racist anti-Semites doesn't have to guarantee a position is wrong, anyone who places themselves in the political limelight who gets such support needs to be clear that it is very unwanted. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
> Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > What I would ask also is, has the anti-war > movement no > > sense of decency, using this poor woman as a prop > in > > its attempts to attack the President? How do you > >feel rallying to someone supported by David Duke > > (http://www.davidduke.com/index_print.php?p=350) - > it > > seems to me that people willing to exploit a poor, > > bereaved woman as she lashes out to assuage her > >grief should be comfortable in his company. > By this logic, you are on the side of the rednecks > who decided to > "protest" Sheehan by destroying some of the crossces > left near her vigil > point (vandalism is illegal, last time I checked), > and clearly are on > the side of "hunters" who fire off *shotguns* in an > attempt to > intimidate American citizens who have PEACEABLY > ASSEMBLED to protest > something (in many parts of the US it's illegal do > discharge a firearm > within 1/4 mile of a public right-of-way), *and* who > have made it clear > they're not at all happy about their fellow citizens > EXERCISING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. I'm more-or-less neutral on what CS is doing, although as a citizen she has every right to state her opinions publicly. Both sides are 'exploiting' those who support their point of view; at least that's how I see it when tearful families are interviewed and state that their son/daughter/spouse died in a just cause. I still don't think this war was justifiable, but the real problem now is the stunning incompetence with which this administration has conducted the post-phase-one campaign. There is no Iraqi constitution yet, and the three factions want to pull the troika in quite different directions. Civil war is a distinct possibility, from what I have read, and that will be a big US loss. Of course, if they decide that women have less rights than men, or that Iraqi law should reflect fundamentalist Islam, the US also loses. Not to mention women and anybody other than wahabbi Muslims. And now the potential necessity of negotiating with the Ba'athist (sp?) portion of the insurgents looms -- certainly a loss-of-face for the US, although anything that reduces the carnage for Iraqi citizens should be considered very seriously. Debbi Command Voice Please Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:28 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless In the piece cited by this Bush apologist, I do not find the claim of anti-Semitism claim that you assert. He quotes her noting the PNAC pro- Israel basis for the war as a reason that her child died. Do you confuse her rejection of blind support for Israel as anti-Semitism? I guess it is no longer permitted to criticize Israel. I'm sick of people shouting anti-Semitism every time Israel is criticized. That's not what goes on, David. It's when lies about the Jews that have their roots in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (actually they predate that by a good bit but it's the basic source for much of the modern Jewish conspiricy theory comes from) are repeated. One of the classics is that the conspiricy of Jews are secretly controlling the great nations for their own purpose. You mean they're not? ;-) Thank you for the additional information. I'll try to hear such exchanges more clearly in the future. David Dukes recognizes it; why do you think he's supporting her? I haven't concerned myself with David Duke's take on Cindy Sheehan (or anybody else's, really, or David Duke's take on anything else, either). She has attracted a lot of attention, so attention-hounds of many stripes will attach themselves to her. I don't know Cindy directly, but I think I would find her difficult to deal with. After Kevin died, I got to know a lot of different kinds of grieving parents, including those for whom the death of their child became the defining reality of their lives. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Gautam, --- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This guy's head -- and apparently, his heart -- is completely empty. I'd say that that description is much more accurate of the anti-war movement that's cruelly using this poor woman. She went there of her own accord. What others do with that is their choice. Some, like the neo-con echo-chamber, are cruelly abusing her. That's their choice, too. Dave, you flawlessly agree with everything everybody on the antiwar left says. I really don't think the echo-chamber thing is really something you want to bring up. Pathetic. I will not allow the fact that I have a consistent point of view to be held against me. She and a group of others met with him prior to the revelations that this war of choice was entered into on a foundation of lies. She was mildly polite about their last meeting, and has changed her mind as the falsehoods that cost her son his life have piled up. There used to be a photo on her family website of the President kissing her. Possibly she's (at the urging of people like Michael Moore) changed her story? The evidence suggests that this is the case. Cite. But I think her belief that we fought this war for Israel at the behest of a Jewish cabal is pretty obviously anti-semitic. If you believe that, have the balls to say so. If you don't, have the decency to repudiate it. This isn't about my balls, but it helps me see that you are putting this in a "my manhood vs. your manhood" frame, which I find completely useless. I will neither "say so" nor "repudiate" what you think about her beliefs. I'm not in your head -- or your balls. I support people with whom I agree, so I probably wouldn't get behind the Mukundas' pro-war rally. Nonetheless, they would be as much under Maureen Dowd's claim that "The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute." as Cindy Sheehen is. I would disagree with their stated aim, but endorse their right to declare it. That is the most intellectually vapid argument it is possible to make. You have the _right_ to declare that you are an armadillo. No one is suggesting that you don't. The point is, would President Bush (or, say, Howard Dean) be mindless and heartless for refusing to meet with them? You can't have it both ways. Unless you are, of course, mindless and heartless and just using this poor woman to make political points. No, actually, the following is the most intellectually vapid argument it is possible to make: How do you feel rallying to someone supported by David Duke - it seems to me that people willing to exploit a poor, bereaved woman as she lashes out to assuage her grief should be comfortable in his company. ... Well, Dave, line up with the anti-semites and people are going to draw conclusions. I think I said before that I will not play that game with you. I continue to stand by it. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Pathetic. I will not allow the fact that I have a > consistent point of view to be held against me. No, you just hold it against everyone you disagree with. > > But I think her belief that we > > fought this war for Israel at the behest of a > Jewish > > cabal is pretty obviously anti-semitic. If you > > believe that, have the balls to say so. If you > don't, > > have the decency to repudiate it. > > This isn't about my balls, but it helps me see that > you > are putting this in a "my manhood vs. your manhood" > frame, > which I find completely useless. No, it's about intellectual honesty and intellectual courage. It's now pretty clear to me that you _do_ believe these things. This doesn't shock me, and it explains a lot. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Pathetic. I will not allow the fact that I have a consistent point of view to be held against me. No, you just hold it against everyone you disagree with. I'm not even sure what you mean by this. I hold my consistent point of view against everyone I disagree with? I think I hold it regardless of my agreement or disagreement with others. That's what I mean by a "consistent" point of view. But I think her belief that we fought this war for Israel at the behest of a Jewish cabal is pretty obviously anti-semitic. If you believe that, have the balls to say so. If you don't, have the decency to repudiate it. This isn't about my balls, but it helps me see that you are putting this in a "my manhood vs. your manhood" frame, which I find completely useless. No, it's about intellectual honesty and intellectual courage. It's now pretty clear to me that you _do_ believe these things. This doesn't shock me, and it explains a lot. I don't see anything about intellectual honesty or courage in your comment. Just an implied attack on my masculinity if I'm not willing to concur with you. Who brought up having balls? If she made anti-semitic comments, then she spoke poorly in her pain and anger. I don't agree with that facet of her stand. I am so sick of having to state obvious bullshit like "just because I think it was wrong to attack Iraq does not make me an America-hater or a Saddam-lover" or "just because I defend Cindy Sheehan's right to demand that the president talk to her doesn't mean I am a David Duke- loving anti-semite." You want to talk about intellectual dishonesty and cowardice? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:34:58 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > I'd say that that description is much more accurate of > the anti-war movement that's cruelly using this poor > woman. I keep reading about Cindy is being "used" by somebody or other and it is baloney. Cindy is not somebody who does a lot of listening to other people. Cindy does what Cindy wants to do. Suggesting another course of action to Cindy is a good way to set yourself up for frustration. She is a very strong-willed, articulate, pissed-off mother. And although I don't want to remain angry as she has or insist on someone taking the blame for this war as she does, I still am happy to call her a friend. I will distance myself from some of her words, but never from her as a friend. > In this case, you're dealing with someone who > has _already_ met the President, and who also deals in > pathetic anti-Semitism, incidentally. Christopher > Hithens dealt quite well with such things in Slate, > amongst many other people. > http://www.slate.com/id/2124500/ Hitchens didn't have the gall to call her anti-Semitic when he repeated her opinions about Israel's role in the politics of this war. Cindy is not anti-Semitic. As for her meeting the President before, the words that I keep hearing attributed to her are actually the words of her husband, Pat. I know other people who were at those same meetings with Bush, too, and I've been dismayed at how they were treated. My neighbor, Dolores Kesterson, has started talking about her encounter with Bush at the same meeting. She wasn't pleased. > Out of curiosity, had I been killed in Iraq, would > that mean that my parents would then have the right to > demand a _second_ meeting with the President and > insist that he continue the war so that my death was > not wasted, or does such a privilege only go to people > who agree with you? Do you really think that's all this is about? Do you really think Cindy expects Bush to meet with her? I think you're more politically savvy than that. I haven't asked her, but I suspect that Cindy is demanding to hear why her son died precisely because the question is unanswerable by anybody who was part of the decision to go to war. > What I would ask also is, has the anti-war movement no > sense of decency, using this poor woman as a prop in > its attempts to attack the President? How do you feel > rallying to someone supported by David Duke > (http://www.davidduke.com/index_print.php?p=350) - it > seems to me that people willing to exploit a poor, > bereaved woman as she lashes out to assuage her grief > should be comfortable in his company. Hmm. Perhaps I should go back into our archives to recall when you attacked the poor, grieving uncle of a Marine killed in Fallujah? Speaking unofficially for Gold Star Families for Peace, the organization Cindy started and I'm part of, I'll say that we're not looking for your pity. We would like people to grieve and heal *with* us, rather than treating us as if we are merely a small group whose losses are only personal, not losses to the entire nation and world. Cindy has personally asked for people to come to Crawford; nobody else is sending those invitations. She has personally asked for the candlelight vigils tomorrow night. She has asked for the media attention. None of this is second-hand info. I've been in touch with Cindy almost every day since this started and a bit before. Cindy has the spotlight at the moment, but it will fade. The real importance of what she is doing will be how the rest of us respond to all that attention, so that we can grieve and heal together as a country and as a world. -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:37:19 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote > By this logic, you are on the side of the rednecks who decided to > "protest" Sheehan by destroying some of the crosses left near her > vigil point It suddenly dawns on me that I could, if I wish, take that destruction very personally. One of those crosses has Wes' name on it, on a card that I wrote myself. And there are flowers next to it, which I sent last weekend. At least I hope there are still flowers there. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmm. Perhaps I should go back into our archives to > recall when you attacked > the poor, grieving uncle of a Marine killed in > Fallujah? Does that translate as "someone who used someone else's bravery and sacrifice to claim an entirely unearned moral authority in order to influence a debate he couldn't win on the merits?" Because I seem to recall protesting your doing that. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:46:19 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > it tells us something about the > people who are willing to exploit her grief for their cause. How are you so certain that Cindy doesn't believe exactly what she is saying? Where is your evidence for manipulation? She was saying the same things long, long before the national media paid any attention to her. She's been on this crusade for many months and so single-minded about it as to be irritating at times! But now that it's in the news and she's getting lots of support, you imagine that she's some poor pawn, a victim not of the people who rushed to war, but those who oppose it? Could that be any more backwards? Have you seen the rest of story about how she and Pat had strong misgivings about meeting Bush because they disagreed so strongly with the war? Did you know that her son joined to be a chaplain's assistant, not a combatant? How convenient for those with conservative views to paint Cindy as weak and able to be manipulated, rather than as an intelligent, articulate, obsessive crusader against this war. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 3:59 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:28 PM > > Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > > > >> In the piece cited by this Bush apologist, I do not find the claim of > >> anti-Semitism claim that you assert. He quotes her noting the PNAC > >> pro- > >> Israel basis for the war as a reason that her child died. Do you > >> confuse > >> her rejection of blind support for Israel as anti-Semitism? I guess it > >> is no longer permitted to criticize Israel. I'm sick of people > >> shouting > >> anti-Semitism every time Israel is criticized. > > > > That's not what goes on, David. It's when lies about the Jews that > > have > > their roots in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (actually they > > predate that by a good bit but it's the basic source for much of the > > modern Jewish conspiricy theory comes from) are repeated. One of the > > classics is that the conspiricy of Jews are secretly controlling the > > great nations for their own purpose. > > You mean they're not? ;-) Thank you for the additional information. > I'll try to hear such exchanges more clearly in the future. Out of curiosity, how else would you interpret this: Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy.not for the real reason, because the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq.in fact it has gotten worse. It appears to me that this is pretty much in line with David Duke's arguments. One problem with this is the fact that the original group that was called neo-con were Jewish people who changed allegiance to the Republican party when they saw the Democrats as becoming anti-self defense. (I'm not saying that their view is right, but it was their view.) The accusation is, like DB's, a claim of high treason; somewhat akin to the Bircher's claim that Eisenhower and Kennedy were secret Communists. I differ strongly on many points with GWB. But, I would not ally myself with whomever was his enemy. For me, he is not like Hitler was for Churchill (He said "I'm make a pack with the devil himself to defeat Hitler" when asked about working with Stalin.) I'm closer to being on GWB's side than folks who think Milosovitch was a hero. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 4:50 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hmm. Perhaps I should go back into our archives to recall when you attacked the poor, grieving uncle of a Marine killed in Fallujah? Does that translate as "someone who used someone else's bravery and sacrifice to claim an entirely unearned moral authority in order to influence a debate he couldn't win on the merits?" Because I seem to recall protesting your doing that. Did someone give you a wedgie today or something? I mean, welcome back, but sheesh! Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:09:39 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > No, it's about intellectual honesty and intellectual > courage. It's now pretty clear to me that you _do_ > believe these things. This doesn't shock me, and it > explains a lot. Why, that sounds to me like an ad hominem attack, which is frowned upon here and pretty much rules out any chance of reasonable discussion. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 6:44 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:34:58 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > > > I'd say that that description is much more accurate of > > the anti-war movement that's cruelly using this poor > > woman. > > I keep reading about Cindy is being "used" by somebody or other and it is > baloney. Cindy is not somebody who does a lot of listening to other people. > Cindy does what Cindy wants to do. Suggesting another course of action to > Cindy is a good way to set yourself up for frustration. > > She is a very strong-willed, articulate, pissed-off mother. And although I > don't want to remain angry as she has or insist on someone taking the blame > for this war as she does, I still am happy to call her a friend. I will > distance myself from some of her words, but never from her as a friend. > > > In this case, you're dealing with someone who > > has _already_ met the President, and who also deals in > > pathetic anti-Semitism, incidentally. Christopher > > Hithens dealt quite well with such things in Slate, > > amongst many other people. > > http://www.slate.com/id/2124500/ > > Hitchens didn't have the gall to call her anti-Semitic when he repeated her > opinions about Israel's role in the politics of this war. Cindy is not > anti-Semitic. Then why in the world did she repeat one of the great anti-Semetic lies (dating back over 100 years) as certain truth? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:46:19 -0700 (PDT), Gautam > How convenient for those with conservative views to > paint Cindy as weak and > able to be manipulated, rather than as an > intelligent, articulate, obsessive > crusader against this war. > > Nick ...who thinks that it was the product of a Jewish conspiracy launched to protect Israel instead of for the interests of the United States. That is, you know, not a minor point. Not to me, anways. If a very prominent supporter of the war (say, one whose family was killed on 9/11) said that he supported it because he wanted to kill Arabs, I sure as hell wouldn't be lining up behind him. I'd feel sorry for his grief, but I would not be making him _my_ spokesman, and I wouldn't carefully orchestrate a media campaign to make him the face of my movement. Now, you _have_ chosen to do that. That is, of course, your choice. But don't pretend that it's not possible to draw conclusions from that choice either. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:50:55 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > Does that translate as "someone who used someone > else's bravery and sacrifice to claim an entirely > unearned moral authority in order to influence a > debate he couldn't win on the merits?" Because I seem > to recall protesting your doing that. Sounds like just the sort of thing you might have said. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:00:10 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > Then why in the world did she repeat one of the great anti-Semetic lies > (dating back over 100 years) as certain truth? Which would be what? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:09:39 -0700 (PDT), Gautam > Mukunda wrote > > > No, it's about intellectual honesty and > intellectual > > courage. It's now pretty clear to me that you > _do_ > > believe these things. This doesn't shock me, and > it > > explains a lot. > > Why, that sounds to me like an ad hominem attack, > which is frowned upon here > and pretty much rules out any chance of reasonable > discussion. > > Nick How oculd it be so? You and Dave don't even _object_ to those views. If you did, all I'm saying, is, say so. You've had endless opportunities to do it, and you've consistently refused. What am I supposed to think, exactly? It can't be an ad hominem attack if I'm saying you believe in things that _you appear to believe in_. Here's, it's easy, I'll write the post for you myself. "I disagree with the war. I think it was a bad idea, and I think we should leave Iraq immediately. But, whatever the reasons were that we invaded, I don't believe that the war was fought at the behest of Jews who were loyal to Israel instead of the United States. I understand that this echoes one of the oldest tropes of anti-semitism. I don't believe it. I don't support anyone who does believe these things, and I won't choose people who do believe these things as my spokesperson." There, see? Not hard at all. I'm happy to believe that you and Dave weren't even _aware_ of these parts of her views. Except, now, you are...and I notice that neither of you has lifted a finger to even disavow the _views_, much less the person expressing them. So what, exactly, am I supposed to think? Everything I wrote above would be something that any reasonable war opponent should believe and do. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 5:01 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: ...who thinks that it was the product of a Jewish conspiracy launched to protect Israel instead of for the interests of the United States. That is, you know, not a minor point. Not to me, anways. If a very prominent supporter of the war (say, one whose family was killed on 9/11) said that he supported it because he wanted to kill Arabs, I sure as hell wouldn't be lining up behind him. Show me where Cindy Sheehan has said anything even remotely as offensive as your cooked-up example. I'd feel sorry for his grief, but I would not be making him _my_ spokesman, and I wouldn't carefully orchestrate a media campaign to make him the face of my movement. She made herself her own spokesperson, or are you still deluded enough to believe that she was somehow duped into this? Now, you _have_ chosen to do that. That is, of course, your choice. But don't pretend that it's not possible to draw conclusions from that choice either. From the choices you've made today -- ad hominem attacks, guilt by association, putting words into Cindy Sheehan's mouth, I draw the conclusion that you and your kind are scared shitless of her and the attention she's bringing to this completely unjustified war of aggression. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/16/2005 1:41:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >I'd say that that description is much more > >accurate of the anti-war > >>movement that's cruelly using this poor woman. > So let me get this straight. Someone puts the president in an uncomfortable position and somehow the "left" is accused of using this "poor" woman. The fact that he is on vacation (for five weeks) while we are at war is not the fault of the "left". It is he who is not sacrificing his own comfort in a time of war (he is a war president right. So we must support him. But wait should not a war president act like he is a war? Is this how we would expect our leaders to lead? ). And by the way if the left is "exploiting" this woman (whose views I do not agree with and who it seems to me is grandstanding) what would you call the right's response to the Terry Schiavo trajedy and travesty. Now here was someone who was exploited. Shamelessly, by the right by the president and his brother. This was tragic for her husband and for her. We have only one image of this woman. A horrible image not of hope or life but of a human without consciousness. Fine legacy. So if you are going to get on your high horse how about taking a look at the right. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> So if you are going to get on your high horse how > about taking a look at the > right. But, of course, I did. I don't recall if I posted on list about it, but I thought the Terri Schiavo thing was outrageous, and I said so in quite a few places. I don't have any problem looking at the right. That's the difference. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/16/2005 2:07:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > So he's > staying the course and ignoring anyone who criticizes his policies. I'm > afraid that Ms. Sheehan isn't going to get any satisfaction from Mr. Bush, > no matter how long she waits for him. > > She does not want satisfaction. She wants to embarass him and she is succeeding ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:05 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:00:10 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > Then why in the world did she repeat one of the great anti-Semetic lies > > (dating back over 100 years) as certain truth? > > Which would be what? > The Jews are secretly controlling nations, banks, etc. to run the world for their own purposes. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/16/2005 2:46:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > So here we've got a case > where this poor woman has, under the influence of > far-left figures, made claims that echo the > traditional anti-semitic slanders, and been supported > in those claims by some of the most prominent > anti-semites in the United States. And guess what? > We find out that very prominent members of the > anti-war movement - and even ones on the list - are > just fine with those statements and the people who > make them. This doesn't surprise me, of course. But > when someone makes _exactly_ the same statements that > David Duke would make _on the traditional topics of > anti-semitic slander_, it is, to put it mildly, highly > significant, and it tells us something about the > people who are willing to exploit her grief for their cause. > She does not strike me as a poor woman. And saying that she is causing the president problems does imply endorsement of her views. I find them foolish or worse. But some of us find it delightful that Bush is being out manuevered by this woman when he has spent his entire presidency manipulating the public shamelessly and outmanuevering his oponents. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: How oculd it be so? You and Dave don't even _object_ to those views. If you did, all I'm saying, is, say so. OK. For the record. I object to simplistic explanations of our reasons for going to war with Iraq, be they "but he was a brutal dictator" or "but he might have had WMDs" or "no blood for oil" or "it was all for Israel." They're all wrong, because they're all grossly incomplete. You've had endless opportunities to do it, and you've consistently refused. What am I supposed to think, exactly? It can't be an ad hominem attack if I'm saying you believe in things that _you appear to believe in_. You say that Nick and I believe something, then demand that we refute it. Bullshit. Have I stopped beating my wife? Here's, it's easy, I'll write the post for you myself. "I disagree with the war. I think it was a bad idea, and I think we should leave Iraq immediately. But, whatever the reasons were that we invaded, I don't believe that the war was fought at the behest of Jews who were loyal to Israel instead of the United States. I understand that this echoes one of the oldest tropes of anti-semitism. I don't believe it. I don't support anyone who does believe these things, and I won't choose people who do believe these things as my spokesperson." No, but how about this: "I disagree with the war. I think and have always thought that it was a bad idea, and we should remove our troops as soon as practical. We have damaged their infrastructure and disrupted their society too much to leave them in the state in which we've put them. We have a moral obligation to help them re-establish the kind of government that *they* would choose for themselves. Whatever the reasons were for invading, I am certain that it was not solely at the behest of Jews, Arabs, oil interests, the military- industrial complex, Jesus, avenging George's Daddy, or any other single individual, group or idea. I know that Gautam is desperate to paint me as an anti-semite, but I think that even he knows that dog don't hunt, so he writes some hogwash that I wouldn't say for love or money, and I sure as hell wouldn't choose him as my spokesperson." There, see? Not hard at all. I'm happy to believe that you and Dave weren't even _aware_ of these parts of her views. Except, now, you are...and I notice that neither of you has lifted a finger to even disavow the _views_, much less the person expressing them. So what, exactly, am I supposed to think? You're not even reading our messages now. You're just shouting the same crap louder and louder. At 4:36 PDT, I wrote: "If she made anti-semitic comments, then she spoke poorly in her pain and anger. I don't agree with that facet of her stand." I not only acknowledged the possibility of the reality of your interpretation of her comments, but I denounced them. Is there some further act of contrition that I have failed to complete? Talk about self-appointed arbiters of right and wrong... Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:25 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > She does not strike me as a poor woman. And saying that she is causing the > president problems does imply endorsement of her views. I find them foolish or > worse. But some of us find it delightful that Bush is being out manuevered by > this woman when he has spent his entire presidency manipulating the public > shamelessly and outmanuevering his oponents. I think your take on her not being manipulated is fairly accurate. But, the start of this thread was how heartless and mindless Bush is to not meet with her. That I think is inaccurate. Out of curiosity, why does your delight at her outmaneuvering Bush in PR overcome your disgust for anti-Semitism. (I read into "foolish or worse" that you don't differ with my reading of the statement of her's that I quoted. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Did someone give you a wedgie today or something? > > I mean, welcome back, but sheesh! > > Dave No. not at all. I'm going to repost something I wrote a while ago, which got _no_ response from you or Nick, about why the way you two argue bothers me so much. "I'm going to make one rather more delicate point, I think. Two of my best friends on this list are devout Christians. In Real Life, several of my best friends are devout Evangelicals, Orthodox Catholics, or even Fundamentalists. I have never felt uncomfortable with their way of explaining how their faith informs their beliefs about politics, even when that meant that we very strongly disagreed in our views on government policies. I, as a non-Christian, find President Bush's expressions of faith and how it informs his policies to be remarkably welcoming, in fact. But, to be blunt, the way in which you use faith - stripped, so far as I can tell, from rational analysis of means and ends - makes my skin crawl, which is one of the main reasons I think you often get such an emotional response from me. The conflation of all types of moral analysis with that that of your own particular religious principles is one thing - the second is the consistent failure to acknowledge that just having faith that something will happen is not a policy. God does not, so far as I can tell, intervene to make the government policies I want successful just because I believe in Him. The best I can do is support policies that history and political science and every other type of knowledge and analysis tell me might work and that are as ethical as I can make them, in the hope that, as Lincoln said, this puts me on His side. But arguing that I should - in this case - not go to war because God is opposed to war (maybe he is, but I think and pray that He is opposed to other things far more than He is to war) and therefore I should do other things (like your council of churches plan) that could work only if He directly intervenes on this earth in a way that He certainly didn't in the last fifty years for European Jews, or Guatemalans, or Cambodians, or Russians, or Chinese, or Rwandans, or Kosovars, or Bosnian Muslims - that, it seems to me, is arguing that your faith dictates specific policy in a way that I have never seen (for example) the President do. I can't really see how it's different, in fact, from saying we should do this because God told you that's what to do, and that's not an attitude that's healthy for democracy, or safe for those of us who are religious minorities in the world's most tolerant and diverse democracy." In this case, here's what I hear you and Nick doing. You are right to oppose the war. You are as sure that you are right as you are sure of anything. So anything anyone who opposes the war does is okay. Make the hoariest of anti-semitic slanders? No problem. You're right, everyone else is not just wrong, they're going _against the will of God_. Now, if moral authority comes from dying in Iraq, then I don't have any. Neither does anyone else on list, for obvious reasons. But let's be clear. I volunteered to work as a privatization advisor in Baghdad who would spend most of their time outside the secured areas. My PhD advisor (very well connected in the military and government) initially supported my decision to volunteer to go. When he found out what job I was up for, he did everything he could to stop me, because he thought "You'll probably face more than a 5% risk of being killed." I still tried to go. I am not amused at being told that we went to war because a bunch of Jews in the government were loyal to Israel. I'm not clear how the uncle of someone who died there gets exclusive claim to opine on the war either. I am deeply sorry for your loss, Nick, but I don't think that the above gives me any special claim at all on the war, so I don't think you get one either, and I don't appreciate being told that I'm not even allowed to disagree with you. I don't think it's too much to ask that people who disagree with my position on the war don't support figures who make anti-semitic statements, and don't claim that their position is the only moral one, and I certainly don't think it's inappropriate to be wary at those who (so far as I can tell) claim the endorsement of God Himself for their beliefs later on. Particularly when this is my second time explaining this, since the first effort got exactly no response. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Out of curiosity, why does your delight at her outmaneuvering Bush in PR overcome your disgust for anti-Semitism. Whatever Sheehan might think, you need to be damned sure she actually is anti-semitic before you start issuing claims that she is. It's possible that she feels she's got evidence to support the claim that Iraq was about Israel (I'm more inclined to think it's about SA, but that's me). It's even possible to support a lot of what she's doing *without* supporting statements that MAY OR MAY NOT BE legitimately anti-semitic. And it's possible to carry on a rational dialogue with those you don't agree with *without* trying to paint them as Klansmen. (You should try it.) One of the most worthless things ANYONE can throw around is an unfounded charge of racism. It would be nice if you could elevate yourself just enough to change this tune some, because the one-note song you've been playing in post after post after post is getting monotonous. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/16/2005 7:37:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > No, it's about intellectual honesty and intellectual > >courage. It's now pretty clear to me that you _do_ > >believe these things. This doesn't shock me, and it > >explains a lot. I find these sort of ad hominum arguements offensive and pointless. Someone can be honest and still disagree with you. It adds nothing to your arguement except to make you look bad. > > I don't see anything about intellectual honesty or > courage in your comment. Just an implied attack on > my masculinity if I'm not willing to concur with you. > Who brought up having balls? > > If she made anti-semitic comments, then she spoke > poorly in her pain and anger. I don't agree with that > facet of her stand. There is no excuse for anti-semitic remarks like this. And peole should not excuse this. > > I am so sick of having to state obvious bullshit like > "just because I think it was wrong to attack Iraq does > not make me an America-hater or a Saddam-lover" or "just > because I defend Cindy Sheehan's right to demand that > the president talk to her doesn't mean I am a David Duke- > loving anti-semite." > > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 5:22 PM, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:05 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:00:10 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Then why in the world did she repeat one of the great anti-Semetic lies (dating back over 100 years) as certain truth? Which would be what? The Jews are secretly controlling nations, banks, etc. to run the world for their own purposes. Cite her statement that Jews are secretly controlling nations, banks, etc. Remember, she said "Israel," which is NOT universally equivalent to or representative of Judaism. I believe that there is no shortage of observant Jews who consider the modern nation-state of Israel to be goy, and not the modern equivalent of ancient Israel, the people of God. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 16, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > Here's, it's easy, I'll write the post for you > myself. > > "I disagree with the war. I think it was a bad > idea, > > and I think we should leave Iraq immediately. > But, > > whatever the reasons were that we invaded, I don't > > believe that the war was fought at the behest of > Jews > > who were loyal to Israel instead of the United > States. > > I understand that this echoes one of the oldest > > tropes of anti-semitism. I don't believe it. I > don't > > support anyone who does believe these things, and > I > > won't choose people who do believe these things as > my > > spokesperson." > > No, but how about this: > > "I disagree with the war. I think and have always > thought > that it was a bad idea, and we should remove our > troops > as soon as practical. We have damaged their > infrastructure > and disrupted their society too much to leave them > in the > state in which we've put them. We have a moral > obligation > to help them re-establish the kind of government > that > *they* would choose for themselves. Whatever the > reasons > were for invading, I am certain that it was not > solely at > the behest of Jews, Arabs, oil interests, the > military- > industrial complex, Jesus, avenging George's Daddy, > or > any other single individual, group or idea. I know > that > Gautam is desperate to paint me as an anti-semite, > but I > think that even he knows that dog don't hunt, so he > writes some hogwash that I wouldn't say for love or > money, > and I sure as hell wouldn't choose him as my > spokesperson." "...[w]as not solely at the behest of Jews..." What particular part of my statement did you disagree with, other than the part saying that dual loyalties had _nothing_ to do with the war? When I try to work for the government, are you going to oppose it on the grounds that I can't be trusted not to value the interests of India over those of the US? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:45 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > On Aug 16, 2005, at 5:22 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:05 PM > > Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > > > > > >> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:00:10 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > >> > >>> Then why in the world did she repeat one of the great anti-Semetic > >>> lies > >>> (dating back over 100 years) as certain truth? > >> > >> Which would be what? > >> > > > > The Jews are secretly controlling nations, banks, etc. to run the > > world for > > their own purposes. > > Cite her statement that Jews are secretly controlling nations, banks, > etc. So, saying that GWB was influenced by traitorous Jews to hurt the US in order to support Israel is not anti-Semitic? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:39 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > On Aug 16, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > Out of curiosity, why does your > > delight at her outmaneuvering Bush in PR overcome your disgust for > > anti-Semitism. > > Whatever Sheehan might think, you need to be damned sure she actually > is anti-semitic before you start issuing claims that she is. I actually wrote that she repeated an anti-Semetic lie. I don't know what is in her head. But, it's enough to make me a bit wary. Anyways, IIRC, you've _called me_ homophobic for differing with you. My lesbian daughter laughed herself silly when she heard that. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 5:52 PM, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:39 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless On Aug 16, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Out of curiosity, why does your delight at her outmaneuvering Bush in PR overcome your disgust for anti-Semitism. Whatever Sheehan might think, you need to be damned sure she actually is anti-semitic before you start issuing claims that she is. I actually wrote that she repeated an anti-Semetic lie. And you haven't, so far as I've seen, offered a cite to back up the claim. I don't know what is in her head. But, it's enough to make me a bit wary. Anyways, IIRC, you've _called me_ homophobic for differing with you. My lesbian daughter laughed herself silly when she heard that. I'm very happy for you. You have a great memory for times you feel you've been wronged. But how does that affect the validity of the spanking I gave you regarding your single-pointed non-argument? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:59 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > On Aug 16, 2005, at 5:52 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:39 PM > > Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > > > > > >> On Aug 16, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > >> > >>> Out of curiosity, why does your > >>> delight at her outmaneuvering Bush in PR overcome your disgust for > >>> anti-Semitism. > >> > >> Whatever Sheehan might think, you need to be damned sure she actually > >> is anti-semitic before you start issuing claims that she is. > > > > I actually wrote that she repeated an anti-Semetic lie. > > And you haven't, so far as I've seen, offered a cite to back up the > claim. I quoted her. You think that claiming that Jews got the president to support Israel instead of looking out for the best interest of the US is not anti-Semetic? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/16/2005 8:12:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> From the choices you've made today -- ad hominem
> attacks, guilt by association, putting words into Cindy
> Sheehan's mouth, I draw the conclusion that you and your
> kind are scared shitless of her and the attention she's
> bringing to this completely unjustified war of
> aggression
So let me put my big jewish mouth into this portion of the debate. I agree
completely with Gautam here. She is saying there is a jewish conspiracy to help
Israel. That good american boys have died in the service of this conspiracy.
This is precisley the uber anti-semitic arguement that has been around for as
long as jews have been persecuted and murdered by christians. It is Jewish
bankers controlling the world bs, the blood libel (jews are supposed to kill
inocent christians for blood used in their rituals.). You make this arguement
you
are an anti-semite. Note that you can hold this belief and still be nice to
individuals ("some of my best friends are jewish") but stating this belief you
put yourself in the same camp as the monsters who have done horrible deads in
the past.
Let me ask you Nick. Do you think that we are in this war to protect Israel?
Are we in this war at the behest of a jewish cabal? If not then this view must
be repudiated. Because being against the war is not enough. I can be against
the war because I want all muslims to continue to suffer under oppressive
murderous regimes or because I think women should be suppressed. Do you side
with
me if I hold these views? If you are in contact with Cindy please tell her how
hurtful her remarks are to jews like myself who are not neocons. Please
explain her the provinence of her views. Maybe while she is on her vigil she
can
read "Constantine's Cross" to see how arguements like hers have existed for
over a thousand years and have been used to persecute and murder jews.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/16/2005 8:15:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > But, of course, I did. I don't recall if I posted on > list about it, but I thought the Terri Schiavo thing > was outrageous, and I said so in quite a few places. > I don't have any problem looking at the right. That's > the difference. > > The difference between what and what? You may have thought it outrageous but you did not at least as far as I remember get worked up about it here. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Dan Minette wrote: the start of this thread was how heartless and mindless Bush is to not meet with her. That I think is inaccurate. As the one who started this thread, I think I have some standing to assert that it was *not* about how heartless and mindless Bush is to refuse to meet with her, but how heartless and mindless his manner of dismissing her shows him to be. Frankly, I don't understand why the no-doubt-brilliant writers that support the president haven't come up with a sensitive, but firm way for him to honor her loss, express his genuine sense of the magnitude of the pain that his decisions have wrought, but decline to speak to her. If I worked for him, you can damn well believe I'd have come up with those words by now, and they sure as heck wouldn't have cited the president's need to get on with his life and maintain his exercise regimen. I mean, shit: If Gautam can write a speech for me and Nick to denounce our imaginary anti-semitism, why the frick can't they come up with a speech for the president? "My fellow Americans. You're no doubt aware that a group of protesters, led by the mother of one of our honored military dead, has gathered on the road outside my ranch here in Crawford. She has repeatedly demanded that I meet with her so she can ask me why it was that her son had to die. I believe that it is a question that nobody could answer: Why should anyone have to bury their child? There is no way to give a satisfactory answer to a question of that magnitude. She says that she wants to know what was the "noble cause" for which Casey Sheehan died. That, I can tell you... He could totally do this. What's more, I think he SHOULD do it, and not for Cindy Sheehan, but for the nation and for himself. It is time for him to set aside the chuckling good ol' boy and stand up and be a statesman. He has cost this nation nearly 2000 young lives, left many times that many disabled, and many times more emotionally wounded. He made the "tough decisions" that are demanded of the president of the US, and now he should be prepared to stand behind those decisions, to bear the weight of them. He has cost this nation priceless international prestige and respect. Show us what all those lives and all that pain and all that loss has bought. If nothing else, show that it meant something -- anything -- to him. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 6:03 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Whatever Sheehan might think, you need to be damned sure she actually is anti-semitic before you start issuing claims that she is. I actually wrote that she repeated an anti-Semetic lie. And you haven't, so far as I've seen, offered a cite to back up the claim. I quoted her. You mean this?: Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy.not for the real reason, because the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq.in fact it has gotten worse. Where's the reference? You think that claiming that Jews got the president to support Israel instead of looking out for the best interest of the US is not anti-Semetic? If she had said "the Jews got the president to support Israel…" then I'd wonder a little about her sanity, at the very least; but then I suspect losing a child can make one loopy for a while. However, as (IIRC) Nick pointed out, she didn't say anything about Jews, but about Israel, which is a *nation*, not an ethnic group. Suggesting she's anti-semitic because she believes (for whatever reason, and supported only by a quote with no current provenance in this discussion) in an improbable conspiracy is a little like claiming one is anti-black because one doesn't like how Somalia is being torn apart from the inside, or anti-Arab for saying that Saddam was a bad man, or anti-Asian for suggesting that Kim Jong Il is a dangerous lunatic who is trying to destroy his own nation. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/16/2005 8:34:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I think your take on her not being manipulated is fairly accurate. But, > the start of this thread was how heartless and mindless Bush is to not meet > with her. That I think is inaccurate. Out of curiosity, why does your > delight at her outmaneuvering Bush in PR overcome your disgust for > anti-Semitism. (I read into "foolish or worse" that you don't differ with > my reading of the statement of her's that I quoted. > Since I was unaware of her anti-semitic remarks before joining the thread tonight and not seen a complete quote I was non-commital. Having seen the more complete quote posted here I think it is worse than worse. It is horrible and malignant. It needs to be denounced. This woman has no moral authority as far as I am concerned. Neither does Bush. I guess in this case the enemy of my enemy of my enemy is my enemy. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 6:09 PM, Dave Land wrote: It is time for him to set aside the chuckling good ol' boy and stand up and be a statesman. Dave, it's possible that he *can't*, any more than a leopard's spots are elective. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 5:48 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: "...[w]as not solely at the behest of Jews..." What particular part of my statement did you disagree with, other than the part saying that dual loyalties had _nothing_ to do with the war? I think my re-write was pretty clear. You keep trying to force me to deny something that I never said I believe. You will fail utterly in that attempt. I completely and utterly reject the claim that we went to war with Iraq solely or mainly for some kind of Jewish conspiracy. I cited a bunch of other horse-poop single reasons that people have given for our going to war. We went to war for a myriad of reasons, many of them based on lies. It may well be that some of them were even valid. But those weren't the ones that the president and company used to sell their war. When I try to work for the government, are you going to oppose it on the grounds that I can't be trusted not to value the interests of India over those of the US? Where did you get such a ridiculous idea? Have I ever even once questioned your loyalty to this country? This is insane. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 6:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree completely with Gautam here. She is saying there is a jewish conspiracy to help Israel. Point of information: Gautam is decidedly male. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:09 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > On Aug 16, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > the start of this thread was how heartless and mindless Bush is to not > > meet > > with her. That I think is inaccurate. > > As the one who started this thread, I think I have some standing to > assert that it was *not* about how heartless and mindless Bush is to > refuse to meet with her, but how heartless and mindless his manner of > dismissing her shows him to be. Well, that's how I read the titleand how I read: "This guy's head -- and apparently, his heart -- is completely empty." I won't argue that I got what you meantbut can you see why I interpreted this line as referring to him directly. > Frankly, I don't understand why the no-doubt-brilliant writers that > support the president haven't come up with a sensitive, but firm way for > him to honor her loss, express his genuine sense of the magnitude of the > pain that his decisions have wrought, but decline to speak to her. If I > worked for him, you can damn well believe I'd have come up with those > words by now, and they sure as heck wouldn't have cited the president's > need to get on with his life and maintain his exercise regimen. I saw him say almost those exact words on TV, when he adressed her position directly. He said she had every right to believe what she did and to say what she said and that he realized what a horrible loss she had. He also sent his National Security Advisor to talk to her. I didn't see him answer why he was exercising when she was waiting, but that is a bit of a silly question. It's a good idea for the president to get exercise. Do you want President Cheney? :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:12 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless >However, as (IIRC) Nick pointed out, she didn't say anything about >Jews, but about Israel, which is a *nation*, not an ethnic group. As I mentioned before, the neo-cons she is referring to are (mostly) Jewish. There's been a lot of talk about them as Jews who's first loyalty is to Israel, not the US. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/16/2005 8:40:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > It's possible that she feels she's got evidence to support the claim > that Iraq was about Israel (I'm more inclined to think it's about SA, > but that's me). It's even possible to support a lot of what she's doing > *without* supporting statements that MAY OR MAY NOT BE legitimately > anti-semitic. And it's possible to carry on a rational dialogue with > those you don't agree with *without* trying to paint them as Klansmen. > (You should try it.) > You need to read some history. This is the standard anti-semitic arguement. Even thinking that someone like Wolfowitz could get us into the war to protect Israel is absurd. It is true that the neo-cons support Israel in part because they are Jews but also in part because Israel embodies many of their beliefs about democracy. But why would Bush and Chaney and Rumsfeld do their bidding. The Bushes are old new england wasps in the oil busy who are way too friendly to the Saudis. Do you really think they could be duped by a bunch of crafty jews? Even stating that "she feels she got evidence" is a copout. There is no credible evidence. This is anti-semitic garbage and you honor it by trying to be "fair". Is Israel part of the Iraq equation? Maybe. But remember it was not the Iraqis who provided most of the support for the Palastinian fighters. It was and is Iran, the Saudis the Syrians. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/16/2005 8:45:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Remember, she said "Israel," which is NOT universally equivalent to or > representative of Judaism. I believe that there is no shortage of > observant Jews who consider the modern nation-state of Israel to be goy, > and not the modern equivalent of ancient Israel, the people of God. No good. This is the standard anti-semitic disclaimer. I hate Israel not the jews.But who is manipulating the US to help Israel. American neocon jews. As to how jews view this type of remark. Trust me; we know anti-semitism when we see it. > > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:13 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > In a message dated 8/16/2005 8:34:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Since I was unaware of her anti-semitic remarks before joining the thread > tonight and not seen a complete quote I was non-commital. Having seen the more > complete quote posted here I think it is worse than worse. It is horrible and > malignant. It needs to be denounced. Now, I understand. Thanks for clearing up my confusion. I admit, I also found Bush being outspun by an novice a bit entertaining myself, until this bit of nastyness came forth. It's kinda like seeing Tiger Woods being beaten in match play by a club pro, kinda pulling for the club pro, and then hearing the club pro spout racist nonsense that makes you feel unclean for wanting him to beat Tiger. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/16/2005 9:09:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I mean, shit: If Gautam can write a speech for me and Nick to denounce > our imaginary anti-semitism, why the frick can't they come up with a > speech for the president? Please understand that your people have been very bad to my people for over a milenium. The arguements are the same then as now. Pardon me for being a bit touchy about this but when good people let these things slide my people end up dead. When you fail to denounce blatant anti-semitism; when you make excuses for people who make these remarks you are an accessory to the crime. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/16/2005 9:12:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was > killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son > joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know > full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were > betrayed > by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after > 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists > hate our freedoms and democracy.not for the real reason, because the > Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. > That > hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq.in fact it has > gotten worse. > > > > Where's the reference? > > >You think that claiming that Jews got the president to > >support Israel instead of looking out for the best interest of the US > >is > >not anti-Semetic? > > If she had said "the Jews got the president to support Israel…" then > I'd wonder a little about her sanity, at the very least; but then I > suspect losing a child can make one loopy for a while. > > However, as (IIRC) Nick pointed out, she didn't say anything about > Jews, but about Israel, which is a *nation*, not an ethnic group. So let me get this straight. She blames the Neocons (many of whom are jews; the movement was founded by jewish intellectuals. So the neocons (who are jews) got the president to support the war to aid Israel (by the way in what way does this war aid Israel?) Once again the arguement that I am against Israel not the Jews is usually a copout for anti-semitism. > Suggesting she's anti-semitic because she believes (for whatever > reason, and supported only by a quote with no current provenance in > this discussion) in an improbable conspiracy She apparently believes that this is the major reason for the war,. Not a trivial thing. is a little like claiming > one is anti-black because one doesn't like how > Somalia is being torn apart from the inside, or anti-Arab for saying that > Saddam was a bad > man, or anti-Asian for suggesting that Kim Jong Il is a dangerous > lunatic who is trying to destroy his own nation. > > For once have to agree with Gautam about intellectually dishonset > arguements. This is not the same as saying that Kim Jong is dangerous is an > anti-asian > statement. it is about saying that jews in the US got the US to go to war in > Iraq to protect Israel. > > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 6:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/16/2005 9:09:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I mean, shit: If Gautam can write a speech for me and Nick to denounce our imaginary anti-semitism, why the frick can't they come up with a speech for the president? Please understand that your people have been very bad to my people for over a milenium. The arguements are the same then as now. Pardon me for being a bit touchy about this but when good people let these things slide my people end up dead. When you fail to denounce blatant anti-semitism; when you make excuses for people who make these remarks you are an accessory to the crime. "your people"? You mean the Land family? People from Pittsburgh? Parents who, like me, have lost a child? People in mixed-race marriages? Left-handers? People who use Macintosh? Oh, you mean goyim. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/16/2005 9:20:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I agree completely with Gautam here. She is saying there is a jewish > >conspiracy to help Israel. > > Gautam isn't saying it Sheridan is. > Point of information: Gautam is decidedly male. > > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 6:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please understand that your people have been very bad to my people for over a milenium. The arguements are the same then as now. Pardon me for being a bit touchy about this but when good people let these things slide my people end up dead. When you fail to denounce blatant anti-semitism; when you make excuses for people who make these remarks you are an accessory to the crime. Yes, I have stopped beating my wife. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/16/2005 9:39:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > your people"? > > You mean the Land family? People from Pittsburgh? Parents who, like me, > have lost a child? People in mixed-race marriages? Left-handers? People > who > use Macintosh? > > Oh, you mean goyim. > > Yes in fact I do mean the goyim. Because it is an historical fact that until the 19th century jews were persecuted by christians routinely and in all countries of europe. In the 20th century it was a few countries but they did quite a job on us. I used dramatic licence so you could understand how these remarks effect jews. assimilated non-religous jews married to women brought up catholic. If you want to understand this you have to read about it a bit. For most jews there is no black and white here. Your glib remarks not withstanding I want you to understand that this behavior is anti-semitic precisely because it was people who claimed to hold nothing against jews did nothing to prevent carnage and cruelty over and over again. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/16/2005 9:45:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Please understand that your people have been very bad to my people for > >over a > >milenium. The arguements are the same then as now. Pardon me for being > >a bit > >touchy about this but when good people let these things slide my > >people end up > >dead. When you fail to denounce blatant anti-semitism; when you make > >excuses > >for people who make these remarks you are an accessory to the crime. > > Yes, I have stopped beating my wife. > > Glib responses to an honest attempt to explain why I feel the way I feel does not advance your arguement. This is not a trick question. She needs to be denounced for these statements. They are not trivial or beside the point. And note that while you take offense to me lumping you in with others, I take offense at the original parts of this thread where you did not come out and say that her statements were horrible and wrong. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Dan Minette wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Kevin Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 2:24 PM > Subject: RE: Mindless and Heartless > > >> I apologize in advance, because this letter was addressed to >> someone >> else. But... >> >> Gautam Mukunda wrote: >>> ...But, of course, it's not a >>> coincidence that the David Duke's of this world have >>> rallied particularly to her claims. They agree with >>> them. This tells us something... >> >> It does? I don't quite follow. Shouldn't a claim (of any type) be >> evaluated for truth or falsity on its merits, rather than >> incidental >> factors like the nature of the people who believe in it? I mean, if >> David Duke suddenly said that he completely supported Newtonian >> Mechanics, that wouldn't mean that the rest of us had to stop >> believing in Newton's Laws... > > If David Duke were to state he supported the Copenhaugen school of > QM > interpretation, I'd make an "even a blind squirrel" statement and > laugh it off. But, the political support of Mr. Duke is another > matter. I think that it is fair to say that Mr. Duke has his antenna > out for chances to promote his anti-Semetic and racist idology. > Given the the letter to ABC news contained a classic anti-Semetic > claim, and that Mr. Duke weighed in in support, why isn't it > reasonable to think that his political sense has not faded with > time. > > Howard Dean, when anti-Semetics tried to jump on the bandwagon, > kicked them off. While I think the support of racist anti-Semites > doesn't have to guarantee a position is wrong, anyone who places > themselves in the political limelight who gets such support needs to > be clear that it is very unwanted. > And of course we need to hold people like Sheehan to the same vigorous standards we hold professional polititians. xponent Don't Try This At Home Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:07 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > And of course we need to hold people like Sheehan to the same vigorous > standards we hold professional polititians. She is outspinning GWB. Would you give Michelle Wie mulligans? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Dave Land wrote: You say that Nick and I believe something, then demand that we refute it. Bullshit. Have I stopped beating my wife? Did she say the safeword? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:10:40 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > It can't be an ad hominem attack if > I'm saying you believe in things that _you appear to > believe in_. It is an ad hominem when you say that we are intellectually cowardly and dishonest. > There, see? Not hard at all. I'm happy to believe > that you and Dave weren't even _aware_ of these parts > of her views. Gautam, I actually have sat with Cindy and heard what she has to say about Israel. I'm telling you that she's not anti-Semitic. I'm not going to go along with your notion that I need to disavow her anti-Semitism because it simply doesn't exist. She has oversimplified the role of Israel in the politics of the war, in my view. That's Israel, the nation, not Jews as an ethnic or religious group. Cindy is not some sort of astute political analyst, nor do I think anyone should expect her to be so. She is putting a mother's face on the brutality of the war, which I think we easily lose sight of as we defend the nobility of our nation's values. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
> > > Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was > killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son > joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know > full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were > betrayed > by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after > 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists > hate our freedoms and democracy.not for the real reason, because the > Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. > That > hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq.in fact it has > gotten worse. > > I don't see this as a statement necessarily directed against Jews, and I think people are reading a lot of stuff between the lines that may not be there. But it is an emotive subject, so that is to be expected I guess. I don't agree with it necessarily, but until someone can put forward a cogent argument as to why Iraq was invaded, it is not surprising that people who suffered directly try to find some reason for their sons dying. And does she have a point about hatred of US Mid-East policy being behind 9/11? Be that anti-Semitic or otherwise, is there any truth in it? And is she entitled to have that opinion, and to express it? Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:22:20 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > The Jews are secretly controlling nations, banks, etc. to run the > world for their own purposes. Cite, please. But I'm quite sure that you won't find one, since I know that Cindy doesn't say or believe anything of the sort. She sees our country being unduly aligned with Israel, the nation. I don't begrudge her that opinion, but I don't put a lot of weight on it, either. I have always found her surprisingly well informed and so she might know a great deal about this. She is not a paranoid conspiracy theory kind of person. Are you really saying that for anybody to suggest that Israel has a lot of influence in Washington is the same as saying that there is a century-long conspiracy theory about the Jewish people? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:33:33 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > I think your take on her not being manipulated is fairly accurate. > But, the start of this thread was how heartless and mindless Bush > is to not meet with her. I don't think that was the point at all. It was about him saying that he has to get on with his life, which seemed like what a grieving parent would say, not what the leader of the free world should say to a grieving parent. It sounds a lot like, "Thanks for your son who gave his life for our country. Best always, George Bush." That's pretty much what he scribbled on the back of a photo of a dead Army pilot, after the soldier's mother told him how little she thought of him. "Best always?" What was he thinking? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:36:32 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > I don't appreciate being told that I'm not > even allowed to disagree with you. Fantastic. Just fantastic. As in fantasy. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 6:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes in fact I do mean the goyim. Because it is an historical fact that until the 19th century jews were persecuted by christians routinely and in all countries of europe. Shall we play The Oppressed Minority game? 'Cause unless you're ALSO gay I have you beaten fair and square on that front. Or are we going to stop being so goddamned infantile and TRY to have a rational discussion? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
FTR, this is the only portion of your note that I thought was worthy of any sort of reply. On Aug 16, 2005, at 6:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is Israel part of the Iraq equation? Maybe. But remember it was not the Iraqis who provided most of the support for the Palastinian fighters. It was and is Iran, the Saudis the Syrians. It would be hard to believe any Israeli involvement in any way at all, unless Halliburton is an Israeli property. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:48:24 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > So, saying that GWB was influenced by traitorous Jews to hurt the US > in order to support Israel is not anti-Semitic? What a straw man we have here! Nobody has said anything of the sort and you're just fanning the fires by adding such language to the discussion. Keep conflating Israel and the Jewish people and you'll stir things up plenty. I prefer if you would not. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:05:41 EDT, Bemmzim wrote > So let me put my big jewish mouth into this portion of the debate. I > agree completely with Gautam here. She is saying there is a jewish > conspiracy to help Israel. Find me one place where she said anything remotely resembling "conspiracy" and I might respond to this. Until then, I think it is nonsense. She talks geopolitics, not cabals and conspiracies. She talks about the *nation* of Israel, in the political sense, which can't possibly have participated in any such conspiracy for the last hundred years or most of the other centuries in which Christians persecuted Jews. Cindy argues that the war deliberately serves the interests of Israel, the nation, excessively -- that Israel, the nation, has too much influence in Washington. You may choose to turn that into a vast Jewish conspiracy down through the ages, but Cindy doesn't say anything of the sort. Saying "Israel has too much influence in Washington" is anti-semitic is like saying "England has too much influence in Washington" is anti-Anglo-Saxon. > Let me ask you Nick. Do you think that we are in this war to protect > Israel? I'm quite sure that our desire to control the Middle East is connected to our alliance with Israel. It would be crazy to imagine that Israel is not a factor. > Are we in this war at the behest of a jewish cabal? I would be terribly surprised. I believe that is impossible. > If not > then this view must be repudiated. Tell me, *who* would I be repudiating? David Duke? Why do I need to repudiate him or any other nut job conspiracy theorist? I sure as hell wouldn't be repudiating Cindy Sheehan, since she isn't one. When we speak as members of Gold Star Families for Peace, my view is that we don't need to talk directly about politics at all. And when Cindy expressed her views about Israel's role the first time we sat down to lunch, I was uncomfortable. At the same time, she is a mother searching for the reason her son is dead. I'm not surprised that she has some ideas that seem wild and I don't think it's my job to try to stop her. On the other hand, I do believe that if we are to be peacemakers, compassion is the key. The blessing of this discussion is that I realize how a political comment about the nation of Israel can be blown up into much more than was intended. The grief of this one mother is hard for most of us to grasp; the grief of the Jewish people after the Holocaust is far beyond that... so I find myself struggling to show compassion for both. I'll be more than happy -- downright eager -- to forward your thoughts to not just Cindy, but all of GSFP. We need to understand how we are being heard. Which words shall I forward. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:49 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:48:24 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > So, saying that GWB was influenced by traitorous Jews to hurt the US > > in order to support Israel is not anti-Semitic? > > What a straw man we have here! > > Nobody has said anything of the sort Hurting your own country in order to support another country you favor more is treason. As Zimmy pointed out, the origional neo-cons were Jews. So, she claimed that Jews got GWB to hurt the US and help Israel. Aren't you familiar with how this type attack against Jews has been made in many ways over at least the last century...all with denial that it is anti-Semitic? When a statement has a rich historical context, repeating it has consequences. Given the amount of leeway you want to give this statement, I can argue that George Wallace and Strom Thurman never were and never acted racist. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 8:10 PM, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:49 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:48:24 -0500, Dan Minette wrote So, saying that GWB was influenced by traitorous Jews to hurt the US in order to support Israel is not anti-Semitic? What a straw man we have here! Nobody has said anything of the sort Hurting your own country in order to support another country you favor more is treason. As Zimmy pointed out, the origional neo-cons were Jews. So, she claimed that Jews got GWB to hurt the US and help Israel. *Sigh*. No, SHE DID NOT. Nowhere does Sheehan make that claim. Get off your high horse and argue from a perspective of reason. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mindless and Heartless
> > > Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was > killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son > joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know > full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed > by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after > 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists > hate our freedoms and democracy.not for the real reason, because the > Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That > hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq.in fact it has > gotten worse. > > An honest question: had Sheehan not used the words "to benefit Israel" in the first sentence or "not Israel" in the second, would this still be anti-semitic? The still flows without those words, I believe. Also, someone asked how the war in Iraq benefited Israel. I believe it was our own John Giorgis who stated as one of the justifications for the war the fact that Saddam was financing the Intifadah. I'm not saying I agree with that but there you go... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Bob wrote: So let me get this straight. She blames the Neocons (many of whom are Jews; the movement was founded by Jewish intellectuals. So the neocons (who are Jews) got the president to support the war to aid Israel (by the way in what way does this war aid Israel?) Isn't the president and much, if not all of his administration Neocon? And the reframed goal of the Iraq war is to democratize and pacify the Middle East, wouldn't that benefit Israel? Not, by the way, that I'm against either of those goals, but as events are verifying, not only is it not going to work, its probably going to strengthen the Iranian position in the region which benefits neither Israel nor the West. Once again the argument that I am against Israel not the Jews is usually a copout for anti-Semitism. But that seems to lead to the conclusion that Israel is above criticism though I'm sure that's not what you mean. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Dan Minette wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:45 PM > Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > > >> On Aug 16, 2005, at 5:22 PM, Dan Minette wrote: >> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:05 PM >>> Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:00:10 -0500, Dan Minette wrote >>>> >>>>> Then why in the world did she repeat one of the great >>>>> anti-Semetic >>>>> lies >>>>> (dating back over 100 years) as certain truth? >>>> >>>> Which would be what? >>>> >>> >>> The Jews are secretly controlling nations, banks, etc. to run the >>> world for >>> their own purposes. >> >> Cite her statement that Jews are secretly controlling nations, >> banks, >> etc. > > So, saying that GWB was influenced by traitorous Jews to hurt the US > in order to support Israel is not anti-Semitic? > Dan, that's just wrong. Pointing at the NeoCons influencing our foreign policy is not the same thing as anti-semitism. Whether one agrees with Sheehan or not is beside the point here. Anti-semitism is the dislike/hatred of Jews, not necessarily the criticism of of any group of Jews politics. Would even the lightest criticism of the NAACP be racist? xponent Third Polarity Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > --- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Did someone give you a wedgie today or something? >> >> I mean, welcome back, but sheesh! >> >> Dave > > No. not at all. I'm going to repost something I wrote > a while ago, which got _no_ response from you or Nick, > about why the way you two argue bothers me so much. [SNIP] I have to agree with Gautam. Claims of moral authority tend to be a bit self serving no matter which side of the political divide one is on. xponent Anti-Authoritarian Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Dan wrote: Hurting your own country in order to support another country you favor more is treason. As Zimmy pointed out, the origional neo-cons were Jews. So, she claimed that Jews got GWB to hurt the US and help Israel. That's definitely one of the most intellectually dishonest things I've ever seen you post. No matter how many Jews founded the Neocon movement, "Neocon" is not synonymous with "Jew". Is Bush Jewish? Furthermore, isn't it not only possible but highly likely that the goals of the Neocons are intended to be beneficial to both Israel _and_ the U.S.? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:28 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > On Aug 16, 2005, at 8:10 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:49 PM > > Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > > > > > >> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:48:24 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > >> > >>> So, saying that GWB was influenced by traitorous Jews to hurt the US > >>> in order to support Israel is not anti-Semitic? > >> > >> What a straw man we have here! > >> > >> Nobody has said anything of the sort > > > > Hurting your own country in order to support another country you favor > > more > > is treason. As Zimmy pointed out, the origional neo-cons were Jews. > > So, she > > claimed that Jews got GWB to hurt the US and help Israel. > > *Sigh*. No, SHE DID NOT. Nowhere does Sheehan make that claim. Get off > your high horse and argue from a perspective of reason. I gave a logical syllogism. What part do you think is false? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:36 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > Whether one agrees with Sheehan or not is beside the point here. > Anti-semitism is the dislike/hatred of Jews, not necessarily the > criticism of of any group of Jews politics. Would even the lightest > criticism of the NAACP be racist? No. There are plenty of criticisms that would not be anti-Semitic. But, accusing Jews of not being loyal to the country and controlling the country for their own ends has a long and nasty history. It's like calling blacks lazy and shiftiness and then protesting that one is not a racist. I'll give an example that I gave to Jerone. My babysitter when I was young was a very wonderful older (60s) woman. But, she was taught racism, and she was racist. She said she couldn't be, because she never really met a black person. But she thought that the rich black entertainers should use their money to sent the blacks back to Africa, where they belonged. That was a racist statement. It didn't stop her from being a wonderful person. When one hears one of the classic racist statements; it is extremely likely that it came from a racist source. It is quite possible that someone picked up the opinion without thinking much about it; and could still be a good person in many many ways, like my old babysitter. The question of whether a Jew could really be loyal to the state goes back a long ways. It was clearly stated in "On the Jewish Question." When a classic accusation is raised yet again, a red flag goes up with me. That's not just some random minor criticismthat's an accusation that has a long and sordid history. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:52 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > Dan wrote: > > > Hurting your own country in order to support another country you favor > > more is treason. As Zimmy pointed out, the origional neo-cons were Jews. > > So, she claimed that Jews got GWB to hurt the US and help Israel. > > That's definitely one of the most intellectually dishonest things I've > ever seen you post. No matter how many Jews founded the Neocon movement, > "Neocon" is not synonymous with "Jew". Is Bush Jewish? He is not a neocon; he's a compassionate conservative. Wolfowitz is the highest rank neo-con in the administration, I think. It's not intellectually dishonestit has to do with the history of that claim. Neo-con was a term coined to refer to a group of intellectuals (mostly Jewish) who became conservative. It was a group/movement that was fairly well defined. During this time, the claim that they were not really patriotic Americans surfaced. Their real loyalty was to Israel, not the US. You see that claim in writings of folks like Pat Bucannan, I think. Since then, the term has been used by some in a much broader context. But, the claim that the neo-cons are really loyal to Israel is one that clearly dates back to the time when the neo-con had a distinctly Jewish nature. > Furthermore, isn't it not only possible but highly likely that the goals > of the Neocons are intended to be beneficial to both Israel _and_ the U.S.? Sure, that's all right. I don't have any objection with that. One important question is why Zimmy, who differs with many policies put forth by the neo-cons, still is very offended by the statement. If the Jewish nature of neo-con wasn't important, why would criticism of conservatives stick in his craw so? Let's assume, for argument sake, that his, Gautam's, and my anti-Semitic radar is too sensitive and we'd overstate things. Why would Zimmy, in particular, see a comment about Jews when the comment had nothing to do with Jews? What's more likely, a liberal Jew is aware of a conservative Jewish movement; or a liberal Jew wrongly thinks that lots of conservative Christians are really Jewish. In conclusion; while neo-con has been used as a much broader categorythe accusation that we are referring had its origin at a time when the Jewishness of the neo-cons was part of the perceived problem. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Dan Minette wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:07 PM > Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > > > >> And of course we need to hold people like Sheehan to the same >> vigorous standards we hold professional polititians. > > She is outspinning GWB. Would you give Michelle Wie mulligans? > I'll just point to Brins thesis about talented amateurs. xponent Michelle Who? Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 6:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/16/2005 9:39:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: your people"? Oh, you mean goyim. Yes in fact I do mean the goyim. Because it is an historical fact that until the 19th century jews were persecuted by christians routinely and in all countries of europe. etc, etc, etc. So let's see... You're not in favor of racially-motivated stereotyping when it persecutes "your people," but when it comes to me, it's perfectly OK to paint me with the European-descended Christian Jew-hater brush. What the hell do you know about me? What anti-semitic statements have you ever heard me make? THAT's what I mean when I say "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife." You accuse me along with every other non-Jew on the planet without so much as a second's thought. It reminds me of the character in a Woody Allen movie: "JEW eat lunch? JEW eat lunch? What does that mean, JEW eat lunch?" Not every criticism leveled against a Jewish person, idea or country is anti-semitism. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: she can > read "Constantine's Cross" to see how arguements > like hers have existed for > over a thousand years and have been used to > persecute and murder jews. I think Bob means "Constantine's Sword", and I should add that I am particularly sensitive to issues of anti-semitism precisely because of reading that book (by James Carroll, a very extreme war opponent if people need that before picking it up). Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Warren Ockrassa wrote: > FTR, this is the only portion of your note that I thought was worthy > of any sort of reply. > > > On Aug 16, 2005, at 6:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Is Israel part of the Iraq equation? Maybe. But remember it was not >> the Iraqis who provided most of the support for the Palastinian >> fighters. It was and is >> Iran, the Saudis the Syrians. > > It would be hard to believe any Israeli involvement in any way at > all, > unless Halliburton is an Israeli property. A few ago this was discussed on the list. The gist was that it would be great to have another democracy in the middle east besides Israel and that the Neo-Cons were very interested in seeing this happen. I don't recall exactly who was involved in the discussion, but I believe it was pre-911. xponent Elephant Alzhiemers Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 8:40 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Did someone give you a wedgie today or something? I mean, welcome back, but sheesh! Dave No. not at all. I'm going to repost something I wrote a while ago, which got _no_ response from you or Nick, about why the way you two argue bothers me so much. [SNIP] I have to agree with Gautam. Claims of moral authority tend to be a bit self serving no matter which side of the political divide one is on. I'm confused. Is my asking whether someone gave Gautam a wedgie a claim of moral authority? Is my welcome back and subsequent "sheesh" a claim of moral authority? Is Gautam's disappointment that he sent a message that I don't even recall having seen before a claim of moral authority? Let me recap. I posted a message stating that the president's "get a life" comment about Sheehan showed him to be heartless as well as mindless. Nothing about Jews. Nothing intellectual about it at all. Gautam replies with a message that attacks me as intellectually dishonest and cowardly, hints that I'm an anti-semite because I didn't refute a statement that I didn't even know Cindy Sheehan had made. Everybody and her brother jumped on the bandwagon because the Anti-Semitism card had been played. This argument is poor even by Brin-L standards. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bob wrote: > > So let me get this straight. She blames the > Neocons (many of whom are > > Jews; the movement was founded by Jewish > intellectuals. So the neocons > > (who are Jews) got the president to support the > war to aid Israel (by > > the way in what way does this war aid Israel?) > > Isn't the president and much, if not all of his > administration Neocon? Not at all. Unfortunately, neocon has been turned into a phrase that basically means "person of conservative persuasion with whom I disagree". A quick and dirty way to figure out who is a neocon might be, "Who votes Republican _and_ thinks that human rights are the most important thing on earth?" The set is not exactly large, for good or ill :-) Without going into the history of that particular word, the most important neocon in the Administration (was) Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The only reason anyone has heard of him is because he is Jewish. A question. Without looking it up, can _anyone_ on the list name a Clinton Administration Deputy Secretary of Defense? I'm a professional in this field (paid unbelievably tiny amounts of money to study it :-( ) and I have _no idea_ who his DepSec was. There are actually very few neocons in the Administration - probably fewer than there were in the Reagan Administration. > > And the reframed goal of the Iraq war is to > democratize and pacify the > Middle East, wouldn't that benefit Israel? Maybe, but are there many people in the world whom a democratized and pacified Middle East _wouldn't_ benefit? And would we want those people to be better off, even if they wouldn't benefit from it? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 7:29 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Dave Land wrote: You say that Nick and I believe something, then demand that we refute it. Bullshit. Have I stopped beating my wife? Did she say the safeword? If it's really safe, would I know it? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 9:35 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Without going into the history of that particular word, the most important neocon in the Administration (was) Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The only reason anyone has heard of him is because he is Jewish. I am not picking a fight with you, but what is the basis of this claim? Maybe we have heard of him because he was a major player in getting us involved in Iraq. Dave, who really wants to know how you know that the only reason anyone has heard of Paul Wolfowitz is that he is Jewish. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Dan wrote: He is not a neocon; he's a compassionate conservative. Wolfowitz is the highest rank neo-con in the administration, I think. (I just read Gautam's most recent post and I have to disagree with both of you. If it looks like a duck etc. etc.) Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush's brother are founding members of PNAC, the infamous neoconservative think tank. A profile of Neoconservatism from the Christian Science Monitor: Neoconservatives… * Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower * Share unwavering support for Israel * Support American unilateral action * Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security * Promote the development of an American empire * Equate American power with the potential for world peace * Seek to democratize the Arab world * Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan Bush may not call himself one, but he fits the bill. It's not intellectually dishonestit has to do with the history of that claim. Neo-con was a term coined to refer to a group of intellectuals (mostly Jewish) who became conservative. It was a group/movement that was fairly well defined. During this time, the claim that they were not really patriotic Americans surfaced. Their real loyalty was to Israel, not the US. You see that claim in writings of folks like Pat Bucannan, I think. Since then, the term has been used by some in a much broader context. But, the claim that the neo-cons are really loyal to Israel is one that clearly dates back to the time when the neo-con had a distinctly Jewish nature. Furthermore, isn't it not only possible but highly likely that the goals of the Neocons are intended to be beneficial to both Israel _and_ the U.S.? Sure, that's all right. I don't have any objection with that. One important question is why Zimmy, who differs with many policies put forth by the neo-cons, still is very offended by the statement. If the Jewish nature of neo-con wasn't important, why would criticism of conservatives stick in his craw so? Let's assume, for argument sake, that his, Gautam's, and my anti-Semitic radar is too sensitive and we'd overstate things. Why would Zimmy, in particular, see a comment about Jews when the comment had nothing to do with Jews? What's more likely, a liberal Jew is aware of a conservative Jewish movement; or a liberal Jew wrongly thinks that lots of conservative Christians are really Jewish. I don't know and I don't really understand Bob's viewpoint - I wish he'd clarify. PNAC and the neoconservative movement look to me to be the foundation of the current administration so when I hear the term Neocon, I think of the President. I don't even recall hearing the term until either shortly before the 2000 election or even afterwards. In conclusion; while neo-con has been used as a much broader categorythe accusation that we are referring had its origin at a time when the Jewishness of the neo-cons was part of the perceived problem. It did? When was the accusation dated? What makes Sheehan's words (if indeed she said what you have quoted) specifically reference the historical Neocon movement and not the present administration? Can I also ask what the source of the quote you posted was? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 16, 2005, at 5:36 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: In this case, here's what I hear you and Nick doing. You are right to oppose the war. You are as sure that you are right as you are sure of anything. So anything anyone who opposes the war does is okay. Make the hoariest of anti-semitic slanders? No problem. You're right, everyone else is not just wrong, they're going _against the will of God_. Utter nonsense. Complete hogwash. Where, even once, have I mentioned the will of God? Try using the truth to make your case. It works so much better. I am not amused at being told that we went to war because a bunch of Jews in the government were loyal to Israel. It didn't get any chuckles out of me, either, because I don't believe it to be true. Straw man #275 down and out. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Doug, It did? When was the accusation dated? What makes Sheehan's words (if indeed she said what you have quoted) specifically reference the historical Neocon movement and not the present administration? Can I also ask what the source of the quote you posted was? It appears to be from a March 15, email from Cindy to someone named "Tersch" (among many others on the CC list), quoting a letter that (the post below says) Cindy sent to Nightline. "Tersch" subsequently posted on a Google Group named "Bullyard": http://groups-beta.google.com/group/bullyard/msg/7f523b1a73be1a36?hl=en I'm remaining skeptical: there's no solid evidence that Cindy Sheehan had anything to do with this email, other than the fact that it has her name at the top. Dave "still not anti-semitic" Land ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Dan Minette wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:36 PM > Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless > > > >> Whether one agrees with Sheehan or not is beside the point here. >> Anti-semitism is the dislike/hatred of Jews, not necessarily the >> criticism of of any group of Jews politics. Would even the lightest >> criticism of the NAACP be racist? > > No. There are plenty of criticisms that would not be anti-Semitic. > But, accusing Jews of not being loyal to the country and controlling > the country for their own ends has a long and nasty history. It's > like calling blacks lazy and shiftiness and then protesting that one > is not a racist. > > I'll give an example that I gave to Jerone. My babysitter when I > was > young was a very wonderful older (60s) woman. But, she was taught > racism, and she was racist. She said she couldn't be, because she > never really met a black person. But she thought that the rich > black > entertainers should use their money to sent the blacks back to > Africa, where they belonged. > > That was a racist statement. It didn't stop her from being a > wonderful person. When one hears one of the classic racist > statements; it is extremely likely that it came from a racist > source. > It is quite possible that someone picked up the opinion without > thinking much about it; and could still be a good person in many > many > ways, like my old babysitter. > > The question of whether a Jew could really be loyal to the state > goes > back a long ways. It was clearly stated in "On the Jewish > Question." > When a classic accusation is raised yet again, a red flag goes up > with me. That's not just some random minor criticismthat's an > accusation that has a long and sordid history. > I understand and agree with your statements concerning racism, but again I think it is beside the point. For a very long time the US and Israel have had shared interests and the US has strongly invested resources in Israel's defence. The NeoCons, with a significant Jewish component, are supporters of Israel. (I'm interested in learning more about the PNAC cited in the quote) It seems to me that claiming anti-semitism on the part of Sheehan means ignoring history and the facts of the current administration regardless of whether Sheehan is correct or not. Speaking for myself, any benefit to Israel would be an incidental benefit rather than a reason to go to war in itself, but I recognize that there may exist an overall plan that I am not aware of on the part of the administration and/or the NeoCons. Is anyone familiar with that NeoCon document, Plan For An American Century doohicky or whatever? If there were any factual basis for the claim it would likely show up there. It occurs to me that this is America, and here we should listen to diverse opinions and agree to disagree if that is our inclination, without feeling the need to demonize those who disagree with us. The automatic interpretation with extreme definitions of any dissenting view and the ensuing wash of vitamin fortified gonad juices is evidence of the primitive set loose. This is not worthy of the sophisticated minds nutured in the rich and fertile enviroment of the most powerful land on the planet. At some point we have to find our unity. xponent Yall Be Illin Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 16, 2005, at 9:35 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > I am not picking a fight with you, but what is the > basis of this claim? > Maybe we have heard of him because he was a major > player in getting us > involved in Iraq. > > Dave, who really wants to know how you know that the > only reason anyone > has heard of Paul Wolfowitz is that he is Jewish. > > Dave What makes you say he _was_ a major player in getting us involved? He was the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Can you name the Deputy Secretary of a single other Department? That's not a hostile questoin - I can't, and at least in theory, it's my job. I can't even name his replacement, and I've read articles about the man. DepSecs are not usually key players in decisions to go to war - not unless they're Dean Acheson (who wasn't actually one, I think, before WWII)! As far as I can tell, he _lost_ every major internal Administration battle, and we'd all be better off if he won them (I think - figuring out what actually happens within the Administration is essentially impossible, and anyone who's mortally certain what happened is, in my opinion, either lying or deluding themselves. No Administration in living memory has operated so close to the vest). But he has a nice Jewish name that you can hang conspiracy theories on. The major players in the foreign policy of the first Bush II Administration - Bush himself, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice - none of them are neocons. It would be better if they were - we probabl ywouldn't have screwed up the occupation so badly if they were. The _only_ below-Cabinet rank figures of any significance most people have ever heard of are Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. One guess as to what they have in common. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
Dan Minette wrote: > He is not a neocon; he's a compassionate conservative. Sarcasm? xponent Arbiter Of Humorous Content Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
