4 ms·

hi berntb, thnx again for the time to reply. upvoted you again. re: propaganda. if you didn't mean to refer to chomsky as a "propagandist" then you obviously s

hi berntb, thnx again for the time to reply. upvoted you again. re: propaganda. if you didn't mean to refer to chomsky as a "propagandist" then you obviously shouldn't have used that term. which term you should have used is a concern for you, not for me. if you aren't using the correct terms to convey what you are trying to say then there is no way i can help you choose the appropriate words since i have no idea what it is you mean. basically, operate on the safe side of things and don't throw labels around if you're unsure about what you're trying to convey. chomsky is participating in a "non-serious argument"? are you serious? and he is trying to "influence opinions"? again, really? do you seriously stand by these accusations? if so, you'll have to provide evidence for these accusations. otherwise you're participating in further hyberbole. sudan is a 1000 times worse. yes, even chomsky said that in the vids (if not a million times worse). so you agree with chomsky. no one is arguing that. you claim chomsky could have saved 1000s of lives if he discussed sudan. i have no idea where you came up with these numbers. how can you come up with a correlation between chomsky talking about something and having saved sudanese lives??? how can he have saved one life, or 1 million? as mentioned, chomsky made comments in the past about the bombing of an american pharmaceutical company. how many 1000s of sudanese lives did those comments save? i believe you're overestimating chomsky's influence on the political arena here. and further, how do you know chomsky has not discussed sudan? my initial take (why this thread started) is that you were not aware that chomsky discussed anything but israel. we've already established that is a false conclusion (as long as you don't perform the experiment, you can pretend every conclusion is true). re: quoting my reference. i'm unclear what you're referring to here. what reference of mine are you quoting? i must have missed the point (therefore not provide a comment on it)? re: "all left wingers" and hyperbole. by "all left wingers" i interpreted that as not just "all left wingers in sweden" (i have no idea what the left in sweden is like, probably in a similar way that you might not have an idea as to what the left is like in other countries). and it might appear to you that ALL demonize israel. if you're willing to admit that you're overgeneralizing then i'm willing to retract my claim of hyperbole. i had no idea you were limiting your comments to a subset of people you were referring to. i agree with "wtf", because my comment was a reflection of my reaction to your overgeneralization. the statement was intended to be ironic. re: "no one knows whether it's true or not" about sadat and the plo. i'm missing something here. where did chomsky discuss sadat and the plo in the vid? can you give me a rough time in the vid? i watched at the 1:00 mark and didn't see that mentioned. i'm unsure about what i'm disagreeing with chomsky. i wasn't ignoring anything. i stated i wasn't clear about the rest of your points were in regards to (e.g. i didn't understand what you meant by "existential threats"). i'm asking you to clarify them if you can. unsure what you mean by "israel is better than most" as well. i'm happy to touch any subject (i can't speak for chomsky tho). i just don't understand the subject you want me to touch. which arguments did i not address and i'll be happy to address them? i think you're being VERY disingenuous here by saying i'm avoiding anything. you don't know me well enough at all to sling mud my way. that's not cool. keep in mind, i'm NOT arguing here, just having a discussion and hoping everyone is clarifying what they are interpreting. if i'm wrong or misinformed, i'd GLADLY revise my statements or opinions. it's part of the learning process. hopefully you, and everyone else, would do the same when presented with new perspectives on the way they view life. what did i misquote of chomsky from the vid? (you're going to have to be much clearer in your claims/accusations since this conversation is getting pretty nested.) again, i'm not a fan of chomsky. i'm not sure what else you want me to say about that. the discussion began with "chomsky focuses on israel and ignores everything else", to which i replied that it was a good observation, and provided a video which addresses that concern.

berntb 16y ago
You are just writing lots of text twice without touching my arguments -- from a previously unused account. You seem like a troll. I'll go over my original simple points about your video again, then I'll stop feeding you. >>if you didn't mean to refer to chomsky as a "propagandist" then you obviously shouldn't have used that term. AGAIN: "Propaganda" is not a good term for (quote of me) "non-serious argument to influence opinions"? What other term would you suggest? >>you claim chomsky could have saved 1000s of lives if he discussed sudan. i have no idea where you came up with these numbers. You do know, you're trolling. Your still haven't written anything relevant to the original simple point: A) 5:45, where he explained why he criticizes Israel more than all the other places which are much worse. "He can influence more", because he is American. That is just not true. It doesn't explain his lack of attention on Sudan, which lacked attention from the international community, when murder/rape by the millions were taking place. If someone with Chomsky's weight had started to make speeches, it would have added needed attention. And probably saved, at a minimum, thousands of lives. >>where did chomsky discuss sadat and the plo in the vid? can you give me a rough time in the vid? i watched at the 1:00 mark and didn't see that mentioned. i'm unsure about what i'm disagreeing with chomsky. You have still not addressed my second point: B) At one minute, Chomsky explains that there is no need to consider the existential threat, because Israel ignored a peace offer from Egypt in 1971... (Despite that Israel has peace with Egypt since a few decades, anyway!) I'll go over this a THIRD time: At one minute, the journalist talks about the literal threat to existence -- start listening at 45 seconds if you really don't get it. When discussing the threat to existence of Israel, the interviewer says: "If you listen to what [Hamas, etc] say, there is an immediate threat to Israel". Chomsky doesn't touch that or the history of wars trying to eradicate Israel etc -- he starts talking about an Egypt peace offer in 1971!! (That is both damn long ago to judge a present time -- and also ignoring that none of us know how serious that peace offer was thought to be. Which is a side point.) My point is that Chomsky didn't touch the status of being under an existential threat. Then I discussed what that means: Democracies tend to go insane over terrorism and throw out human rights (GB, USA, Germany, Israel, etc) -- with Israel we talk about an existential threat… [Edit: Which is obviously factors of ten worse than terrorism. Just to be clear] Israel is the only present democracy with [an existential threat], but look at different internment camps for civilians in the second world war (including Sweden, which threw lots of communists in jail because they took order from Moscow -- and Sweden wasn't even in the war!). To be absolute clear: When discussing a country's behaviour, you really should consider the situation(!). Israel doesn't seem extreme to me, compared to e.g. Sweden or any other democracy. Was THAT really so hard to understand, that you had to write walls of text twice? Hardly.

berntb 16y ago

You are just writing lots of text twice without touching my arguments -- from a previously unused account. You seem like a troll. I'll go over my original simple points about your video again, then I'll stop feeding you. >>if you didn't mean to refer to chomsky as a "propagandist" then you obviously shouldn't have used that term. AGAIN: "Propaganda" is not a good term for (quote of me) "non-serious argument to influence opinions"? What other term would you suggest? >>you claim chomsky could have saved 1000s of lives if he discussed sudan. i have no idea where you came up with these numbers. You do know, you're trolling. Your still haven't written anything relevant to the original simple point: A) 5:45, where he explained why he criticizes Israel more than all the other places which are much worse. "He can influence more", because he is American. That is just not true. It doesn't explain his lack of attention on Sudan, which lacked attention from the international community, when murder/rape by the millions were taking place. If someone with Chomsky's weight had started to make speeches, it would have added needed attention. And probably saved, at a minimum, thousands of lives. >>where did chomsky discuss sadat and the plo in the vid? can you give me a rough time in the vid? i watched at the 1:00 mark and didn't see that mentioned. i'm unsure about what i'm disagreeing with chomsky. You have still not addressed my second point: B) At one minute, Chomsky explains that there is no need to consider the existential threat, because Israel ignored a peace offer from Egypt in 1971... (Despite that Israel has peace with Egypt since a few decades, anyway!) I'll go over this a THIRD time: At one minute, the journalist talks about the literal threat to existence -- start listening at 45 seconds if you really don't get it. When discussing the threat to existence of Israel, the interviewer says: "If you listen to what [Hamas, etc] say, there is an immediate threat to Israel". Chomsky doesn't touch that or the history of wars trying to eradicate Israel etc -- he starts talking about an Egypt peace offer in 1971!! (That is both damn long ago to judge a present time -- and also ignoring that none of us know how serious that peace offer was thought to be. Which is a side point.) My point is that Chomsky didn't touch the status of being under an existential threat. Then I discussed what that means: Democracies tend to go insane over terrorism and throw out human rights (GB, USA, Germany, Israel, etc) -- with Israel we talk about an existential threat… [Edit: Which is obviously factors of ten worse than terrorism. Just to be clear] Israel is the only present democracy with [an existential threat], but look at different internment camps for civilians in the second world war (including Sweden, which threw lots of communists in jail because they took order from Moscow -- and Sweden wasn't even in the war!). To be absolute clear: When discussing a country's behaviour, you really should consider the situation(!). Israel doesn't seem extreme to me, compared to e.g. Sweden or any other democracy. Was THAT really so hard to understand, that you had to write walls of text twice? Hardly.