Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"This is garbage. I think it's extremely difficult to argue that Christian extremists are universally feared and therefore relatively powerless while extremist Jews are all-powerful. And it's certainly impossible to make that claim about Islamic extremists outside of the U.S. In the U.S., evangelical Christianity provides among the most vigorous and most numerous supporters for war generally and Middle East wars and allegiance to Israel specifically. And it wasn't an extremist Jew but an extremist Christian occupying the Oval Office the last eight years."
I made no argument that Christian extremists are ineffective or not dangerous, or universally feared. In fact, I made the opposite argument, that they are very much dangerous, and there is a sizeable group of Americans and other Westerners who recognize this and are working against them accordingly. My argument is that Christian and Jewish extremism is especially dangerous because they are significant actors in the governments of powerful nations. While I made no argument that Islamic extremism is not dangerous (it is very much so), I was trying to say that very few Islamic nations are militarily powerful enough to be especially dangerous at this time (though this may change). Nor did I say extremist Jews are all-powerful. You are falling dangerously close here to the hysterical cries of anti-Semitism that the ADL and Fox News etc etc resort to. What I did say is that they are not explicitly recognized as such, which I believe is important to at least be conscious of.
"There's no shortage of religious extremists of all types, and to try to pick one strain of them -- the least numerous strain -- and pretend that they're the singular problem or most powerful force is inane."
I agree with the first part. Again, I did not say Jewish extremists are the singular problem, nor did I imply that. I thought it was clear from what I wrote that my opinion is that all religous extremists are dangerous, and Jews are not exceptional in this sense. I merely said that they are A problem, and are not recognized as such. Why can we talk about evangelical religous motivations for their abhorrent beliefs, and the insanity of muslim fundamentalists, but we have to stay mum on the motivations of Jewish extremists? We can talk about Dubya and the fact that his motivations are at least in part colored by his evangelical beliefs. And I think we should talk about why people like Marty Peretz believe what they believe. Maybe it's not because they're Jewish extremists. But I think that's a hard argument to make, and I think some Jews would agree. And, MOST IMPORTANTLY, alternative views within the Jewish community need to be promoted by Jews themselves and Americans in general. Alliances between groups need to be made. This is no attempt to make of Jews a monolith. What it is is a recognition that all communities have their extremists, and all reasonable members of all communities have an obligation to fight those extremists.
Glenn: would you say that people like Marty Peretz are not essentially Jewish extremists? would you say there is any awareness within and without the Jewish community that there is such a thing as Jewish extremism? would you say that all of this is unimportant, to discuss whether or not the motivations of some of these folks is a particularly extreme interpretation of the Jewish faith? are these questions vapid/inane?
What is wrong with you Mr. Greenwald? You try to offer a calm, reasoned analysis which isn't motivated by tribal loyalties: are you f***ing crazy?! How dare you relegate the past and present suffering of the jewish people BELOW the current suffering of the Palestinians, who, we all know, don't actually exist as a people anyway. Shame on you, you disgusting anti-semite.
Argues that it's OK to Torture Arabs to Death. And shows up here today spouting Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out rhetoric.
FOAD you inhuman bit of excrement.
That pretty much covers it. Glad to see you finally get it.
So the whole of Gaza are "bad guys"? Does that mean all Palestinians are "bad guys" as well? Should we expect a clearing of the West Bank now?
How do you identify the "bad guys" when they look and behave like everyone else?
Do you even know who the enemy is anymore, shooter242? Here's a hint: look a mirror.
It's nothing more than: There are bad guys attacking us and so we have to kill them all so the attacks will stop.
-- GlennGreenwald
That pretty much covers it. Glad to see you finally get it.
Glad to see Scoot finally admits that he supports killing Arabs. The other day, he denied it.
But will his term paper this semester include an explanation of how killing bad guys creates more bad guys until eventually "killing all the bad guys" leads to and becomes genocide?
Maybe the fifth year of being held back will be the charm.
There are no civilians in a democracy. The Gazans elected Hamas, so they have to live with the consequences of their goverment's actions. This goes for Americans too, but thankfully we have no militarily superior neighbors to shell.
As it is becoming a "middle of the road" opinion to openly cheer things that meet the old definition of terrorism, it appears that in mainstream journalism the word terrorism has now taken on a very simple meaning: any open resistance to the US or its allies.
As an example, here's an AP story which was highlighted in yesterday's "Five Things" column on Salon:
"Gitmo detainees returning to terrorism AP
WASHINGTON -- Terror suspects who have been held but released from Guantanamo Bay are increasingly returning to the fight against the United States and its allies, the Pentagon said Tuesday."
The headline says "terrorism", and the lede elaborates: these "suspects" are involved in "the fight against the United States." There is no mention in the article of what strategy or tactics the suspects have allegedly used against the United States, but that is now irrelevant. Merely "fighting against" the US is now labelled "terrorism".
A news media which can uncritically parrot the absurd phrase "war on terror" for seven years can be expected to re-write the dictionary in a vain attempt to sound sensible.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
