[Kevin Andrew Murphy]

Originally posted by Dick Morgan:
According to James Zogby, on C-Span, Egypt,to date, has had ten thousand books translated into Arabic. Spain translates 10,000 books A YEAR into Spanish. How can anyone support cultures that impose such ignorance on their subjects, or do what they do to their women in the name of Allah?

Dick

Dick,

Last I checked, Egypt was a lot smaller, poorer and less literate than Spain. There's a difference between imposing ignorance (as with censor-happy China) and simply not having the money.

I also looked it up, but women have been able to vote in Egypt for the past fifty years (whereas they only got the vote last year in Kuwait and in Saudi Arabia are still waiting).

[Mark Granier]

Stephen, you are, I believe, only the second person who has mentioned my 'charter', so thanks for noticing it (and approving of point No 6). Apart from that, well, what can I say?

You really shouldn't have bothered with that painstaking 'trawl'. At least, not on my account. There may be some here who'll find your last post a model of clarity. Hell, maybe everyone else will, confirming me as a lost, dimwitted cause.

The core issue, it seems to me, is your objection to the comments I made about, your/the liberal, philosophy that under-girds the plank of the anti-Israeli position and from which position you make your argument.

No, my 'core' objection (if there was such a thing) would have had more to do with your assumption that I was a representative of this 'philosophy' that you
dreamt up in the first place. Reducing your opponent to a philosophy ('Liberal' or otherwise) and then taking issue with that philosophy hardly seems to me to be a reasonable way to discuss things. But maybe I'm just weird.

I have made my position clear in regard to my bias in favour of Israel, at which you expressed such ironic surprise.

Yes, from the word go. I would have respected that if you hadn't been so terribly quick to make MY position clear as well (Liberal hand-wringer). If I jumped it was only because I'd been jumped ON.

It’s a position all liberal people take when the issue of Israeli aggression is discussed, both generally and in regard the Lebanese conflict in particular

Really? ALL 'liberal people'? What about people who are just 73.7 % Liberal, the other 27.3% being Neocon Buddhist?

Perhaps I was too reticent; if you had called me a Zionist I would not have blanched.

You wouldn't have had to; I would have blanched for you.

Their sympathetic attitude is primarily based on the theory of Dispensationalism, but that’s another story.

Oh go on. You've digressed so much already why stop now?

It leads me to my point-

A 'point'? What's a point?

no member of the Brethren could sign up to your Liberal Charter because they are pacifists, many of whom refused to fight against Hitler in W.W.II, who shouldered the same hatred the other Conscientious Objectors endured.

You have me confused with someone else Stephen, some guy who was just about to do a mailshot to the entire Brethren community, imploring them to sign his 'Liberal Charter'. And now you've thrown pacifism (not to mention WW2) into the mix. What about a sprinkle of WW1, The Surrealist Movement, psychoanalysis, mandalas, The Tao According To Pooh and Confucianism (or Confusionism)?

Your position is that all fair minded, humane and reasonable people could sign their name to [the 'Liberal Charter']. It is, broadly speaking, the liberal position regarding Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah. It’s strongly implied that those who can not put their name to it are beyond the pale, religious nutters, etc, etc, with whom it would be impossible to come to any agreement.

Thank you for once more explaining my position to me, and furthermore the liberal position regarding the recent conflict, and furthermore what I was 'strongly' implying in my 'Charter'. I don't know what I'd do without you. Maybe you can also supply me with the name of a good plumber. And here was me thinking I was merely stating some very, very basic principles. I wasn't implying anything about people who wouldn't 'put their names to' (copy and paste) my statement, since I didn't really expect anyone to bother much with it. That it may have registered with a few people was as much as could be expected. If you've read enough of this thread you'll know the kind of insults that were being flung about, the constant sinsister hintings (or outright accusations) that people who disagreed with the actions of the IDF were at best fools, at worst closet Nazis and Jew-haters. So I thought I'd put a few basic principles down, something that summerised the position of many (if not all) who took my line. It still seems reasonable enough to me, nothing as high faluting as a 'Charter', a little attempt at clarity.

The pacifist position is the only, truly tenable, neutral stance to take, you should not confuse their voice with yours or mine; neither you or I belong on that hallowed ground. What we have to do is decide which shit stinks the most and deal with it. So, first hole in your neutral Liberal Charter.

Thank you for explaining what stance I SHOULD take (but haven't a hope of actually taking because I'm not hallowed enough) and for informing me what I 'have to decide' and 'deal with'. Sounds like a boot-camp initiation. But no, merely a 'hole' in my (your) 'neutral Liberal Charter'. Except it isn't neutral Stephen. It clearly states my position on the actions of the IDF. If my position was neutral I wouldn't be in this discussion.

Not all people think Israel has the right to exist. Not all of them are religious nutters and ideologues but intelligent and reasonable people.

Of course they aren't ALL nutters. There is a reasonable argument there, though it's not my argument (just as my statement isn't your 'Charter'). But that's one point I might amend if I bothered to make another, modified statement, so thank you (sincerely this time) for pointing that out.

They believe the whole idea of Jewish sovereignty is an aberration and an absurdity, given how many generations of Jews have lived under the sovereignty of others.

The fact that 'generations of Jews have lived under the sovereignty of others for so long makes a rather more compelling argument in favour of a Jewish state. No?

They believe, given the magnitude of the injustice they inflicted on the Palestinian people, that there is just cause for the dismantling of the Jewish state. There are some who think it preposterous that you even have to mention Israel’s right to exist in the first place. Second hole in the Liberal Charter.

'They' do, do they? I can't speak for everyone Stephen, nor was I attempting to. Your earlier point highlighted an oversight. You should have left it there.

Genocide is bad, war is bad, murder is bad, rape is bad, dropping litter is bad... yes, we all agree on what’s bad, but we don’t all agree on how to differentiate between the really bad shit and the not so bad shit.

Actually Stephen, most people can, and those who can't (tell the difference between rape and littering for example) can safely be considered psychotic. There's a useful tip for you.

We can’t differentiate between such things on a linear curve until we reach a point when we all agree it’s as bad as it gets. We can’t open with a Katusha and raise the bid with a cluster bomb as if we’re playing a game to rules and there’s some referee somewhere.

No one said we could.

Far and few, far and few,
Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue,
And they went to sea in a Sieve.

'And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

Mark

PS

Wendy is right. This sucks. I've just bored myself shitless with this ping ponging post.



[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited September 13, 2006).]

[Mark Allinson]

Yes, Wendy.

This thread is now officially longer than the one used by Theseus to escape the labyrinth.

Still, I am not sorry I engendered this behemoth, since I have learned a great deal from it.

But I'm not so sure, Wendy, that : "We are a literary, not a political forum."

The very existence of this massive thread seems to argue against the statement - I have never seen a poetry discussion last as long.

And with any breach of the PC code bringing down the house, and placing politics before poetry, I would say that this is indeed a very political forum.

[Dan Halberstein]

We do not recall granting her permission to speak...

Just playing the part.

First of all, a minor point-scoring to attend to.

Kevin says "Last I checked, Egypt was a lot smaller, poorer, and less literate than Spain." As is usually the case, Mr. Murphy needs to check more often. Egypt is home to about 70 million people, Spain to about 40 million. Your other two points -- that Egypt is poorer and less literate -- might make up for some of the difference Mr. Morgan noted, but I would say not all of it. As for Mr. Morgan's apparent notion that Egypt, or Arab countries in general, are just plain hopeless (forgive me, Dick, if I overstate this case,) I do disagree. They're often under authoritarian rule, often embroiled in low-level counterinsurgency (such as against the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt,) and quite frankly, cannot be judged solely by this kind of snapshot.

As far as the point goes, though, Dick's stat makes it well enough. One does have to question closed societies -- it just is not the whole ball of wax, especially when the only alternative (as in Egypt's case,) is a worse one.

Wendy,

I don't much care for playing king. I'd love to be king, of course, but in the absence of that unattainable goal, I'd at least like my world to respond to some semblance of reason. Not everything in neat little compartments, mind you, just the broad brush strokes. I suppose I can get pretty insistent when I'm right.

Your distaste is noted and discarded. Politics is a discussion we must have, if man is -- as I believe -- a zoon politikon. Usually, poems that cover such material are quite bad. They tend to be flame wars like this dressed up with rhyme, meter, or neither. Given that we must have the conversation, I prefer to have it in flame war form (or better, in a civil debate). And of course, this being General Talk, I see no reason 'Sphereans shouldn't have the conversation here.

No malice intended here, and I hope no malice is perceived.

King Dan

[Robert J. Clawson]

Originally posted by wendy v:

"Perhaps
there'something to learn about war, about the tribe,
and about how humans
discuss war or listen to one another, but I suspect such learning can only come when the win
is no longer the most important thing."

Wise woman.

Bob

[Stephen Foot]

Mark,

A few replies:

MG: “So I thought I'd put a few basic principles down, something that summarised the position of many (if not all) who took my line.”

MG: “your assumption that I was a representative of this 'philosophy' that you dreamt up in the first place.”

You seem to have lost the plot.

SF: “I’ve seen all the liberal hand wringing many, many times before.”

This was my FIRST post, to which YOU replied and assumed I had YOU in mind. I didn’t have you in mind, but now I know why you assumed I did.

This quickly warps into:

MG: “I would have respected that if you hadn't been so terribly quick to make MY position clear as well (Liberal hand-wringer)”

Yes, yes, I know, it’s all about you.

MG: “If I jumped it was only because I'd been jumped ON”

Honestly, Mark, I don’t know what you’re talking about. This kind of “Please miss, he hit me first” stuff kind of illustrates the whole sorry predicament, don’t you think? The only comment where you may have cause to take what I said personally was:

“The very people you purport to stand up for hate and despise the liberal beliefs you base your arguments on. They consider you weak, disposable and eminently exploitable.”

I was rightly criticised for making sweeping generalisations with that one, but it was not meant as a personal attack on you. I was trying to point out how the guys with the bomb-belts exploit those with liberal views and how they regard those people as enemies because they hold those views. In hindsight I should not of assumed that you support Hezbollah. I apologise.

MG: “Really? ALL 'liberal people'?”

MG: “summarised the position of many (if not all) who took my line”

Your words, Mark.

MG: “I would have blanched for you.”

Zionism was a part of a wider, liberal nationalism that took hold post W.W.I & II, lest we forget. That conflict arose between those with competing nationalistic goals should come as no surprise to anyone. I’ve not tried to hide the injustice done to the Palestinian people, but considering the effect that “Zionism” has had on your sensibilities, I doubt whether you care.

GM: “Oh go on. You've digressed so much already why stop now?”

So, you think my comments about the Brethren Movement are a digression. That’s as silly a comment I’ve heard in the debate so far. Christian Zionism (a mainspring of the Brethren’s rather weird theology) is alive and well and voting Republican in the USA. Such people played no small role in helping to facilitate Zionism’s political goals, they still do. As relevant as all that is, my main point, as you well know, was about pacifism and the deliberate confusion brought about by mistaking their views for yours.

MG: “Thank you for once more explaining my position to me”

Lather, rinse, repeat.

MG: “Maybe you can also supply me with the name of a good plumber”

What for, the leaks in your argument?

MG: “If you've read enough of this thread you'll know the kind of insults that were being flung about”

Hmmm.

GM: “Thank you for explaining what stance I SHOULD take”

Broken records anyone?

MG: “a little attempt at clarity.”

How true.

MG: “it clearly states my position on the actions of the IDF”

Yes it does.

MG: “Of course they aren't ALL nutters. There is a reasonable argument there, though it's not my argument (just as my statement isn't your 'Charter')”

Did I say it was? The objective of my comments was to point out that your six assumptions which we are all supposed to be able to agree on, when examined closely, are flawed (well, five of them, anyway).

GM: “The fact that 'generations of Jews have lived under the sovereignty of others for so long makes a rather more compelling argument in favour of a Jewish state. No?”

Sorry, you’ve lost me there.

“'They' do, do they? I can't speak for everyone Stephen, nor was I attempting to. Your earlier point highlighted an oversight. You should have left it there.”

I wasn’t speaking for everyone, as you know, and, yet again, I wasn’t assuming you were one of them. There actually are those who think the state of Israel has no legitimacy. The natural consequence of this is that their state, in other words, their sovereignty, should be dismantled.

MG: “Actually Stephen, most people can, and those who can't (tell the difference between rape and littering for example) can safely be considered psychotic.”

Again, you seem to have lost the plot. If it were as simple as my illustration then we wouldn’t be discussing the finer meanings of the word terrorism, would we.

MG: “No one said we could.”

MG: “Actually Stephen, most people can”

What can I say?

Do excuse me but I need a little fresh air, I maybe some time.

Stephen
the psychotic

(Corrected for typo's)



[This message has been edited by Stephen Foot (edited September 13, 2006).]

[Mark Granier]

Stephen,

I'm not going to respond to all of this. A couple of things need addressing though. Yes, I did assume you meant me in that first post of yours, and if you didn't my apologies. I am not sure who you were calling liberal hand wringers? Bob? Kevin? If that's what you call liberal hand wringing than I qualify too.

I am utterly baffled that you STILL presume that I am somehow trying for the 'pacifist' position. Again, you insist on hammering me into one of your very square little holes, then explaining to me why I don't fit. Have you any conception of how patronising such an attitude is, and how stupid a way of arguing a point? Don't answer that. I'll ask nicely now. Please stop doing this. In fact, let's just agree to not address each other. Not that that's what we're doing anyway, because one of us is talking above or around or perhaps clear through the other's head, as if he were a particularly insubstantial ghost (or perhaps both of us are doing this). But one thing is certain, this is no longer an interesting conversation for me, nor, perhaps, for either of us. [Warning: puns on the way] One of us got off on the wrong leg-appendage. Perhaps it was ME. I don't really care anymore. I have (strange as that may seem) a life.

I am just going outside and maybe [sic] some time.

Maybe the 'maybe' was deliberate, an invisible pun: You may be sick? Otherwise, I am not sure why you're quoting Oates, the understated suicide. PLEASE don't explain. I trust you're not going to top yourself on my account.

Goodbye Stephen. I wish you well.


Mark



[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited September 13, 2006).]

[Lo]

Originally posted by wendy v:

Where wisdom breathes may we all be, but from here, I only see
Dan H loves playing king, Shameless is the jester, Kevin is the passion police, and war is. Next. The new guy suits up, wants
to find a role, wants, like everyone else, to win.

I can't speak for Seree, but personally, I feel left out and discriminated against.

Perhaps I should start a woman-only political thread.

Lo-the-girl



[This message has been edited by Lo (edited September 13, 2006).]

[Dan Halberstein]

It's high time for mideastwargrrrlpo. I can't believe it took us this long.

[Stephen Foot]

Mark,

I apologise for the typo’s; they probably tell you more about my lack of patience with filling in details and background than I care to admit; I just don’t have the dogged patience of Dan.

I apologise, again, for talking past you. It’s not so much that I forget who I’m talking to but that I’m in too much of a hurry to make my grand brushstrokes.

Stephen
who really just needed a breath of fresh air