this thread really does show of the more narrow, ameri-centric views i've seen on here. we're talking a thousands-of-year-old struggle for territory and religious freedom filled with bloodshed and war...and comparing it to a bunch of 150 year old, backwood 'beer & brats & burn a cross,' folls who masqueraded as a christian gentlemen's society.
c'mon...could our political discourse get a little more sophisticated than parsing the merits of email forwards???
Not to speak for Rich, but I think he is trying to get us to speak more about Hezbollah/ Iranian-Lebanese relations/ Iranian-Israeli relations/ westernized perceptions of it all.
If using a KKK reference helps put it in a perspective where discussion is pushed than so be it. Better to talk about than not to.
I just hope some serious discourse about Hezbollah comes from this rather than a nitpicking of what group he cites as a similar example to them.
This has to be one of the dumbest, most miss informed threads I have ever seen on theStrut.
Beyond a rather pathetic piece of agitprop, what on earth is the point in drawing a similarity between these two, completely separate groups.
Glad you liked it.....that thread you started was top notch!!
You're the one moaning about what a terrible thread you have to come back and read over and over(and after this post) and over again.
Not me.
I think it produced some damn good discourse.
And kept Moke's like you comin' back for more!!
Rockadelic, I really have no interest in getting into some personal beef with you. I don't know you. I'm sure you are a realy nice person tho. I thought what you said was dumb tho. If you would like to have some 'damn good discourse' about why it was so dumb feel free. I have no problem with the thread itself, just some of the dumbness contained within. But like I already said, if you just want to sling mud, I'm not interested.
Dude....no beef here....If I wanted to start a beef with you I'd go find one of your posts and say it was dumb, mis-informed and pathetic.
this thread really does show of the more narrow, ameri-centric views i've seen on here. we're talking a thousands-of-year-old struggle for territory and religious freedom filled with bloodshed and war...and comparing it to a bunch of 150 year old, backwood 'beer & brats & burn a cross,' folls who masqueraded as a christian gentlemen's society.
c'mon...could our political discourse get a little more sophisticated than parsing the merits of email forwards???
Not to speak for Rich, but I think he is trying to get us to speak more about Hezbollah/ Iranian-Lebanese relations/ Iranian-Israeli relations/ westernized perceptions of it all.
If using a KKK reference helps put it in a perspective where discussion is pushed than so be it. Better to talk about than not to.
I just hope some serious discourse about Hezbollah comes from this rather than a nitpicking of what group he cites as a similar example to them.
I see your point, but on this issue, I personally, disagree...I just feel like our nation has cornered the market on half-educated international opinions, and it is most obvious on all things that relate to the Middle East. I choose to stay out of Middle Eastern political discussion because I don't know enough to offer an opinion...If I did get into detailed political discussion on this topic, we might get something as enlightening and shallow as some of the opinions contained in this thread.
I just think that sometimes NO discussion, and quietely listening and learning, is better than silly similes that don't apply that allow us to delude ourselves into thinking something profound has been said.
edit: by saying, "middle east," i specifically meant "Israeli-Palestinian," conflict; I should have clarified.
I just feel like our nation has cornered the market on half-educated international opinions, and it is most obvious on all things that relate to the Middle East.
agreed for the most part
I choose to stay out of Middle Eastern political discussion because I don't know enough to offer an opinion...If I did get into detailed political discussion on this topic, we might get something as enlightening and shallow as some of the opinions contained in this thread.
thats totally cool too. I think what we need in this thread are maybe some articles & reference points. Granted Rich saying he spoke to some folks who praised the benefits of the KKK and then compared it to how fokls react to Hezbollah may be a little hard to take a logical leap of faith on. I'll see if I can find some articles to back either his theory or just promote this discussion in the right direction.
While almost all Americans know about the history of the KKK I don't think we all understand the fact that they ALSO did positive things for their community.
I know growing up in NYC I had no clue about that and just assumed they were about nothing more than lynchings and hate.
I had no idea that..... the KKK had plans-for five Klan universities, a company to publish Klan-written history texts, a banking and trust institution to aid ailing farmers, free homes for all newly married Klan couples, a national full employment policy, a program to support Klan orphans, several medical research centers, and a chain of hospitals 1*
And after reading about how and why Hezbullah has support from what I would assume are indeed normally "peace loving" people I immediately thought of the KKK and tried to take at least one small part of the Middle East equation and put it into terms Americans might be able to relate to better.
If everyone on this site already knew that aspect and my comparison was nothing more than a "silly simile" then I apologize to all who were offended.
I personally think it showed how two evil hate groups could attain the support of good people.
1* - From the University of Virginia's website "Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s"
The war in Israel was a proxy war between USA and Iran/Syria. Much like the conflict in Afghanistan, between Russian backed forces, and American backed Taliban and (what would become) Al-Qaeda forces. So shall we draw similes between the Israel and the Taliban, Or Osama bin Laden, and Ehud Olmert. NO, of course not.
Why do people keep referring to the KKK in past tense? They are alive and thriving and still have the same goals as they did 50 - 70 years ago, they just became smarter... they wear suits now and rarely show their tradtional ceremonial costumes anymore...
Also understand that your backwoods hicks that you like to refer to the KKK as, are actually alot of very high up politicians and "important" business people... shit is still very relevent today.
The war in Israel was a proxy war between USA and Iran/Syria. Much like the conflict in Afghanistan, between Russian backed forces, and American backed Taliban and (what would become) Al-Qaeda forces.
you had me up to here, than you kinda went off the deep end with this:
So shall we draw similes between the Israel and the Taliban, Or Osama bin Laden, and Ehud Olmert. NO, of course not.
I'm not even sure what you were trying to say here. But if its a real question the answer would be "no", but my question is, why would you say this in the first place? better yet why would you even mention the president of Israel in the same catagory as a man as evil as Osama Bin Laden?
Why do people keep referring to the KKK in past tense? They are alive and thriving and still have the same goals as they did 50 - 70 years ago, they just became smarter... they wear suits now and rarely show their tradtional ceremonial costumes anymore...
Also understand that your backwoods hicks that you like to refer to the KKK as, are actually alot of very high up politicians and "important" business people... shit is still very relevent today.
The war in Israel was a proxy war between USA and Iran/Syria. Much like the conflict in Afghanistan, between Russian backed forces, and American backed Taliban and (what would become) Al-Qaeda forces.
you had me up to here, than you kinda went off the deep end with this:
So shall we draw similes between the Israel and the Taliban, Or Osama bin Laden, and Ehud Olmert. NO, of course not.
I'm not even sure what you were trying to say here. But if its a ral question the answer would be "no", but my question is, why would you say this in the first place? better yet why would you even mention the president of Israel in the same catagory as a man as evil as Osama Bin Laden?
My point was.. They have something in common (they are/were both financed by the same people).
It is a very tenuous link, that elucidates very little of the situation, and just panders to peoples already held beliefs, or bigotries.
The Klan really aren't who you should be really worried about. The Evangelists and the end-of-dayers' are much more powerfull. And are just wetting themselves to push Israel (and the rest of the world) into a war. So they can rebuild their church on temple mount, and fuck the whole world in the process.
I'm with R*ch. I think questioning the popularity of hezbollah in the west, particularly amongst the far left, is a valid and important. The eagerness of the activist community to embrace hezbollah as a cause celebre, while alleging unspeakable attrocities against the cosmos on the part of the Israelis, speaks to a dubious morality that deligitamises so much of what they do. That goof in manchester with his hezbollah tshirt is a prime example. I wish I could dismiss him as one isolated silly person lacking intellectual maturity and self-awareness, but fools like him abound. Five years of campus community radio in Montreal brought me face to face with so much inane left wing extremism that it really made me incredibly uncomfortable with that community. It's great to wear Mumia tshirts and advocate for social equality; it's deeply troubling to sport hezbollah flags and have circle jerks over the right of return.
The eagerness of the activist community to embrace hezbollah as a cause celebre,
OK, I understand that in some college towns you can go to a peace rally and see some losers standing up for Hezbollah. Given. You can also see Anarchists, Socialist Workers Party, Communist Workers Party, (both of which hate each other), Jews For Jesus, Lyndon La Roach supporters and a whole lot of other weirdos. These people are nut jobs, not the Left, Liberals, Democratic Party or Activist Community. They are not the people who organize the rallies, or who help put them on or who influence politicians or anyone else outside of their private mind garden and secret Tuesday night meetings. So before you go spouting about how the left supports Hezbollah please bring some footnoted and annotated proof.
On the other hand there are people on the left who, like myself, believe that Palestinians are human beings who deserve the right to live. Folks like myself take a lot grief from people on the left like yourself.
I don't pretend to understand the nuance of the hezbollah situation. But it strikes me that it's a pretty basic tactic for an army in a civil war - trying to win favour with the local populace. I reckon you'll find all of them do it to lesser or greater degrees.
If your comparison was as simple as they both do good things for their people and also bad things like terrorism/racism then it's valid. It's just the nature of the bad things they do are wildly divergent. And that's why your arguments a bit of a red herring.
The way I see it, all the groups we're talking about here - yes, even the Israelis AND Hezbollah and even the MFin KKK are seeking power in the masquerade of justice.
Everyone - including the KKK - claim that their mission is just. For the Klan, it was originally "protecting" White interests against the perception of a Black rise in power following Reconstruction (and then later Klan resurgences could also be said to be based in similar anxiety around the loss of white supremacy at various points in American history). Hezbollah thinks their mission is just because they perceive the Israelis as occupiers and/or defilers of their one true faith. Israelis think their purpose is just because they see the land that Israel sits upon as their ancestral home, plus history owes them for millenea of anti-Semitism.
What we're talking about here, ultimately, is perception and one reason (amongst many) why violent conflict arises is when there's a critical mass of people who do not share the same perception. (None of what I'm saying here is meant to be brilliant or insightful, mind you. I'm talking aloud if nothing else).
I'm not always sure what's being debated here is the morality of tactics. I think most people would agree that suicide bombing - at least by our standards of morality - is reprehensible. But would that really hold true in other circumstances? If America had been invaded and occupied by [whoever] and people decided to try to kill off the occupiers via suicide attacks, would we still consider their actions immoral? (If you say "yes" then at least you're being morally consistent).
I think what's ultimately being debated isn't tactics - it's the perception of justice. If you think Israel has a just right to exist then a logic for defending their actions flows from there quite easily whether it's "the wall" or the recent bombing of Lebanon. Likewise, if you don't think Israel has the right to exist, if you perceive them as colonizers and occupiers, then any action taken against them becomes potentially permissable, whether it's firing rockets indiscriminately or suicide bombing civilians. If violence can be justified in one context (defending a just nation) then violence can also be justified in another (resisting an oppressor).
What you're left with then is a struggle over who has the higher claim to justice and equally important - who is willing to agree with that assessment. If the critical mass is great enough on any side, you either have two intractable positions or you've tipped public perception enough to declare one side "the winner" in the game of moral rectitude.
I'm feeling cynical but I guess part of me thinks that global conflict is, at heart, just a PR campaign with some horrific casualties inflicted as part of the cost of that campaign.
One think that is highlighted for me by a few posts in this thread is the tendency of some to infantalise everyone who isnt an affluent white westerner. When we talk about an organisation like the kkk it's clear that they are simply bigoted morons but when discussion turns to an organisation such as hezbollah apparently we must refrain from similiar condemnation and 'understand the complex history of the region'. No we fucking dont. Hezbollah are a group of religious fanatics with genocidal ambitions and that is that. To hold individuals to a lower standard for reasons of race or culture is not only condecending but potentially dangerous. These people are capable of making decisions for themselves and their actions arent merely the reverberations of past western injustices as so many seem to believe.
One think that is highlighted for me by a few posts in this thread is the tendency of some to infantalise everyone who isnt an affluent white westerner. When we talk about an organisation like the kkk it's clear that they are simply bigoted morons but when discussion turns to an organisation such as hezbollah apparently we must refrain from similiar condemnation and 'understand the complex history of the region'. No we fucking dont. Hezbollah are a group of religious fanatics with genocidal ambitions and that is that. To hold individuals to a lower standard for reasons of race or culture is not only condecending but potentially dangerous. These people are capable of making decisions for themselves and their actions arent merely the reverberations of past western injustices as so many seem to believe.
Hezbollah are a group of religious fanatics with genocidal ambitions and that is that.
Well they are, but that isn't that. The Klan is a just club for dipshits, Hezbollah is a serious geo-political and military force with widespread ground level support and nation-state level funding.
The way I see it, all the groups we're talking about here - yes, even the Israelis AND Hezbollah and even the MFin KKK are seeking power in the masquerade of justice.
Everyone - including the KKK - claim that their mission is just. For the Klan, it was originally "protecting" White interests against the perception of a Black rise in power following Reconstruction (and then later Klan resurgences could also be said to be based in similar anxiety around the loss of white supremacy at various points in American history). Hezbollah thinks their mission is just because they perceive the Israelis as occupiers and/or defilers of their one true faith. Israelis think their purpose is just because they see the land that Israel sits upon as their ancestral home, plus history owes them for millenea of anti-Semitism.
What we're talking about here, ultimately, is perception and one reason (amongst many) why violent conflict arises is when there's a critical mass of people who do not share the same perception. (None of what I'm saying here is meant to be brilliant or insightful, mind you. I'm talking aloud if nothing else).
I'm not always sure what's being debated here is the morality of tactics. I think most people would agree that suicide bombing - at least by our standards of morality - is reprehensible. But would that really hold true in other circumstances? If America had been invaded and occupied by [whoever] and people decided to try to kill off the occupiers via suicide attacks, would we still consider their actions immoral? (If you say "yes" then at least you're being morally consistent).
I think what's ultimately being debated isn't tactics - it's the perception of justice. If you think Israel has a just right to exist then a logic for defending their actions flows from there quite easily whether it's "the wall" or the recent bombing of Lebanon. Likewise, if you don't think Israel has the right to exist, if you perceive them as colonizers and occupiers, then any action taken against them becomes potentially permissable, whether it's firing rockets indiscriminately or suicide bombing civilians. If violence can be justified in one context (defending a just nation) then violence can also be justified in another (resisting an oppressor).
What you're left with then is a struggle over who has the higher claim to justice and equally important - who is willing to agree with that assessment. If the critical mass is great enough on any side, you either have two intractable positions or you've tipped public perception enough to declare one side "the winner" in the game of moral rectitude.
I'm feeling cynical but I guess part of me thinks that global conflict is, at heart, just a PR campaign with some horrific casualties inflicted as part of the cost of that campaign.
damn somebody was paying attention in class !
what do people think about hamas and hezbollah being part of the governments of the areas where they are (in hamas' case a majority of the govt)? do people think the us has the right to overthrow them or punish the people who voted for them by withholding aid and whatnot ?
remember before you answer, you wanted democracy in the middle east...
do people think the us has the right to overthrow them or punish the people who voted for them by withholding aid and whatnot ?
remember before you answer, you wanted democracy in the middle east...
This is a moot point - Surely the USA has always maintained its right to overthrow any regime, democratic or not, by invasion or massive financial/logistical support for the opposition?
The eagerness of the activist community to embrace hezbollah as a cause celebre,
OK, I understand that in some college towns you can go to a peace rally and see some losers standing up for Hezbollah. Given. You can also see Anarchists, Socialist Workers Party, Communist Workers Party, (both of which hate each other), Jews For Jesus, Lyndon La Roach supporters and a whole lot of other weirdos. These people are nut jobs, not the Left, Liberals, Democratic Party or Activist Community. They are not the people who organize the rallies, or who help put them on or who influence politicians or anyone else outside of their private mind garden and secret Tuesday night meetings. So before you go spouting about how the left supports Hezbollah please bring some footnoted and annotated proof.
On the other hand there are people on the left who, like myself, believe that Palestinians are human beings who deserve the right to live. Folks like myself take a lot grief from people on the left like yourself.
I wish you were right, but it's not just the lunatic fringe who endoses hezbollah, as rootless illustrated.
To be absolutely clear, I support every human's right to live. It's a right that I believe is inalienable.
Why do people keep referring to the KKK in past tense? They are alive and thriving and still have the same goals as they did 50 - 70 years ago, they just became smarter... they wear suits now and rarely show their tradtional ceremonial costumes anymore...
Also understand that your backwoods hicks that you like to refer to the KKK as, are actually alot of very high up politicians and "important" business people... shit is still very relevent today.
Names plaese.
Since you didn't name any names I decided to do some research of my own.....I only found one current "high up" politician that traded in his robe and hood for a political 3 piece suit.....it was this guy......
If anyone knows of any others please feel free to list them here.
Comments
Not to speak for Rich, but I think he is trying to get us to speak more about Hezbollah/ Iranian-Lebanese relations/ Iranian-Israeli relations/ westernized perceptions of it all.
If using a KKK reference helps put it in a perspective where discussion is pushed than so be it. Better to talk about than not to.
I just hope some serious discourse about Hezbollah comes from this rather than a nitpicking of what group he cites as a similar example to them.
Dude....no beef here....If I wanted to start a beef with you I'd go find one of your posts and say it was dumb, mis-informed and pathetic.
I'm not into that.
I see your point, but on this issue, I personally, disagree...I just feel like our nation has cornered the market on half-educated international opinions, and it is most obvious on all things that relate to the Middle East. I choose to stay out of Middle Eastern political discussion because I don't know enough to offer an opinion...If I did get into detailed political discussion on this topic, we might get something as enlightening and shallow as some of the opinions contained in this thread.
I just think that sometimes NO discussion, and quietely listening and learning, is better than silly similes that don't apply that allow us to delude ourselves into thinking something profound has been said.
edit: by saying, "middle east," i specifically meant "Israeli-Palestinian," conflict; I should have clarified.
agreed for the most part
thats totally cool too. I think what we need in this thread are maybe some articles & reference points. Granted Rich saying he spoke to some folks who praised the benefits of the KKK and then compared it to how fokls react to Hezbollah may be a little hard to take a logical leap of faith on. I'll see if I can find some articles to back either his theory or just promote this discussion in the right direction.
I know growing up in NYC I had no clue about that and just assumed they were about nothing more than lynchings and hate.
I had no idea that..... the KKK had plans-for five Klan universities, a company to publish Klan-written history texts, a banking and trust institution to aid ailing farmers, free homes for all newly married Klan couples, a national full employment policy, a program to support Klan orphans, several medical research centers, and a chain of hospitals 1*
And after reading about how and why Hezbullah has support from what I would assume are indeed normally "peace loving" people I immediately thought of the KKK and tried to take at least one small part of the Middle East equation and put it into terms Americans might be able to relate to better.
If everyone on this site already knew that aspect and my comparison was nothing more than a "silly simile" then I apologize to all who were offended.
I personally think it showed how two evil hate groups could attain the support of good people.
1* - From the University of Virginia's website "Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s"
it is a classic, and time honored diversionary tactic.
Much like the conflict in Afghanistan, between Russian backed forces, and American backed Taliban and (what would become) Al-Qaeda forces. So shall we draw similes between the Israel and the Taliban, Or Osama bin Laden, and Ehud Olmert. NO, of course not.
Agreed
Also understand that your backwoods hicks that you like to refer to the KKK as, are actually alot of very high up politicians and "important" business people... shit is still very relevent today.
you had me up to here, than you kinda went off the deep end with this:
I'm not even sure what you were trying to say here. But if its a real question the answer would be "no", but my question is, why would you say this in the first place? better yet why would you even mention the president of Israel in the same catagory as a man as evil as Osama Bin Laden?
Names plaese.
My point was.. They have something in common (they are/were both financed by the same people).
It is a very tenuous link, that elucidates very little of the situation, and just panders to peoples already held beliefs, or bigotries.
Best thing I have read all day.
It's funny because it's true.
OK, I understand that in some college towns you can go to a peace rally and see some losers standing up for Hezbollah. Given. You can also see Anarchists, Socialist Workers Party, Communist Workers Party, (both of which hate each other), Jews For Jesus, Lyndon La Roach supporters and a whole lot of other weirdos. These people are nut jobs, not the Left, Liberals, Democratic Party or Activist Community. They are not the people who organize the rallies, or who help put them on or who influence politicians or anyone else outside of their private mind garden and secret Tuesday night meetings. So before you go spouting about how the left supports Hezbollah please bring some footnoted and annotated proof.
On the other hand there are people on the left who, like myself, believe that Palestinians are human beings who deserve the right to live. Folks like myself take a lot grief from people on the left like yourself.
If your comparison was as simple as they both do good things for their people and also bad things like terrorism/racism then it's valid. It's just the nature of the bad things they do are wildly divergent. And that's why your arguments a bit of a red herring.
Everyone - including the KKK - claim that their mission is just. For the Klan, it was originally "protecting" White interests against the perception of a Black rise in power following Reconstruction (and then later Klan resurgences could also be said to be based in similar anxiety around the loss of white supremacy at various points in American history). Hezbollah thinks their mission is just because they perceive the Israelis as occupiers and/or defilers of their one true faith. Israelis think their purpose is just because they see the land that Israel sits upon as their ancestral home, plus history owes them for millenea of anti-Semitism.
What we're talking about here, ultimately, is perception and one reason (amongst many) why violent conflict arises is when there's a critical mass of people who do not share the same perception. (None of what I'm saying here is meant to be brilliant or insightful, mind you. I'm talking aloud if nothing else).
I'm not always sure what's being debated here is the morality of tactics. I think most people would agree that suicide bombing - at least by our standards of morality - is reprehensible. But would that really hold true in other circumstances? If America had been invaded and occupied by [whoever] and people decided to try to kill off the occupiers via suicide attacks, would we still consider their actions immoral? (If you say "yes" then at least you're being morally consistent).
I think what's ultimately being debated isn't tactics - it's the perception of justice. If you think Israel has a just right to exist then a logic for defending their actions flows from there quite easily whether it's "the wall" or the recent bombing of Lebanon. Likewise, if you don't think Israel has the right to exist, if you perceive them as colonizers and occupiers, then any action taken against them becomes potentially permissable, whether it's firing rockets indiscriminately or suicide bombing civilians. If violence can be justified in one context (defending a just nation) then violence can also be justified in another (resisting an oppressor).
What you're left with then is a struggle over who has the higher claim to justice and equally important - who is willing to agree with that assessment. If the critical mass is great enough on any side, you either have two intractable positions or you've tipped public perception enough to declare one side "the winner" in the game of moral rectitude.
I'm feeling cynical but I guess part of me thinks that global conflict is, at heart, just a PR campaign with some horrific casualties inflicted as part of the cost of that campaign.
uh, they're not?
Largest Antiwar Protest Since War Began led by these Nutcases.
You might not be fake account after all.
Well they are, but that isn't that. The Klan is a just club for dipshits, Hezbollah is a serious geo-political and military force with widespread ground level support and nation-state level funding.
damn somebody was paying attention in class !
what do people think about hamas and hezbollah being part of the governments of the areas where they are (in hamas' case a majority of the govt)? do people think the us has the right to overthrow them or punish the people who voted for them by withholding aid and whatnot ?
remember before you answer, you wanted democracy in the middle east...
This is a moot point - Surely the USA has always maintained its right to overthrow any regime, democratic or not, by invasion or massive financial/logistical support for the opposition?
I wish you were right, but it's not just the lunatic fringe who endoses hezbollah, as rootless illustrated.
To be absolutely clear, I support every human's right to live. It's a right that I believe is inalienable.
one of my best friends is named 'mccoy,' but she's actually descended from the hatfields, from after they started intermarrying.
Since you didn't name any names I decided to do some research of my own.....I only found one current "high up" politician that traded in his robe and hood for a political 3 piece suit.....it was this guy......
If anyone knows of any others please feel free to list them here.