Posted on 10/30/2003 8:04:40 AM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
Edited on 10/30/2003 9:21:43 AM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
Many many arabs want to kill Americans. 19 of them succeeded in killing lots of Americans just two years ago. You must have seen it. It was in all the papers. Other arabs danced in the streets when they heard the news. In dealing with the arabs, which we have to do collectively, it would be idiotic not to bear in mind that large numbers of them are hostile to us. In that, we and Israel have a common enemy.
A final one?
You got a number I can call to get bought off? Nothing like getting paid to do what you love to do anyway.
;)
By the way, minorities commit crimes in this country at a highly disproportionate rate. They have self-appointed "advocates" from among them who make the problem worse. And yes, "many" of them want to kill white people (of whom they've killed more than Arab terrorists have killed Americans). Does this justify racism in your view?
What would you say, if Buchanan denied the Holocaust ever happened?
This is entirely your straw man. Nobody mentioned collective guilt except you.
There is a direct correlation between the prevalence of Islam as a religion in a country and the incidence of terrorist violence. That's not racial, it's a result of a virulent kind of religious fanaticism.
By the way, minorities commit crimes in this country at a highly disproportionate rate. They have self-appointed "advocates" from among them who make the problem worse. And yes, "many" of them want to kill white people (of whom they've killed more than Arab terrorists have killed Americans). Does this justify racism in your view?
When did you stop beating your wife? I don't jump through hoops in response to race-baiting; you must be mistaking me for a Republican senator. Go play your silly games elsewhere.
"THIS IS THE GRAMMAR POLICE! PUT DOWN THE KEYBOARD, BACK AWAY SLOWLY FROM THE COMPUTER, AND COME OUT WITH YOUR HOMONYMS UP!"
Personally, I think he can be faulted for two things, in an otherwise thoughtful article. He does tend to stereotype to some extent, by suggesting that American Jews fall into three categories. While his three categories may, and probably do account for substantial numbers, they are by no means exclusive, and do not describe substantial other numbers. However, I do not think this is in anyway malicious. Indeed, on balance, he says more favorable things about American Jews than negative.
His other fault, in my estimation, is in disclosing an apparently private conversation with Bill Buckley. That seems unfair, in this sort of public format. (And I do not think that Buckley can be accused of being obsessed with Israeli interests. I remember his article at the time of the Eichmann Trial "Israel Against The Jews," which was very critical of the way that whole matter was handled--and that was the major news event involving Israel between the 1956 and 1967 Wars. Although granted that is more than a generation ago, and I have not followed Buckley that closely in the past twenty years.)
I do not have a clue as to the religious background of most of those posting, here, and do not really have a clue as to whether most of those posting on Israeli subjects are Jews or Gentiles--probably a decent mix. But there is, frankly, a disproportionate emphasis on Israeli themes as opposed to those involving other foreign lands--with the exception of Mexican themes (almost all of the latter being negative) and Iraqi (where we are more immediately involved). Whether this reflects an "obsession" with the modern secular State of Israel, or one with the scenes of the Bible, or a combination of the two, I do not know. But anyone who doubts that assessment, might just scan the subjects posted over an average month.
I have one other comment, and it is one that goes alike to both Sobran, his supporters and his detractors. All of them keep referring to the "Holocaust," when they are actually writing about a methodical, systematic, cold-blooded slaughter, involving considerable organization and planning, extending over a three year period. Packaging that vicious procedure under a catchy packaging term is as ridiculous as the current practice of packaging deviant asexuality under the term "Gay." It discourages actual understanding. And it is actual understanding that is needed to realize how totally ridiculous some posters are being, who would suggest that Sobran is advocating anything of the sort.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
I can't speak for Joe's supporters, but Joe begs off the question, he's not knowledgeable enough to determine if what you describe as a methodical, systematic, cold-blooded slaughter, involving considerable organization and planning, extending over a three year period actually happened.
Actually, unless you're a chemist, fluent in German, with substantial logistical experience in mass murder, he'd say you can't determine if it happened either. From his speach to the 2002 Institute of Historical Review Conference.
Even if the Holocaust had really happened, as I assumed, maybe it should be studied with a critical rationality most of its believers obviously lacked… I am not, heaven forbid, a “Holocaust denier.” I lack the scholarly competence to be one. I don’t read German, so I can’t assess the documentary evidence; I don’t know chemistry, so I can’t discuss Zyklon-B; I don’t understand the logistics of exterminating millions of people in small spaces…. Of course those who affirm the Holocaust need know nothing about the German language, chemistry, and other pertinent subjects; they need only repeat what they have been told by the authorities… Besides, “Holocaust denial” is illegal in many countries I may want to visit someday. For me, that’s proof enough. ...I’m also incompetent to judge whether the Holocaust did happen; so I’ve become what might be called a “Holocaust stipulator.”
It is a pretty simple litmus test, actually.
Presumably, then, he remains agnostic about the existence of any country he hasn't visited or any person he hasn't met.
It really isn't hard to get some first hand experience of this sort. Some of the death camps are open for visitors. There all sorts of contemporary newspaper accounts, historical documents, museum artifacts. Of course, they could all be part of the great Jewish conspiracy, I suppose.
Will you please follow the subject of this thread? Sobran is being accused of anti-Semitism because he said "Jewish" at certain points in his article. The implication is that he believes in collective guilt (unless anti-Semitism has a different meaning that I'm not aware of). My point is that one could replace "Jewish" with "Arab" and nobody would raise a stink. But if using one word indicates a belief in collective guilt, then using the other word indicates the same thing. I know you want to avoid those kinds of implications, but pleading ignorance of the situation can only get you so far.
Anti-semitism is prejudice against Jews, or actions resulting from that prejudice. Where does collective guilt come into it?
I found it a longer essay than I'm use to from Mr. Sobran, but please, select one sentence or paragraph that you think throws Joe into the NEO-NAZI camp.
Once again, all you have to do is trace the conversation. Sobran's accused of a certain "prejudice" with his use of the word "Jewish", so I raised the issue of a similar use of the word "Arab", suggesting that the accusation of prejudice would apply just the same in that case. Your response, essentially, was that there were "3000 reasons" why such prejudice would be appropriate in their case. In other words, collective guilt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.