ForumGarden

MORE LEFTIST MEDIA ACTIVISM: Shooter Jared Loughner Is A Leftist Democrat Who Shot U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords , Yet The Media Is Attempting To Blame The Tea Party, Sarah Palin (R) And Those On The Right

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/gabr ... /id/382275

They're such reactionaries. They immediately jumped to self serving conclusions before any facts came out and now they got egg on their face. This guy was a left wing pothead who read the communist manifesto. Classic left wing extremist anarchist, yet they are trying to paint him as a Tea Partier. I think not.

How about this: This guy belongs in a mental-wing of the General Hospital movement. You're such a reactionary. You immediately jumped to self serving conclusions before any facts came out.

He's a sick individual who fell through the cracks. Why isn't that enough?

Because everybody wants to make political ammo out of this thing.

Yeah everyone wants to label him as a anti-american, liberal, conservative, nazi, homosexual, right wing, leftist, islamic, terrorist.

Wait!, holy s@#t this guy just turned in to Barack Obama!

The damage-limitation apologists are out in force tonight, I see.

How many forums are you dashing around asserting your propaganda tonight, Frodo? Greekchat? Boxingscene? Why we put up with hit-and-run fly-posters baffles me.

Abandon logic, all ye who enter hear.

Accountable;1350243 wrote: He's a sick individual who fell through the cracks. Why isn't that enough?
Out of interest Acc, do you think the same of Timothy McVeigh?

spot;1350257 wrote: Out of interest Acc, do you think the same of Timothy McVeigh?From what I recall, McVeigh wasn't so clealy paranoid, and didn't work alone, but my memory sucks & I'd have to find time to go back and research.

Quetion for you: why do you not attack strident remarks from the left with such zeal? What is your justification for calling Frodo an apologist for the right and not the same for, say, Saint, who is saying nothing essentially different except for hurling his bombs from the left?

Accountable;1350345 wrote: Quetion for you: why do you not attack strident remarks from the left with such zeal? What is your justification for calling Frodo an apologist for the right and not the same for, say, Saint, who is saying nothing essentially different except for hurling his bombs from the left?Your use of the terms left and right are extremely puzzling to me, to be honest. If you mean pro-Democrat or pro-Republican then I can see the application to Frodo and Saint, but to call a pro-Democrat a leftist is a purely American use of the word "left", it makes no sense at all in historical or world terms.

In both historical and in world terms the Democratic party policies are right-wing attributes. I see no attempt to provide adequate health care, housing, pensions, jobs, rations and education as rights for all citizens guaranteed through taxation. Those are all core left-wing aspirations in historical and world terms. They find no echo in American mainstream politics.

They are, on the other hand, core historical values of the British Labour movement. Currently Britain only has one political party aspiring to those values and sadly it's not the Labour party, not since Tony Blair hijacked it. These days over here the only party using language like that is Sinn Féin who, ironically, are Republicans.

I criticized Frodo for fly-posting the Internet, for copy-pasting the same damage-limitation text from site to site without engaging in discussion. I think that's an abuse of hospitality.

Saint is anti-Republican, as best I can make out. Me too. Frodo is anti-Democrat. Me too. The difference between them is one posts with us and the other posts at us.

spot;1350351 wrote: I see no attempt to provide adequate health care, housing, pensions, jobs, rations and education as rights for all citizens guaranteed through taxation. Those are all core left-wing aspirations in historical and world terms. They find no echo in American mainstream politics.It suddenly dawned on me two minutes ago, Accountable, that you don't realize my country actually has all of those things today "as rights for all citizens guaranteed through taxation", and has had them all since the early fifties.

None of our political parties support them as policies but none dare revoke them. The defender of those rights is the public, which would quite certainly vote out of office any party here which abolished one of them. Bits have been gnawed away at, such as the right to tertiary (university) education for all citizens guaranteed through taxation which existed in the fifties and sixties subject to passing the entrance requirement and has since been whittled down to guaranteed loans instead. But essentially it's all still in place.

I'm not barking for pipe-dreams, I'm describing my entire lifetime in England. Adequate health care, housing, pensions, jobs, rations and education as rights for all citizens guaranteed through taxation. Except, now I look at it, full employment. An adequate job as a right for all citizens guaranteed through taxation is one that's always been an aspiration but I'd agree, it's never been a reality. All the other bits are realities.

I take it you'd not pretend that the US Democratic Party aspires to these left-wing policies I've described?

spot;1350354 wrote: It suddenly dawned on me two minutes ago, Accountable, that you don't realize my country actually has all of those things today "as rights for all citizens guaranteed through taxation", and has had them all since the early fifties.

None of our political parties support them as policies but none dare revoke them. The defender of those rights is the public, which would quite certainly vote out of office any party here which abolished one of them. Bits have been gnawed away at, such as the right to tertiary (university) education for all citizens guaranteed through taxation which existed in the fifties and sixties subject to passing the entrance requirement and has since been whittled down to guaranteed loans instead. But essentially it's all still in place.

I'm not barking for pipe-dreams, I'm describing my entire lifetime in England. Adequate health care, housing, pensions, jobs, rations and education as rights for all citizens guaranteed through taxation. Except, now I look at it, full employment. An adequate job as a right for all citizens guaranteed through taxation is one that's always been an aspiration but I'd agree, it's never been a reality. All the other bits are realities.

I take it you'd not pretend that the US Democratic Party aspires to these left-wing policies I've described?


There's still the SNP you know. They're arseholes bit at least they are left wing arseholes. Protest votes in england tend to go to parties like the BNP (it seems) in scotland we go to the left. The scottish socialist party would have wiped the floor with labour if they hadn't pulled the usual left wrong stint of being more interested in fighting each other. What Lenin called the infantile disorder. If the tories win the next election I can see us voting for independence. Clegg, while I can appreciate the motives has killed the liberal party off, if they don't get PR they are doomed. Blair, public school, Clegg public school, cameron public school. Daft as it is Thatcher has better working class credentials than any of them.

Apart from that I tend to agree with you. there is no recognisably left wing party in america. Ironic in a country where the people are supposed to rule.

xfrodobagginsx;1350240 wrote: MORE LEFTIST MEDIA ACTIVISM: Shooter Jared Loughner Is A Leftist Democrat Who Shot U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords , Yet The Media Is Attempting To Blame The Tea Party, Sarah Palin (R) And Those On The Right

Dems, Media Blame Tea Party, Palin for Shooting; Shooter Linked to Leftwing Politics

They're such reactionaries. They immediately jumped to self serving conclusions before any facts came out and now they got egg on their face. This guy was a left wing pothead who read the communist manifesto. Classic left wing extremist anarchist, yet they are trying to paint him as a Tea Partier. I think not.


Spoken like a true brownshirt.

Indeed, the profile of the accused shooter, 22-year-old Jared Loughner, that continues to emerge is that of a deranged young man whose mind was deeply distubred, but who also tinkered with both anarchist ideas and left-wing politics.

ABC News reported Saturday night that Loughner had identified among his favorite books "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf," and the fiction classic "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest" — hardly the reading list of a Palin supporter.


Do you think they have actually read them? Certainly the author of the piece clearly hasn't. How do you study 20th century history without at the very least coming across a synopsis if the communist manifesto or mein kampf. Do these people know anything - like who actually wrote Mein Kampf? If anything I would have thought it would be right up the tea party's street. Biblically inspired, advocating racial discrimination, getting rid of the useless in society, anti the global jewish banking conspiracy and most definitely anti communist in it's rhetoric and very, very patriotic.

gmc;1350378 wrote: Do you think they have actually read them? Certainly the author of the piece clearly hasn't. How do you study 20th century history without at the very least coming across a synopsis if the communist manifesto or mein kampf. Do these people know anything - like who actually wrote Mein Kampf? If anything I would have thought it would be right up the tea party's street. Biblically inspired, advocating racial discrimination, getting rid of the useless in society, anti the global jewish banking conspiracy and most definitely anti communist in it's rhetoric and very, very patriotic.


Your rant is a non-sequitur. Hitler was a socialist. That would have nothing in common with the Tea Party.

This just scratches the surface and makes a nice primer of Progressive violence.

BaghdadBob;1350385 wrote: Your rant is a non-sequitur. Hitler was a socialist. That would have nothing in common with the Tea Party.

This just scratches the surface and makes a nice primer of Progressive violence.


Hitler was a National Socialist. A million miles away from being what most would recognise as being socialist. The term National Socialism is synonymous with anything Facist or Nazi, ie extreme right wing

BaghdadBob;1350385 wrote: Your rant is a non-sequitur. Hitler was a socialist.Wasn't Hitler that wannabee Imperialist who invaded foreign countries back in the old days? Good thing nobody does that any more eh, BaghdadBob.

Snowfire;1350388 wrote: Hitler was a National Socialist. A million miles away from being what most would recognise as being socialist. The term National Socialism is synonymous with anything Facist or Nazi, ie extreme right wing


Rite wing socialist? :wah:





:yh_rotfl

BaghdadBob;1350391 wrote: Rite wing socialist? :wah:



:yh_rotfl


I could call myself a Facist but that would not make me one.

America and Britain call themselves Democratic but that does not make them so.

The Nazis called themselves National Socialists but that certainly did not make them Socialist (Left Wing) in any way. Come to think of it, they might have been considered "left wing" - by Genghis Kahn. To anyone else they were as far right wing as you get.

Please learn some history before scoffing - you might make some sense if you do.

BaghdadBob;1350385 wrote: Your rant is a non-sequitur. Hitler was a socialist. That would have nothing in common with the Tea Party.

This just scratches the surface and makes a nice primer of Progressive violence.


I though hitler loved tea! and parties so why not tea parties

I love it that you use the same "I think you think this said she said what I didn't say not to say about what you said but didn't to....., and on and on until your so confused as to what I say until I win" tatic that is used in the religous forums on here.

More importantly though, it is pretty plaintive that on here and over all the argument continues on; that if the abusive languange and rhetoric by the left or right had a influence in a guy that was would be regarded as complete lunatic by both parties. Instead of recognizing the use of the abusive and illogical rhetoric used to argue that the left or right made this guy do what he did is the same abusive illogical rhetoric that is center of the argument, and ceasing in the use of it both sides continue to wallow in the filth. Though again it may be a sign there is government mind controll which goes to show that this guy was really the sanest one of us all.

BaghdadBob;1350385 wrote: Your rant is a non-sequitur. Hitler was a socialist. That would have nothing in common with the Tea Party.

This just scratches the surface and makes a nice primer of Progressive violence.


You really don't know anything about the nazis do you? Maybe you should read mein kampf for yourself, I suspect you'd find a lot in it that you agree with. As to whether there is anything in common with the tea party it would be an interesting discussion to have - there are striking similarities in the kind of rhetoric used and those who are supporting it but you would have to find out who the nazis actually were for it to be worthwhile.

You know, I take it, that there are fascist symbols on the Great Seal Of The United States, on the senate seal, in congress on either side of the american flag the Lincoln memorial has Abraham sitting with his hands on two of them with the axeheads sheathed. But because I know the history and reason for it I don't leap to the conclusion that the US is a fascist state. You should read things for yourself and that way you might not believe some of the nonsense you've been coming out with.

The only mind control that really works is ignorance. That's why education for all is a fundamental necessity for any free country. An educated population is harder to control.

spot;1350354 wrote: I take it you'd not pretend that the US Democratic Party aspires to these left-wing policies I've described?Actually, I believe The Party would love to take control of all of these presumed necessecities of modern life, and many more. Personally, I'd prefer liberty.

gmc;1350443 wrote: An educated population is harder to control.which is the best reason I can think of for the American education system being free of federal gov't control.

Accountable;1350448 wrote:

which is the best reason I can think of for the American education system being free of federal gov't control.


Then in to what? state Gov't Control that didn't do so well before for liberty espcially not civil rights, or maybe commercializing public education so that Coca-cola the sponsor gets to teach our kids that there competitor(s) Pepsi or Canada Dry is made with poison? Hey if certian states get NRA sponsored education systems Jared Loughner, the colombine kids, and the virginia tech shooter would probably be some of it's graduating students.

Bryn Mawr;1350392 wrote: I could call myself a Facist but that would not make me one.

America and Britain call themselves Democratic but that does not make them so.

The Nazis called themselves National Socialists but that certainly did not make them Socialist (Left Wing) in any way. Come to think of it, they might have been considered "left wing" - by Genghis Kahn. To anyone else they were as far right wing as you get.

Please learn some history before scoffing - you might make some sense if you do.


First, we call ourselves (the USA) a Republic.

Second, there is no such thing as "right wing socialism". At least take a basic course in poli-sci before making silly assertions.

Hitler was a socialist; a statist. He declared himself a socialist. He declared Germany a socialist nation. Nazi Germany moved toward the modified socialist model; fascism. The only meaningful difference between fascism and socialism is in its economic model and that is fascists didn't see a need to own the businesses. For example, China is moving away from communism to an authoritarian fascist state. The donks would love to emulate the Chinese model.

You may want to get the hell outta wherever you are and start reading because it appears you're not being given the opportunity to know the truth.

Posted by accountable

Actually, I believe The Party would love to take control of all of these presumed necessecities of modern life, and many more. Personally, I'd prefer liberty.


You would love living in the UK accountable. You can choose not to have medical care if that's what you wish, the difference is it would actually be a choice on your part not one you were forced to by poverty, nobody's going to insist you get medical treatment or strap you down to give you that transplant you need to stay alive. You can even have private medical care if you wish - not as good as the NHS perhaps but you wouldn't be the first to suffer the consequences of botched private operations. You can choose to be homeless, just because there is a legal obligation to provide for the destitute doesn't mean you have to accept that help, there are even special tent ranges you can buy for use in the winter - they're actually intended for pop festivals but you could probably afford one with a bit of begging. Actually there was a tramp living in the woods near me in just such a tent the police have checked on him and he seems harmless, he moved on I think because camping is no fun in minus 10 degrees centigrade. Education is compulsory up to age 16 but after that you can remain as ignorant as you want to be, just keep away from the free libraries where you don't have to read the papers or read the books. You would be entitled to a state pension but there is no obligation on your part to actually accept it you can be as poor and ill and homeless as you want to be - but the choice would be one you can make not have forced up on you by circumstances beyond your control. If that was your choice people will just think you eccentric and leave you to it, of course there will be the odd thug that will think pissing on you while you sleep in a shop doorway great fun but if you make that kind of lifestyle choice it's one of the things you have to contend with. If you are not working you don't pay any taxes so you are not even asked to pay for anyone else's treatment.

Yes you'd like the UK all that freedom to live as you please. You can keep your liberty, but you don't know what you're missing.

BaghdadBob;1350471 wrote: First, we call ourselves (the USA) a Republic.


If you're saying America does not claim to be a Democracy then could you tell me why she's trying to force countries to become democracies who do not wish to be so?

BaghdadBob;1350471 wrote:

Second, there is no such thing as "right wing socialism". At least take a basic course in poli-sci before making silly assertions.


Would you care so show me where I made that assertion? That was your comment, not mine.

BaghdadBob;1350471 wrote:

Hitler was a socialist; a statist. He declared himself a socialist. He declared Germany a socialist nation. Nazi Germany moved toward the modified socialist model; fascism. The only meaningful difference between fascism and socialism is in its economic model and that is fascists didn't see a need to own the businesses. For example, China is moving away from communism to an authoritarian fascist state. The donks would love to emulate the Chinese model.


How can I say this more simply, just claiming something does not make it true.

You say that Hitler was a "statist" - he was a Nationalist and that is miles away from a socialist.

Fascism is not a modified form of Socialism, it is the antithesis of it - you appear to be equating Socialism with the totalitarian governments which took power in Russia and China when Communism failed in those countries.

Fascism advocates private ownership of goods, land and resources as opposed to Socialism which advocates their public ownership.

You might care to read :-

Definitions of fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It contains, amongst other things, some interesting quotes :-

According to most scholars of fascism, there are both left and right influences on fascism as a social movement, and fascism, especially once in power, has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the "far right" or "extreme right."


Fascist nationalism is reactionary in that it entails implacable hostility to socialism and feminism, for they are seen as prioritizing class or gender rather than nation. This is why fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also a movement of the radical right because the defeat of socialism and feminism and the creation of the mobilized nation are held to depend upon the advent to power of a new elite acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic leader, and embodied in a mass, militarized party.


In 1935, as fascist political movements were making gains across Europe and often took violent action against communist organizations, it became important for Marxists to have an exact definition of "fascism" in order to determine precisely whom they were fighting. Thus, the Communist Third International published the following definition:

“Fascism in power is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialistic elements of finance capitalism."


Contrast this to the accepted definitions of Socialism :-

socialism

1. a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole.


Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources. A socialist society is a social structure organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations, self-management, dispersed decision-making (adhocracy) and a reduction or elimination of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance; the extent of which varies in different types of socialism. This ranges from the establishment of cooperative management structures in the economy to the abolition of all hierarchical structures in favor of free association.


Indeed, a very good definition of Socialism is :-

government of the people by the people for the people


BaghdadBob;1350471 wrote:

You may want to get the hell outta wherever you are and start reading because it appears you're not being given the opportunity to know the truth.


On the contrary, I would like to invite you to join the real world where it takes more than a name to define reality.

Accountable;1350448 wrote: Actually, I believe The Party would love to take control of all of these presumed necessecities of modern life, and many more. Personally, I'd prefer liberty.When it comes to conscious thought, there are party members but there's no party consciousness. There may be some party members who'd love to. All you can say of The Party is what it's actually done over the years. It's never aspired to these left-wing policies I've described.

Hes Caucasian, has blonde hair, made a You Tube video, blogs...there are many more cynical implications at work here than you may realize.

Nomad;1350559 wrote: Hes Caucasian, has blonde hair,For some reason between arrest and appearing in court the hair bit disappeared. Perhaps he didn't look demented enough wearing it.

Great. Now we have to worry about all the bald people.

Nomad;1350567 wrote: Great. Now we have to worry about all the bald people.


Only if they're Caucasian and made a You Tube video and wrote blogs. That limits the field.

Nomad;1350559 wrote: Hes Caucasian, has blonde hair, made a You Tube video, blogs...there are many more cynical implications at work here than you may realize.
A local talk show pointed out that he plays video games.

Then the host read a whole bunch of short posts (weird questions & short statements) they found on a chat forum. I was rolling my eyes so much I got a cramp and almost ran off the road!

It's a funny show going on, everyone is busy trying to prove Loughner didn't get his Coodies from them.

xfrodobagginsx;1350240 wrote: Yet The Media Is Attempting To Blame The Tea Party, Sarah Palin (R) And Those On The Right


Fact: Sarah Palin said, "Don't retreat...RELOAD!"

Fact: An unstable person took her seriously and literally. So, yeah...she is to blame. If you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and someone gets trampled, that's still your fault!



This is just one of the thousands of pictures like this. What did she think was going to happen? I saw Glen Beck shouting "We should have our own REVOLUTION!" just two days before this incident.

The government mind control he refered to - control people thoughts through grammar sounds like an odd take on George Orwell's newspeak. Given some of the redefined reality you get sometimes - like hitler was a socialist - maybe he has a point.

Well governments and historians constantly rewrite history and "brainwash" the masses. ( I learned that the first time I read a Russian textbook!) It's wrong, but it happens. We all have to try to avoid it, especially in cases like Iran rewriting the Holocaust, but it basically can't be completely stopped. Even if this guy had a point, though, he certainly went about making it the wrong way.

Saint_;1350657 wrote: especially in cases like Iran rewriting the HolocaustThat accusation against "Iran" is itself a perfect example of a propagandist attempt at writing history to your own ends. It's a wilful and knowing misinterpretation of the facts.

spot;1350660 wrote: That accusation against "Iran" is itself a perfect example of a propagandist attempt at writing history to your own ends. It's a wilful and knowing misinterpretation of the facts.


OK Spot, you lost me. Are you trying to imply that Iran did NOT try to rewrite history in respect to the Holocaust by denying it ever happened? Didn't their president actually hold a conference to the effect that the Holocaust was a "myth?"

Saint_;1350668 wrote: OK Spot, you lost me. Are you trying to imply that Iran did NOT try to rewrite history in respect to the Holocaust by denying it ever happened? Didn't their president actually hold a conference to the effect that the Holocaust was a "myth?"
Iran did not try to rewrite history in respect to the Holocaust by denying it ever happened.

Their president did not hold a conference to the effect that the Holocaust was a "myth".

I'll start a thread for us and we can explore the reality.

Ahso!;1350616 wrote: It's a funny show going on, everyone is busy trying to prove Loughner didn't get his Coodies from them.:wah:



Saint_;1350633 wrote: Fact: Sarah Palin said, "Don't retreat...RELOAD!"

Fact: An unstable person took her seriously and literally. So, yeah...she is to blame. Fact??!? What? Where? When? etc, etc, etc.

I wonder what is going to happen when every person who becomes 'identified' as a potential danger is ordered to receive mental health treatment and can't afford it. More prisons? My guess is it's more expensive for the taxpayer to incarcerate rather than provide health care services. But this is America, social help be damned, lets share some of that tough love and lock em all up. Yippy-Yappy and Yahooee!

"Programs of Assertive Community Treatment have been around since the early 1970s."

In Texas, "ACT is a self-contained program that serves as the fixed point of responsibility for providing treatment, rehabilitation and support services to identified consumers with severe and persistent mental illnesses"

Federally, "The Federal Government provides numerous resources for the prevention and treatment of mental health problems, including SAMHSA's Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), which awards grants to States and localities for a range of treatment and support services. Additional information about CMHS grants can be found at http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/funding."

That's good to know. I hope they're well funded because when we begin identifying people like Jared Loughner as in need of their services it's gonna take some serious money. My thought is that people such as Jared are more common than we realize at this point.

ACT and CHMS just may be where the next financial bubble could occur once this game begins.

Accountable;1350713 wrote: "Programs of Assertive Community Treatment have been around since the early 1970s."

In Texas, "ACT is a self-contained program that serves as the fixed point of responsibility for providing treatment, rehabilitation and support services to identified consumers with severe and persistent mental illnesses"

Federally, "The Federal Government provides numerous resources for the prevention and treatment of mental health problems, including SAMHSA's Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), which awards grants to States and localities for a range of treatment and support services. Additional information about CMHS grants can be found at http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/funding."


What's your point? That the guy was crazy so there's no harm, no foul?



My point is simple: When you use rhetoric and hate speech to inflame people's emotions recklessly, there are those who will act on them.

Free speech does have limits.

Saint_;1350731 wrote: My point is simple: When you use rhetoric and hate speech to inflame people's emotions recklessly, there are those who will act on them. You don't think your claiming the Iranian President is a Holocaust-denier inflames people's emotions recklessly? The fact that it's an untrue claim just makes your behaviour all the worse, in my opinion.

My offer of a thread in which you can try to demonstrate that I'm mistaken is still open.

Spot, I know what you're up to and I'm too smart or too tired to fall for it. Ahmadinejad disguised his conference name, but it was obvious to all what he was up to. And moreover, I've spoken to many Holocaust survivors personally in college so there's nothing to debate unless you would call them liars and rub salt in their wounds.

The Holocaust itself inflames people's emotions...and rightly so, and no, I don't think it is reckless to decry those who would ignore that lesson of history.

I do consider it reckless to use language that implies the use of violence or gunfire against those who have a different point of view. It's the very reason why we have outlawed death threats. "Don't retreat...RELOAD." fits that example perfectly. Palin may not have intended to urge people to to kill, but her language implied exactly that. When you put out statements like that to the public, should the events in Tucson be a surprise?

Saint_;1350745 wrote: Spot, I know what you're up to and I'm too smart or too tired to fall for it. Ahmadinejad disguised his conference name, but it was obvious to all what he was up to.What he was up to was the destruction of Zionism and the end of Israel. I'm fine by that, just as I was fine when South Africa finally folded its apartheid tents and departed. Ahmadinejad has never denied the holocaust, he's denied any relevance of the holocaust to the displacement of the Palestinians and suggested that since the holocaust was a European problem, perhaps Europe would like to assimilate Israel's Jews instead.

spot;1350748 wrote: What he was up to was the destruction of Zionism and the end of Israel. I'm fine by that, just as I was fine when South Africa finally folded its apartheid tents and departed. Ahmadinejad has never denied the holocaust, he's denied any relevance of the holocaust to the displacement of the Palestinians and suggested that since the holocaust was a European problem, perhaps Europe would like to assimilate Israel's Jews instead.


(sigh) Ok...you win. All he was up to was saying that the Holocaust was no reason to design Modern Israel. Now, explain to me how it is a good idea to suggest that Israel be destroyed. (And please don't say he never said THAT!)

Saint_;1350749 wrote: (sigh) Ok...you win. All he was up to was saying that the Holocaust was no reason to design Modern Israel. Now, explain to me how it is a good idea to suggest that Israel be destroyed. (And please don't say he never said THAT!)


Just as I said above that South Africa was destroyed. The Apartheid constitution of South Africa was brought to an end. A new non-discriminatory constitution was created with equal rights for everyone in the country. Nobody destroyed the land, nobody killed the residents, the new country which replaced apartheid South Africa even kept the same name as the old state.

Nobody wants to destroy Israel's land, nobody wants to kill Israel's residents, what's called for is the destruction of the existing state of Israel and the creation of a new country with a non-discriminatory constitution - a country where the word "Jew" doesn't appear in any law. We can even stretch magnanimity so far as so retain the name and call it Israel instead of Palestine. What matters is that the current Israel is destroyed in the process.

spot;1350750 wrote: What matters is that the current Israel is destroyed.


Yeah...like that. That's what I was talking about. (Sheesh!)