[Dick Morgan]

Clawson-

In your answer to my question about how you would fight the war you simply said see above. How do you get humint on a moving pickup truck full of rockets. I think, while you're highly crtical of IDF you don't have a clue how to fight the war.

Calling Hezbullahs idiots and morons says they are both mentally impaired which is the usual excuse liberals drag out for career criminals--they had a bad childhood or they were retarded---it is dimunition of the crime for your own political agenda.

Hezbullah builds its undeground ammo dumps beneath hospitals and schools--either way they win the PR battle.

On your comment about Colin Powell's "You break it you bought it." re Iraq. I agree a hundred percent. I don't think Bush's headlights reach far enough.

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"On RJ Clawson's Non-Jumping-Ugly on Stephen Foot:

My actual post says:

You guys jumped ugly on...

My post says this several {two, Sir} paragraphs after the point where I mentioned you, Kevin, myself, and Lo specifically, in regards to the entirely different subject of pending discussions.

Where I learned to speak and write English, beginning a new thought or case is a function of paragraph breaks.

To clarify, since we did not all learn the same rule:

You guys means anybody who personally went after Foot. "by extention we guys" means that I personally did not do so, but included myself because I know I've been seen as uncivil, which, if true, lowered the level of debate. I stipulate to this being true, so we can all become more civil and move on. This is, in fact, just what it purports to be -- a general urging not to attack Foot on sight, and a plea for general civility,
not a personal slight against R.J. Clawson.

Any who are able to read the post urging civility, as a personal urging to RJ Clawson in particular, are way, way off the mark in that reading."

Here's the context, Dan.

"As I understand it, I have both Bob and yourself to talk to about recent history, and Lo has Free Will versus Predestination to tackle in the side argument. We'll all have our hands full (and, it being football season's first night, my part might be somewhat delayed.)"

Bob is named and "all" includes "Bob."

"But here's one random scattered thought to add: I know Mr. Foote just joined in, and happens to be biased toward Israel. I know too some here feel I favor the Israeli side of this conflict . I know that could mean I'm just throwing support to the guy who threw his support my way."

"But" connects the two paragraphs. "Add" also connects to the previous paragraph, adding to the discussion of "recent history" between Kevin, Bob, and Dan the "random scattered thought." This is not a separation of "entirely different" thoughts. They're clearly connected by "but" and "add." The author tries to mask the connections with "random scattered."

Also, note the "some here," the Reganesque use of the "understood" pronoun. It's similar to Bush rhetoric, "there are those who...yada yada."

"But: you guys (and we guys, more generally) have totally jumped ugly on him, to use the technical term. Come on -- look back at the first few posts responding to him!"

Once again, "But" connects the paragraphs. Who can "you guys" refer to if not to Kevin and Bob who are included in the "all"? Who else (exceptiing Lo) to this point (aside from the "we guys" who are parenthetical) has been mentioned in these connecting paragraphs? AND, as "all" included Bob, so does "totally."

These are not independent paragraphs, they're progressive parts of a plea.

"Come on?" Bob looked back at the posts addressed to Foot and found none from Bob.

Respectfully, for your consideration, from Bob, who, incidentally, also went to school.

PS: You write, "Where I learned to speak and write English...." Where was that? You write cleverly.

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"As regards my "chasing off" of Gail White:

Contrary to the notion I "chased off" this individual, in the sole post I recall directing toward Gail White, I told her that she had good points; she had in fact made half of my point for me, to wit, her point that Israel should be judged by the standard of other nations.

{Yes, that's correct. But she also made a clear distinction between a political and a moral entity. You borrow half of what she said, but you don't appear to have absorbed the full intent of her post, especially regarding the woman who left the synagogue.}

I then went on to make points regarding "detractors" [of Israel,] again, doing this in a separate paragraph, and not identifying Gail as a detractor of Israel either implicitly or explicitly."

{Yes, that distinction is much clearer than in your previous discussion of paragraph breaks.}

First citing Gail, here's what you wrote:


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gail White:
A general comment:

Israel today has the same problem it has had ever since the Jews asked the prophet Samuel to give them a king. When a people becomes "a nation like the nations", it must expect to be treated as a political entity and not as a sacred entity whose acts are beyond moral criticism.

A poet friend once told me that she left the synagogue when the issue of Israel began to override everything else. Her comment was, "God doesn't do real estate."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very well-put, Gail. And an obvious logical concommitant is, Israel must be expected to be considered by her actions, as are other nations, and Israel must be expected to consider, first and foremost, the wellbeing of Israelis, just as America considers first the wellbeing of Americans, and Britain considers first the wellbeing of Britons.

However, Israel attempts to consider the wellbeing of populations "represented" by her adversaries in every conflict.

{Warning: Gail said, "a political entity and not as a sacred entity whose acts are beyond moral criticism." I'm not sure you read her correctly, especially regarding the woman who left the synagogue. The "However" now places Israel on a higher moral perch, distinguishing it from America and Britain.}

Now then, for the detractors here:

Please explain to me where an American or a Briton has the right to criticize the Israeli response

{Precisely because it's a political entity, as Gail said.}
to real and sustained provocations within Israel, for which credit was claimed specifically by the individuals against which Israel is currently retaliating. Someone explain that, and in the process tell me how it was better for Britain and America to launch a 3-year excursion in Iraq for no reason that did not break down under examination. Someone explain how the 300 Lebanese who have died are more important than the tens of thousands of Iraqis, or had less right to live.

{Who said it was better? Gail made no mention of it.}

Is the answer that you, personally, are against the Iraq war as well?

{This is a strictly rhetorical question, yes? }

Then please, please enlighten me as to why every other country on the face of the Earth has the rights I enumerated in previous posts, for example, the right to pursue a group in "hot pursuit" if they are using territory outside the sovereign control of a nation, from which to wage terrorist attacks. Why is that principal okay within the "rules of war" and "just war theory" -- until we reach the Israeli case?

{Well, every other country on the face of the earth hasn't the rights you mention. Some countries are occupied by other countries or oppressed in a way that makes the point moot.}

I know I can get persistent on this subject, but the double standard has always struck me as ludicrous, and born of political faddism if not (oh no! The "a" word!) Antisemitism.

Why must Israel be judged other than how other nations must be judged?"

It shouldn't. It should be judged as a political entity. Its policies are open for criticism, just as are those of America and Britain. People all over the world pass judgments on the policies of America. When it comes to criticism of a political entity, there's no free lunch.

I grant that you did not directly or by implication call Gail antisemitic. Not that I agree with your argument. Don't get excited.

Bob

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"As regards my personal use of "Nazi"
I really have to look back for longer than I have right now, to see if I ever claimed knowledge that you or others here are members of Nazi parties."

Here, I'll help you: "You {Kevin} and RJ have a good time together at the next wine-and-cheese-cross-burning, or whatever it is you do at the local poet nazi gathering."

"You, Bob Clawson, decided to identify yourself as an anti-Semite, and apparently you see nothing wrong with that."

Nothing. My position has been consistent. I think both the Arabic Semites and the Jewish Semites are behaving badly. Besides, I knew I'd be called antisemitic sooner or later, so I just wanted to get it out of the way. Call me Cumbaya. Call me Ismael. I don't care. I don't feel like a demon. I don't live like a demon.
Kevin does.

"From the looks of things, I believe you think that including both Arabs and Jews among the targets of your anti-Semitism somehow lessens the import of making such a statement."

I should hope so. The statement is so frequently flung about that I have no respect for whatever it's intended to mean. Mostly, to me, it means, "Gotcha!" But I don't find that useful.

"I remind you of this proclamation to help you sort out why people call you anti-Semitic."

Well hardly anyone ever has, actually.

"As to your membership in any Nazi party, you will need to clarify that for us..."

Certainly. I belong to no Nazi party.

"I know you to agree with many of the founding principals of the original Nazi party, and several subsequently formed neo-Nazi groups."

Good lord, are you sober?

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by Dick Morgan:

"In your answer to my question about how you would fight the war you simply said see above."

Sorry about that Dick, I got ahead of myself and started answering your question too early.

"How do you get humint on a moving pickup truck full of rockets."

Beats me. I don't know what "humint" means. I was done with my service quite a while ago. I'm an old fart.

"I think, while you're highly crtical of IDF you don't have a clue how to fight the war."

You're right, but they're such an easy target.

"Calling Hezbullahs idiots and morons says they are both mentally impaired which is the usual excuse liberals drag out for career criminals--they had a bad childhood or they were retarded---it is dimunition of the crime for your own political agenda."

Naw. I called the Israelis the same. Nothing of a political agenda in that. But I think you have me on your first point. I do think they're having bad childhoods.

"Hezbullah builds its undeground ammo dumps beneath hospitals and schools--either way they win the PR battle."

Maybe they're not morons. That sounds pretty shrewd. But I still think it's looney to piss off Israel. Don't mess with Billy Budd.

Shameless O'Clawson

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"As regards my personal use of "Nazi"
I really have to look back for longer than I have right now, to see if I ever claimed knowledge that you or others here are members of Nazi parties."

Here, I'll help you: "You {Kevin} and RJ have a good time together at the next wine-and-cheese-cross-burning, or whatever it is you do at the local poet nazi gathering."

"You, Bob Clawson, decided to identify yourself as an anti-Semite, and apparently you see nothing wrong with that."

Nothing. My position has been consistent. I think both the Arabic Semites and the Jewish Semites are behaving badly. Besides, I knew I'd be called antisemitic sooner or later, so I just wanted to get it out of the way. Call me Cumbaya. Call me Ismael. I don't care. I don't feel like a demon. I don't live like a demon.
Kevin does.

"From the looks of things, I believe you think that including both Arabs and Jews among the targets of your anti-Semitism somehow lessens the import of making such a statement."

I should hope so. The statement is so frequently flung about that I have no respect for whatever it's intended to mean. Mostly, to me, it means, "Gotcha!" But I don't find that useful.

"I remind you of this proclamation to help you sort out why people call you anti-Semitic."

Well hardly anyone ever has, actually.

"As to your membership in any Nazi party, you will need to clarify that for us..."

Certainly. I belong to no Nazi party.

"I know you to agree with many of the founding principals of the original Nazi party, and several subsequently formed neo-Nazi groups."

Good lord, are you sober?

[Stephen Foot]

Bob,

Small point, but pertinent to your stance in this debate.

According to the Israeli military they made 7,000 air strikes. You failed to qualify your data which in this debate is crucial. 3,699 Hezbollah rockets have landed in Israel (same source).

Stephen

[Daniel Haar]

Join me if you will, and share your favorite poetry from the Peoples of the Book here , over in the Musing on Mastery forum. Of course we could argue until Judgment Day, but I think it would be more enjoyable spending that time with poetry and song, which are truly gifts of God. Maybe too some appreciation of the similarities of warring cultures will help us to transcend divisions which some times seem eternal.

[Dan Halberstein]

I take it that you, Mr. Clawson, both embrace your anti-Semitism, and virulently oppose Nazi organizations. So again, I stand corrected. Bob Clawson is anti-Semitic; the Nazis are also anti-Semitic; it does not, however, follow that Bob Clawson is a Nazi, merely that he is an anti-Semite. Other aspects of Nazism must be repellent to Clawson.

Having never suggested that Japethite genes or culture were resposible for the first or second world wars, I can not condone your attitude that, since Semites are involved in armed conflicts, they are therefore stupider than other peoples. But I understand that you think this, and that you consider yourself an anti-Semite, despite all justifications and elaborations, and all the proudly ignored opportunities to correct that impression, were it in fact a mistaken one.

It is good to know what one is dealing with. Clawson is an anti-Semite; fine. With expectations utterly through the floor at this point, I'll not hope for much from that quarter.

As for "demonizing" you, Mr. Clawson, I see no reason to, were I even of a mind to engage in that sort of thing (which I am not). You show yourself to exhibit many of the traits I'd need to "foist upon you" to create a demon, and you publicly embrace those traits. Were I seeking to demonize you, the work would already be done for me.


And yes, I am very, very sober.

Dan

[Alder Ellis]

Bob,

I've noticed 2 or 3 times in my occasional visits to this thread that you profess "anti-Semitism"; and here you interpret this as representing your belief that "both the Arabic Semites and the Jewish Semites are behaving badly." This is a curiously provocative exercise in language-twisting by one who has tried to focus discussions on public abuses of language. In current usage, the term "anti-Semitism" denotes a prejudice against Jews, not against Jews & Arabs -- and not against what Jews are doing at the moment, but against what Jews inherently are. That is the current meaning of the term, as you no doubt are aware, a meaning which extends ultimately to the murderous racism of the Nazis. How thrilling for you, then, to paint yourself with such a terrible word, while, as it were, having your fingers crossed behind your back. That you disagree with both Arab and Israeli policies in the present Middle East would be no big deal -- "fools on both sides!" is one of Shakespeare's more durable lines -- but to name this position "anti-Semitic" & thus invite the odium which this term inevitably provokes seems perverse. Yeah, we get the point -- Arabs & Jews are both "Semitic." But the "ism" in "anti-Semitism" was never meant to apply to a contingent political position: "ism"s always imply absolutes (even in the case of "relativism").

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think your conceit of being "anti-Semitic" is in very bad taste. I guess you were trying to stir the pot. But some words have too much historical weight to be treated so lightly.