2001. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #177630 by al-rawandi on May 9, 2008 at 11:48 am

Finally.




The issue with Holocaust denial which I raised, you ignored. The denial itself suggests a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, to extort gentile money. This is how it works:


1) Holocaust is a conspiracy to lie to extort money
2) This conspiracy involves every Jew
3) Thus all Jews lie and extort money.


To claim there is some historical issue here, is nonsense. That is like saying that ID is not creationism. It simply doesn't fly.

AS for US students and Vietnam, that is due to manifest ignorance of the Vietnam war perpetuated by shitty American schools. So in this instance:


1) the Vietnamese are not getting billions in reparations and touting it publicly.
2) American students aren't exposed to the death tolls the way people are to Holocaust totals.
3) Even shoddy scholarship would find Holocaust totals to be pretty accurate, the same cannot be said in Vietnam.

Those are not analogous.


I never said Chomsky was a denier. Quite the opposite. What I said was that if he cannot see that Faurisson is an anti-semite, he is morally blind.

I am in South Carolina so I don't have my Chomsky books with me. So no, right now, I cannot quote any prior or subsequent lines. On Tuesday or Wednesday, perhaps.

But what is Chomsky labeled all of these things? To silence him. Why did I say the things I said? Because the evidence points that way. I have no need for Chomsky to be right or to be wrong.


Dershowitz is a piece of shit because he defended, vigorously and pro-bono, the traitor Jonathan Pollard, spy for Israel. To do so for free belies Dershowitz's actual loyalties. He is a disgrace to the United States, a disgrace to Harvard, and a disgrace to Jews. However he is probably an accurate representation of many lawyers.

2002. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #177532 by al-rawandi on May 9, 2008 at 8:49 am

windweaver,





Well, Fanusi and I have had plenty of run ins in the past. Specifically with regard to Islamic History. I call any number of people "my friend" it is rhetorical, I have never met Fanusi and can't claim him as a friend. So when Keith said you are being literal minded, I think he hit the nail on the head.


Chomsky is a pacifist? What kind of pacifist minimizes genocide? What kind of pacifist supports the regimes he has lent intellectual support to? Good try.

Champion of the underdog? Certainly you don't mean the underdogs slaughtered by Pol Pot? The only thing he champions is hatred of America, the only reason he is seen as insightful is because more often than not, the US has done some shitty stuff that deserves criticism and condemnation. That is serendipitous not moral. He would flog the US even if it was doing right. He managed to bitch and moan (whine) about the US in Somalia. Trying to feed starving Africans even receives condemnation from this man.

He is not a lover of freedom. Fanusi posted "undeniable facts about Chomsky". Including his support of the least free societies in the history of the world. Neither you nor _riverrun_ answered this, you instead volleyed ad hominem salvos at Fanusi. So until you answer those "undeniable facts" I will take Fanusi at his word. And it wouldn't surprise me to know Chomsky supported some un-free societies in the past, with his clever "Libertarian socialism".


So your characterizations of CHomsky are wrong. Your characterizations of Fanusi are irrelevant. Who cares if he comments on the KKK site, he has put forward information and offered to back it up with facts. That is all I need, I don't need to know who he supports in the US election.

Answer the arguments, not the man. Can you manage this.


And apologies, you are not a dogmatist, from what I can see. But siding with a dogmatist like _riverrun_ will always be dangerous. But I guess you could say the same for me and Fanusi. So again I apologize.

2003. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #177526 by al-rawandi on May 9, 2008 at 8:37 am

I leave for one day....




lastgreekstanding,




Fanusi is right. Islam is inherently violent. The reason (I shall keep this brief) lies in the theory of al-Jihad al-Ibtida'iyya (offensive or initial jihad), this is a Fard Kifaya (Communal obligation) in Islam. It is incumbent on the Nation of Muhammad (Mila Muhammad) to wage non-stop offensive Jihad. The only jihad which is obligatory for all Muslims is the internal jihad, but the violent external jihad remains obligatory, including Jihad al-Sayf (Jihad of the Sword).


This is an undeniable fact, and it resides in the body of works of almost every classical scholar, especially with scholars who grow more popular every day (Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Qayyim al-JAwziyya).




Fanusi,






You were doing well until you called the Crusades defensive. Remember the Finns, remember the Finns. The conflict in that region was inevitable, who started what was almost irrelevant, the two empires were certain to clash, especially over the Holy Land, I fault religion in general, not either one specifically.

2004. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176891 by al-rawandi on May 8, 2008 at 9:15 am

_riverrun_,







You still refuse to answer my questions.


The majority of my critique of Chomsky came straight from his books, which I own, this was in post #243, not in any "hate site", it was Chomsky's own words from his own books.


You have had 2-3 (EDIT) days to answer. You haven't and all you do is ask more questions to deflect.



As for your ass clownery, I, unlike you will have the testicular fortitude and human decency to actually answer each point, despite the fact that it is part of your elaborate smokescreen to deflect from the actual issues.

More lies from the fraud.

1) It's not what I said.
2) I Said: "According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980-1992 time period, and was the eighth most-cited scholar in history."

This is hardly a lie. You said he was the most cited scholar in the humanities from 1980-1992. I apologize for not including the time line. That is no doubt a part of the anti-Chomsky conspiracy, organized from my personal black helicopter.

So what is the difference here:

"The most cited scholar in the humanities"

and

"Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar".

More flailing and dodging.

al-rawandi tells me that I am avoiding, dodging, when I wrote just yesterday:

You have had since Monday. Stop dodging, you coward. And answer Fanusi.... skip the ad hominems and answer him, double coward.

There was NO link in the comment

You are right. It was in the comment above to Fanusi, and it was the wrong link. I reposted the link later, and noted where I did so.

Unlike you, who have been constantly editing your posts without note, this was noticed and commented upon by righton. I at least have the honor to post what I post and note any substantive corrections.


I denounce Hitchens for his comments, the way I denounce Chomsky for his. The denunciations are precisely the same. If Hitchens did this, as you say he is a disgusting man as well. Perhaps he will have revised this, perhaps you could email him and ask what he thinks now?



As for the quotations you cite, your right the sentence was left out. But the sentence doesn't change the fact that it is a plain lie that the evacuation saved lives. This is obvious bullshit. So nice try on the semantics, but the meaning remains the same.



So now that I have shown your feeble mind how to actually answer a post honestly, you can do the same.


But I have no hope for such a cowardly person. You began posting on this thread, April 30th. It is May 8th. 9 days of discussion, much of it on Chomsky, and still no reply from you. You sir are like a soldier, when the enemy comes into sight, you drop your rifle, shit your pants, and run full speed in the other direction. It is a good thing you are a Chomsky catamite coward, this way you will never become a deserter.


I have answered all of your points, perhaps you can answer even one of mine. Now I have to catch a plane. If anyone who isn't a sniveling coward would care to post on the topic go ahead.

2005. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176865 by al-rawandi on May 8, 2008 at 7:44 am

ligfietser,





However, let us be clear. Islam is the most bigoted ideology that I can think of currently. And the most bigoted ideology to claim over 1 billion members (or according to seeker_of_truth, 100 trillion).

So when these Imams talk about stoning women, beheading apostates, and jamming needles into the gums of homosexual dental patients, they mean it, and I don't think there is a comparable ideology of hate on the western side.


On the other hand, secular liberal democracy is superior to Shariah and thus we would not expect for similar ideologies to be present in western societies.

2006. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176851 by al-rawandi on May 8, 2008 at 7:06 am

I gave up on forest once overlap passing became less wonderous. And again when they lost a pretty good goal keeper.

2007. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176847 by al-rawandi on May 8, 2008 at 6:54 am

Elephant,







Man. U, ruddy clad whackos. The Branch Davidians of the English Premier League. I am a Nottingham Forest man myself, but they got moved down. Shame.


But if Man. U fans are the Branch Davidians, Liverpool fans are some cross between Kamikazes, Hells Angels, and al-Qaeda.

2008. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176844 by al-rawandi on May 8, 2008 at 6:49 am

windweaver,

Even some of his most vehement detractors (eg Hitchens) concede that Chomsky is a brilliant intellectual with a first class mind. In 2005, he was voted the world's leading intellectual:

Two egregious, glaring, flagrant, blatant mistakes in one post.



1) I already said Chomsky is brilliant. But he is a nit wit when it comes to stretching the truth to fit his insane thesis. I am still waiting for Chomsky to write the op-ed that suggests that American offers of assistance to Myanmar are actually attempts to exterminate everyone in Asia.


2) You provide an argument from authority (fallacy), fellow dogmatist _riverrun_ made the same mistake when he said Chomsky was the most cited scholar in the humanities. Neither of these egregious logical fallacies have any bearing on the specific claims I have made.


So your point is virtually irrelevant.

2009. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176838 by al-rawandi on May 8, 2008 at 6:32 am

Alvorin, Bonzai,





Hungarian Elephant is doing a great job.


I am going to visit Anna this weekend, and I am going to read the Communist Manifesto on the plane. I will comment when I return, more edified.

Thanks to both of you for some very good points, right on topic... well for socialism, not the thread.


Good luck.

2010. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176836 by al-rawandi on May 8, 2008 at 6:30 am

Bonzai,

Perhaps love and passion also count a little in motivating people? Maybe some people just love thinking and tinkering? Maybe humans are a little more complicated than they are depicted in econ101 textbooks?

I mentioned this was a large factor in my post. But you simply choose to ignore it in order to make a point I have already addressed.

Look at start ups doing med research in Silicon Valley. I live near there and know many people working there, many see the potential for financial upside as a factor that helps drive them.

Like I said, if someone is motivated by Love and interest they can do so in a Capitalist or Socialist country, but if they also (or only) want a monetary reward they can only do that in a Capitalist country.

That right there solves the controversy. In a capitalist country you can have both. Not so for socialism.

2011. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176833 by al-rawandi on May 8, 2008 at 6:25 am

_riverrun_

Since then he's made several false assumptions about me, has plagiarized the work of others, and gone on to mount a ludicrous copy and paste hate campaign against this guy Noam Chomsky, at one point calling him a pedophile. He de-railed the entire discourse by assuming I was some lickspittle for my "doyen" "Gnome Chomsky", without the slightest effort to seek my actual opinions.

How ridiculous. I never took credit for what you claim I plagarized. I forgot to post the correct link. I am guilty of that, nothing more.

at one point calling him a pedophile

I called you a catamite. This was in an intellectual sense.

He de-railed the entire discourse by assuming I was some lickspittle for my "doyen" "Gnome Chomsky", without the slightest effort to seek my actual opinions.

I have done nothing but ask your opinions on Chomsky with regards to Pol Pot and Holocaust denial. You refuse to give them and then claim I don't ask. How dishonest. Allow me to elaborate.



I said in post # 304:

You have been asked about 12 times to discuss Chomsky and Cambodia, and Chomsky and Holocaust denial. You have refused to answer, which can only be because you don't like the only answer possible.

No answer from you.




I said in post #309:

Well people seem to think you are not addressing the points raised. You are using other, unrelated things to deflect the issue.


Chomsky has, as a matter of fact, claimed a Holocaust denier is NOT an anti-semite, claimed Holocaust denial is not anti-semitism, and he has distorted facts to minimize a well established genocide.

I said in post #311:

I am not asking what you think about these issues in general. I am asking if you think Chomsky distorted the facts to minimize the Cambodia genocide. I am asking if you think he said Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitism, and I am asking if you accept the fact that he said that a Holocaust denier was not an anti-semite.

No answer from you.


In post #314 I said:

I am not asking that. I am asking you:

If you think Chomsky distorted the facts to minimize the Cambodia genocide. I am asking if you think he said Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitism, and I am asking if you accept the fact that he said that a Holocaust denier was not an anti-semite.

I went on to say in the same post:

Can you please answer the question?


Thanks.

No answer from you.


I said in post #316

Please answer my question.

No answer from you.



I had said in post #300:

Chomsky distorts facts with regards to the Cambodian genocide and thinks Holocaust denial is not anti-semitism.

Care to comment?

No answer from you.




Three strikes and you are out. You have had chances to respond. You have simply posted more questions in response. Which I have answered point by point, despite the fact that these are deflections.

ThoughtsonCommonToad has managed to address the Faurisson affair, you have not. It is not an issue of ability, because you provided a good analysis of Hitchens. It is an issue of avoidance.

You continue to trot out this non-sense about "plagerism" and "atrocious scholarship". I will admit it was atrocious, but I don't really care, this isn't my dissertation. So now, can you follow the links and deal with the arguments. You have refused to deal with the facts, and you have refused to answer a half dozen queries about your personal opinion on the matter.


You are a lying dogmatist, and I have no time for your non-sense. Due to your silence I will assume you agree to Chomsky's genocide minimizing and his points that a Holocaust denying neo-Nazi is "not an anti-semite".


Good day.

2012. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176829 by al-rawandi on May 8, 2008 at 6:10 am

_riverrun_




First of all good work on Hithcens. I didn't know that. If he defends Irving, a denier, as a good historian, I cannot condone that. Irving is a nasty man, who is a bigot and willful idiot.


That was some good work, I must admit.

I support people who support free speech, not those who jump in with Holocaust deniers and fight their battles with them.

2013. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176573 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 3:41 pm

*sigh*

Do you feel the same venom against Christopher Hitchens defending the writings of David Irving?

Did he defend the writings, or the right to write them? If he defended the denial I would feel the same venom. But be specific, did he defend the actual comments regarding denial of the Holocaust, or did you just lie in the above statement, and it was simply the right to free speech?

And the same way about Christopher Hitchens' praising of a number of his works? Yes or no?

Chomsky's works? No, Chomsky has done some very valuable work. Irving? Which works? He has done some other history work on Germany that some people find noteworthy.

Have you read his, and Chomsky's, defense of Freedom of Speech, and did you read what I said about it?

Yes, yes, yes. Free speech is paramount. Saying a Holocaust denier who is allied with neo-Nazis is "not an anti-semite", is not about free speech.

What do you not agree with in Christopher Hitchens campaign to not have Irving sentenced in Austria, as sentencing people for their views is profoundly anti-libertarian?

Holocaust denial laws are anti-libertarian. They are an affront to liberal democracy and should be abolished. Holocaust denial is disgusting, so is banging fat girls, I don't like seeing either performed, but I don't deny people their right to do it. I reserve the right to criticize.

I don't do research the way you do. Get over it.

You have posted plenty of links for people to use. I researched from the books I have, and used the internet when those books weren't available. I am not going to go to the library for hours on end for a debate with a Chomsky dogmatist on an informal forum. This is not my PhD dissertation. And my points are obviously made based on the research I did do.

Sheer lies. You insinuate that I have not corrected posts when mistakes have been made.

Please show me where I haven't changed my opinion to fit the facts, and show me where you have?

So no those aren't lies. You are getting desperate now.

2014. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176568 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 3:33 pm

ligfietser,





That is very interesting. I have never heard this before.


Where can I find the backup for what you are saying? Was it published?

2015. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176563 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm

D'Arcy,




Thank you for defining the term. Others were struggling with that.


So in this world, how do you achieve innovation and forward thinking. If there is no greater reward for those who work hard and innovate, isn't that going to handicap the innovation?

My guess is you will say people will work for a better society. Fair enough. But in my current Capitalist world, people do that now, there are people who innovate for mankind, and there are also those who do so for profit. Take out the profit and those who innovate for profit, will cease to innovate. And you cannot say that innovation for profit yields less stunning innovations.

But your model will fail so long as Capitalism exists, somewhere. So the problem is that to eliminate capitalism worldwide, you must eliminate wages and any personal motivation. Collectivism usually fails, even when isolated, it is contrary to human nature. Humans seek bigger and better things for themselves. Natural selection worked funny for people. Total individualists didn't survive, cooperation was needed, and my guess is total collectivists didn't make it either. There must be a combination. I offer that in my world view, you don't seem to.


Personal incentive drives human progress. That is manifest in history, and all around us today.

2016. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176558 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 3:20 pm

ASM,









You truly are a skid mark. I will leave your intellectual death to Teratornis.

2017. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176552 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Let's compare how we have dealt with the obvious,



When it was pointed out that I posted an incorrect link, and omitted another, I said "You're right, I will fix that. I did not intend as such."


When it is pointed out the Chomsky defends an anti-semite and Holocaust denier, you deflect, dodge, change the subject, counter-accuse, and then request a leave of absence.


That is the difference. When I am wrong I am happy to admit it. I don't have anything invested in Chomsky either way. Facts are facts. For you, it is a theistic enterprise. A creationist-like dedication to anti-truth. Doing anything you can to avoid the point and employing the most childish of tactics to maintain your suspension from reality. Now the facts have caught up with you, and you simply refuse to acknowledge what is plainly obvious to everyone else on this thread.

All you have, in your entire arsenal is that I didn't post a link I should have posted. It doesn't change the things the facts, you can take 20 minutes and get all the facts, all of them. But you won't do it, you refuse. This isn't lazy, it is willfully ignorant.

People here think I am an asshole, yes. Crude, arrogant, abrasive and belligerent. No one has ever been able to say I don't admit when I am wrong and change my opinion to conform to facts.

You seem to be all of the above, except the lone laudable quality. And this, amidst all of your blustering and cloying language.

I have challenged anyone to show me where I was wrong and didn't apologize and conform to facts and reality, and nothing. Now it is your turn, to do a little modest labor to solve the problem over YOUR credibility.

2018. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176547 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 3:01 pm

_riverrun_,





It can be. The point is that if gays have gotten billions in reperations, and there is a millenia old hateful stereotype of gays extorting money from heterosexuals, then yes it is anti-gay.

And if Gypsys had been accused of deicide, labeled with the blood libel, portrayed as thieving, greedy liars, then received billions from non-Gypsys then yes denial would be anti-Gypsy.


Holocaust denial fits the classic definition of anti-Semitism. But I think I already know your answer.

2019. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176545 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 2:58 pm

_riverrun_

Agreeing with your position (and given your atrocious scholarship) without doing the relevant research, I'm sure you will agree, (perhaps not as it's something you do), is extremely stupid, especially in a public forum.

Actually in scholarly situations my scholarship is quite good.


But in an informal forum, I get very very lazy.


On another note, I noticed that Daniel Dennette criticizes Chomsky because Chomsky is of the opinion that the brain is too complex to arise by simple evolution. Interesting indeed.


BTW please notice that not only is Chomsky saying that Holocaust denial is not anti-semitism, he is saying a man allied with neo-Nazis who denies the Holocaust is not an anti-semite. Very exciting stuff. Must be like finding out there is no Santa Claus, huh?


I eagerly await your reply....

2020. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176532 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 2:44 pm

_riverrun_





Please answer my question.



Thanks.

2021. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176526 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 2:41 pm

_riverrun_





I am not asking that. I am asking you:


If you think Chomsky distorted the facts to minimize the Cambodia genocide. I am asking if you think he said Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitism, and I am asking if you accept the fact that he said that a Holocaust denier was not an anti-semite.


I am not saying you disagree, I am asking you what you think of Chomsky doing it?


Can you please answer the question?


Thanks.

2022. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176523 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 2:37 pm

_riverrun_

If you comprehend that point then perhaps you might ask me what I think about Holocaust Denial, Cambodia or Pol Pot.

I am not asking what you think about these issues in general. I am asking if you think Chomsky distorted the facts to minimize the Cambodia genocide. I am asking if you think he said Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitism, and I am asking if you accept the fact that he said that a Holocaust denier was not an anti-semite.


These are simple simple issues. Perhaps you could put that 14 year old of yours on the computer and let him answer me.



*EDIT* I found camanite in Cormac McCarthy's book "The Road", but I quickly got the reference to Ganymedes, which is Greek, not Roman. However the term "camanite" itself is first seen in Latin.

2023. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176519 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 2:32 pm

_riverrun_,






Well people seem to think you are not addressing the points raised. You are using other, unrelated things to deflect the issue.


Chomsky has, as a matter of fact, claimed a Holocaust denier is NOT an anti-semite, claimed Holocaust denial is not anti-semitism, and he has distorted facts to minimize a well established genocide.


I could not have been more clear. The evidence could not be more clear. You have the ability to check my credibility, you choose not to, why? Because it is your only weapon to keep from answering pointed questions, with plenty of cited evidence.

These are deflections, the terms are clear at this point. I raised some issues, cited Chomsky, or provided links, all of the information is at your finger tips. You can find out for yourself. You can of course choose to bring up some other nonsense and not answer direct and pertinent questions, but it would only be because you don't want to answer them. And why you don't want to answer them, only you can know. But be sure, everyone here knows you are indeed refusing to answer them.


If anyone can say that I didn't make substantive points, drawn from Chomsky's own works, all of which have verifiable sources, and I then asked questions of _riverrun_ based on these citations, then please come forward. I am interested in hearing from anyone who says I did not do exactly that.

2024. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176511 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Quetz,




PM

2025. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176507 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 2:04 pm

_riverrun_





It isn't absurd. 1977 was the height of the genocide.




A non-retarded analogy would be


"In 1944 there were no holocaust deniers but in 1952 there were."


The genocide was well underway at the time (1977). So you continue to lie and distort, using totally false and misleading analogies. What a nasty habit, maybe you should pick up smoking instead.

2026. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176506 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 2:01 pm

*SIGH*






It is pretty clear that you are not interested in discussing facts, you are interested in trying to score points. You haven't really had anything to say in quite a long time. You have simply dismissed people (Fanusi) whose comments you simply didn't want to answer.

You have been asked about 12 times to discuss Chomsky and Cambodia, and Chomsky and Holocaust denial. You have refused to answer, which can only be because you don't like the only answer possible.

The only reason I assumed you thought Chomsky was never wrong was because you refused to discuss things when I showed he was wrong.

As for re-contextualisation, look at how he wildly accuses the US government as a wild fabricator (during the genocide, when he seems to have been very Pol Pot friendly) then he relies on the same sources when it suits him (and people have caught on to his support of Pol Pot).

The point here should be obvious, Chomsky immediately makes wild claims about the US government. But that was about 1/15th of my argument, and it is the only thing you have addressed. Why is that?

2027. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176499 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 1:47 pm

_riverrun_








You are really being an idiot now. Very well, you did not say that Chomsky was omniscient, you acted as such.


You are simply reposting the same shit over and over and over. What I am asking (now) is for you to look at the claims that Chomksy distorted the Cambodia genocide. Can you manage this?

And in another place he has said Holocaust denial is not anti-semitism, and that furthermore the specific Holocaust denier is not an anti-semite.


Chomsky distorts facts with regards to the Cambodian genocide and thinks Holocaust denial is not anti-semitism.

Care to comment?

2028. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176494 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 1:28 pm

MPhil,



No answers he had "to go". Classic dogmatist. When confronted with insurmountable logic, shits himself and runs off.

2029. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176491 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 1:16 pm

ASMarques,






Hey, answer Teratornis. Why do you accept the history on Allied bombing, but not the Holocaust?


Thanks.

2030. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176489 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 1:11 pm

_riverrun_





Show me that Chomsky did not distort the truth with regards to Cambodia.


Frankly I don't give a fuck what you think of me. But you are going to use the fact that I did not post a link to reject my well founded arguments out of hand. This is a clever tool for a man caught in a lie.

The links are all there, and I will edit my earlier post to show the appropriate source.

I never claimed these were my own ideas, that would be plagarism. I cited the original sources and not the intermediary source. This was lazy, but if you had asked I would have told you precisely where I got them.

In fact you should have asked me where I got them, then you could see if I would lie. But you didn't do this, you are going to get more mileage out of your current tactics, in order to dodge the point.

So the stuff I cite, look up in your own Chomsky books. You can see if I am right. It is easy for you to test whether or not I have cited Chomsky. You will of course duck this extremely modest test of your intellect. You can find out if I am being honest any time you like, and get to the truth. But you are uninterested by truth, you are interested in your fringe left dogmatism looking squeaky clean. I could give a shit about political positions, I care about underlying facts. You have the means to check these, you refuse, and use your dishonest refusal as a means of attack. Well sir, it is finished. Look these citations up or shut the fuck up. It is pretty straight forward. I guarantee everything I have cited from Chomsky is verbatim, barring typo.


So get to work.

2031. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176486 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Teratornis,






That was awesome. Just awesome. That was the perfect response for ASMarques. Perfect. Well done. Now he can choke on his shitty argument.

2032. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176483 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 12:59 pm

ThoughtsCommonToad,





Ohhhh here is a dandy,

Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair



Ol' Chomsky even says Faurisson himself is not an anti-semite. Despite his neo-Nazi Holocaust denying inclinations.


So I can basically dismiss, politely as possible because you are a great person in my experience with you, what you had to say.

Once we dig into what Chomsky says, we see nothing is as it seems. I will never read a Chomsky work again, without reading his other works on the issue and checking every single footnote. The man cannot be trusted. Such a liar.

2033. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176482 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 12:51 pm

ThoughtsCommonToad,










I think this example illustrates Chomsky's very subtle dishonesty. I read the article and understood his point. But I will say a couple of things.


1) No such ignorant children exist in Chomsky's sphere.
2) Faurisson was not such a child.
3) They both know the consequences of Holocaust denial.


Chomsky said:

A person might believe that Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews in some other way without being an anti-Semite. Since the point is trivial and disputed by no one, I do not know why we are discussing it.

http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989----.htm


Chomsky was not dealing with someone who said the Jews were exterminated in "some other way". He was dealing with a Holocaust denier, who denied the gas chambers because he believes there was no Holocaust. Even a nit-wit like Chomsky could have ascertained this.


He goes on to say in the very next paragraph:

In that context, I made a further point: even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite. I presume that that point too is not subject to contention. Thus if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite. That suffices to establish the point at issue.

So in which context? The context of an innocent child? The problem is that Faurisson is no innocent child he is an educated man, living only hundreds of miles from where exterminations took place, to whom photos are available, and with survivors even in his country for him to visit.

What Chomsky is claiming to be saying is irrelevant and so out of context as to be certainly a cover for a more subtle assertion that Holocaust denial is not an affront to Jews in a manner similar to the Blood Libel.


But Chomsky continues to dig his anti-semitic grave in the following paragraph:

Denial of monstrous atrocities, whatever their scale, does not in itself suffice to prove that those who deny them are racists vis-a-vis the victims.

Here we see him again, saying the same thing, this time with no ignorant children. Simple flat denial of the genocide is not racist. But in the case of the Holocaust IT IS, due to contingent issues, that Chomsky knows, Faurisson knows, and any adult in a country with running water knows.


If you read the rest of his statement Chomsky, as always, starts his lunatic ravings about comparable American atrocities (he simply can't resist, like a shaky alcoholic reaching for the bottle) in Vietnam and Colonial America. And in the rest of his piece you see him comparing apples and oranges (Gypsys, etc...). The Jewish victims of the Holocaust are so well known and the reparations so well known that to deny it is to make consequential claims. Not so for Gypsys. But I would say denial of the genocide of American Indians is an excercise in nationalistic bigotry. But no doubt Chomsky and the likes of Howard Zinn maintain that denial of massacres of Indians are signs of racist American Zeal.



*EDIT: Faurisson also included this 'inoccuous' apology from Chomsky in the introduction to his book. Some ignorant child.


*EDIT 2: Faurisson was also involved with neo-Nazi groups. Obviously due to his childish ignorance. I am sure he didn't know they were anti-semites.

http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/Fresco81a/

2034. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176477 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 12:38 pm

_riverrun_,





Facts grant a margin of interpretation, what I have (perhaps confusingly) termed a "mandate". Chomsky exceeded the bounds in his discussions of Cambodia.

This is not easy to determine, because he has taken numerous contradictory positions, but the fact remains.

No one enforces this save those who call it what it is, a distortion.

You are really struggling to make comprehensible points, as numerous people have noted. The cloying language, and quintuple negatives are getting difficult.

But I am arguing that Chomsky has distorted.

I was curious as to WHAT you were arguing. Are you saying Chomsky is always right? If so, you lose. Are you saying Chomsky did not distort the Cambodian genocide? If so you lose.


I posed excruciatingly simple questions for you to answer, I have posted those a couple of times. You have twice avoided them. You will be called out under the three strikes rule soon.

I have been totally clear here. You keep posting unclear diatribes somewhat tethered to reality, and expect people to worship these edicts. Yet numerous people have said they are shite, not just me.


So in short, and terse, terms:


What the fuck is your point with regards to Chomsky. I said he has distorted and proved morally inept. This is manifest.

I am asking you to demonstrate the Chomsky is never wrong. You seem to treat him with biblical reverence. So the issue is the two points I raised in my previous post. Even you can understand this.

2035. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176464 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 11:48 am

_riverrun_,






Chomsky has simply distorted the Cambodia situation, more specifically in regards to East Timor.

He has made the totally foolish claim that Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitism.


I have demonstrated these over and over and over.

If you would care to read through Chomsky's own site you can see more distortions. He has archives of his old letters and articles. I am reading through those now, and his downplaying of the Cambodian genocide is the most glaring, repellent, and sad part of the whole thing.

So when you said I was wrong for asserting that there was some issue regarding Chomsky and Pol Pot, I was in fact right, and I could have made the bolder claim that he a genocide minimizer and distorter.

And I was not aware that RD.net is peer reviewed. All you had to do was ask me where I got anything I have posted and I will always answer honestly. The reason some of the text is changed is because it was in PDF format (the original), I posted the original citations along with the text because I know you are a Chomsky fan and would have his works, and maybe some of the others.

Finally, you can check any citation I make to Chomsky's work in your own personal library and you will find they are exact, barring typo.

So the issue remains the following... You have not been straight when the Holocaust and anti-Semitism issue came up. Same for Cambodia. The only two Questions relative to Chomsky now are:


1) Is Holocaust denial anti-semitism, and was Chomsky wrong to deny this.

2) Did Chomsky minimize the genocide in Cambodia through distortion of fact.


The answers are all "YES".

These are manifest. Once I get a reasonable admission of Chomsky's lies and distortions I will be happy to return to other topics in a civil manner. Or if you can manage to correct me, then I will be willing to admit that as well. But as long as I get long winded posts designed to distract I will continue to press and consider you a Chomsky dogmatist. It is pretty simple.


I have posted the evidence on Cambodia and the Holocaust. It is time to address the substance.


As for Fanusi, here is what I have to say. I don't always like what he has to say, but when he is right, he is right. Facts are facts irrespective of who delivers them.

Would you say the world was flat if Hitler said it was round? Does Hitler saying the earth is round, discount the evidence that is in fact round? No.

And I am not comparing Fanusi to Hitler, I am simply taking off from your ridiculous slight of "Neo-Nazi", which he is not, he in fact seeks to avoid a rise in neo-nazism.

2036. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176446 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 11:07 am

Bonzai,





Some solid points there, I like it.



I would say that Canada and the US have radically different Muslim populations. I had the privelege of having two outstanding friends while I was still in Berkeley. Both were Muslims, both exchange students from England. One was of Indian origin via East Africa, the other Algerian. The Algerian fellow was a far more strident Muslim, but a genuinely wonderful person nonetheless. The Algerian (born in Algeria, migrated with family at a very early age) was shocked by how liberal Muslims in the US were. By most standards he was nearly a fundamentalist in the American Muslim community, and said he felt quite liberal in England.

The man of Indian origin was a fairly religious man, but said he was considered virtually irreligious in England.


The point is that the Muslims in England are far more strident on average than Americans. Although I can't claim to have spent any time in England researching this, and any future trips will be spent researching pubs and British women. I think the point remains, the Muslims in England are vastly different then the Muslims in the US, and presumably Canada. I don't really feel threatened by the average American Muslim, thus I count dozens as friends.


As to some specific points you make, which were equally insightful in my opinion...

1) Moderates don't. But they often don't care to pick sides and don't wish to alienate either end of their identity spectrum.

2) The multi-culturalists are dangerous. There is a great deal of white guilt out there, America included. These people are the most dangerous. They have inherited what was a great liberal tradition in this country (the liberal views of my maternal grandfather), but they have morphed it into a guilt ridden spineless ideology. There was a time when greater principles guided liberals, such as JF Kennedy, but now it is mostly waffling on financial issues and feeling bad about being white. They are hampering any attempt to call a spade a spade.

3)Agreed, 100%. I think giving non-US citizens (MUslims in specific) greater access to due process. For instance give Gitmo detainees access to a real court. Those are important steps in the integrationist plan.



But I will say, attempts to integrate must be combined with an unforgiving system for punishing or deporting people who refuse to accept the basic tenets of western secular democracy.

But you have called multi-culturalism out quite well. No faith schools with public money... but that seems to be on the rise in the US, largely because the liberals don't stop them. Liberalism needs to be reviewed and re-organized. You can see massive defections everywhere (Hitchens etc...). We need to re-focus ourselves on what our society will represent and how we can get others on board.

2037. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176432 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 10:09 am

ianmac66,






Excellent point. They are winning the war in the bedroom. It is a demographic issue. Muslims tend to have large numbers of children (this is doctrinal within Islam, a duty of sorts, to have many children), these kids will grow up perhaps more radicalized than their parents.

I don't think the British get it yet.

There are moderate Muslims, but when the first bill for shariah gets introduced, who will the moderates stand with. So far the moderates only whine about Islamophobia and racism, and don't even acknowledge the Muslim source for Occidentphobia, bigotry, sexism, death, and expansionism. So the moderates are no help, they are a cover which the fundamentalists can use to say "Ya I am one of those Muslims who goes to soccer games and votes and stuff, so nothing to see here."

2038. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176429 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 10:05 am

ASMarques,






And my post regarding virgins being a non factor, despite all evidence to the contrary?

Looks like you are the one putting on a hoax.

2039. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176416 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 9:29 am

Clearmind,

One million dollar question;

Do you mean billion?

Irate and Al rawandi, why don't you play outside on the beach beaching each other rather than being nasty here

Oh no! Did I offend you? Well try this... pull your lip over your head and swallow.


Ass clown. You are a stain on the tunic of humanity. A sub-human of some sort, incapable of either argumentation, or the much less daunting task... forming coherent sentences. Let's leave spelling alone, I can't stand to deal with that now. Even a monkey can be trained to type.

2040. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176405 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 8:51 am

Reverend,





One word,


Gigli

2041. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176390 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 8:25 am

Peace said:

Has he said "I don't have much time" or "I have better things to do" yet?

I said:

I assume he is about to get real busy

Seeker said:

I believe I have received what I came here for

Farewell to all.

The clairevoyant abilities of the regulars here are getting quite good. These theists so absolutely predictible. It is getting pretty sad.

2042. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176379 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 8:10 am

seeker,





A billion good byes to you sir.


It's been a pleasure laughing at your immense stupidity.


"Jesus loves me, but I make him wear a condom."

2043. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176372 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 8:05 am

Seeker,

My 80 plus billion was off the top of my head and damn close I might add. Now fuck off with your stupid ass shit.

Ya, 304 billion people in the US, pretty damn close. No wonder he can't figure out how old the earth is.


What a dipshit. I would have thought this was a mistake if not for the fact that you typed "billion" over and over.


Hahaha

Who is "puking on the page" now?

2044. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176368 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 8:00 am

Peace,




I assume he is about to get real busy.



It is really hard to deal with these people. It is just a stone wall from them once you have evidence that shows their world view is demonstrably false. It is rather impressive. No other animal would be so resistant to stimulus from its environment.

2045. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176337 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 7:33 am

Ass clown,

Seeing that the vast majority of the world's populations tend to hold to some form or another of religious belief, you must live in constant fear

Uhhhh what the fuck are you talking about? How ridiculous. People who thought the earth wasn't the center of the universe were in grave danger at one point. They feared the Church too.


Is this an ad popullum?

2046. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176326 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 7:14 am

Well,




Classic theist, with a new twist. Pretended to be open minded for several days.

In fact he is the usual theist... refuses to or unable to understand the evidence. Says godidit, and that, apparently, that god erased the evidence to fool all you rational people into following Satan.

And of course, refuses to answer direct questions.

Declare his argument dead and move on.

I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to reason with someone who claims knowledge of a deity who overrides evidence with a wave of his hand. Such a belief is impossible to dislodge. Such childish irrationality is unbreakable.

Wasting your time. The man is clearly a willful idiot.

2047. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176302 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 6:42 am

Fanusi,




_riverrun_ is a coward, he won't face you. He will dodge any substantive points. He will nit pick small and unrelated details, couched in cloying language, wasting hours of your time, digging through mountains of intellectual detritus, searching for something that might be called a "point".

You have made some great points, and asked a fair question of _riverrun_ this is precisely why he will ignore you.

There is no straw man. Chomsky himself is perhaps the strawman. He lied in his books, he lied in his editorials. These have all been laid bare. Now it is a "straw man". Ridiculous. Feel free to keep posting and showing Chomsky for what he is. And _riverrun_ for his assistant in dishonesty.

2048. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176298 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 6:32 am

alvorin,






Ok I am wrong, so totally wrong, now can you tell me why? Can you tell me what socialism is? I have painted with a broad brush because none of the people here care to define socialism. And when I do it I get accused of being wrong.

Me:"Socialism is this..."
Peanut gallery: "No it isn't"
Me: "Ok what is it?"
PG: "Tito wasn't a socialist".
Me: "What is socialism?"
PG: "Cuba isn't socialist."

Someone define socialism for me.



As for the government being responsible for protecting people from centralized powers (public and private), this works if the government is accountable to the people. However in the US, the government works for large corporate power and individual wealth. So it has next to no accountability, so this is my major problem with the United States.

2049. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176297 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 6:25 am

ASMarques,

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying it isn't the 70 virgins as Dawkins apparently would have it.

How come many suicide bombers wrap their genitals in wet towels? Virgins have nothing to do with it?

Good try.

2050. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176296 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 6:23 am

Nairb,




I think that is fair.


It is all a social issue, religion is nothing but a cultural and societal product. So the cultures are highly relevant to the behavior of the specific Muslim.