Leica Freedom Train rebuttal

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> buddhism dilineates three "posions" that are inherent within all of

us. They are Greed, Anger and Stupidity. They are inherent within our lives and

cannot be rooted out, only transformed. Greed leads to famine, inflation, hunger,

destruction of the natural environment, to name but a few. Stupidity leads to the

spread of disease, misuse of natural resources, and for example man made disasters.

Anger leads to war. War also is often the result of all three poisons working together.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Which poisons created the M4-2 and R8 ?

[michael_hassoun3]

Claude,

 

About the funny/sad article saying Iran is not threatning Israel: If you go out some night in a bad neighborhoud , five guys are surounding you and one of them start to raise a gun, and the second goes "this neibourhood is dangerous, didn't you know?". Would you think that was a frindly advice and the hunting season just opened?

 

It's just the same with Iran. I suggest anyone to imagine for a minute living in a country with a neibour-country actively supporting terrorism against you, saying that your country should "vanish from the pages of History" and quietly building a nuclear force. Now If you think that all this is friendly and your kids are completely safe, -let's be politically correct- you have a sligh problem of vision and understanding.

 

That's right, every generation has its evil group of men/ideology and for my part I think I know who it is for our age.

 

Another stupidity that marked my in this article: she said that if the US are attacking Iran, the later couldn't retaliate on Israel (what a logical and morally justified step) because Israel is a nuclear nation and Iran is not.

 

man, she's a genious!!!

 

Guess for who were the first missiles in Gulf war 1 after the US attacked the Iraki forces?

And Israel not only did not retalilate with nuclear, it did not retaliate at all!

 

Two options about this "professor" Tilley:

 

1- She is a complete idiot with less historical knowledge than my cell phone.

 

2- (and most probably the right one) She has an political agenda and so little personal integrity that she completely falsifying things.

 

Most of the time, things are shades of grey. From time to time (and WW2 was one of them) they are black and white. We shouldn't be affraid to see shades of greys even when our leaders try to sell us black and white. But on the other hand, continuing to put "things in perspective" is in some cases stupid and criminal. Nuclear Iran is not threatning Israel but the whole democratic world that is so buzy to discuss the subject at the UN with so much wisdom and impartiality.

 

Like a very old and wise chinese prophet said once: "when you wanna shoot, shoot. Don't talk" :-)

 

remember what happened with North Korea? They fooled all the world for years and one day smiled while handling the bomb and saying "we have it, let's see what you can do now"

 

Who can do something against them now??

 

BTW, I'm Israeli. I'm sure some people will think that it explains every word of what I said (we are a monolithic nation and all think the same :-))

 

 

take care

 

Michael

[35mmdelux]

Most people want peace and look the other way.

 

One of the answers tho is to wait for the Israelis to take out Irans nuke sites. This way the US can disavow any involvement, just as Iran denies terrorist support.

[nesrani]

"One of the answers tho is to wait for the Israelis to take out Irans nuke sites."

 

That would certainly be a major contribution to peace.

[eliot_rosen1]

Michael. Save your breath. The author of that article (which is nothing more than hate speech in my opinion) is anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli, and anti-Zionist and trries to justify it by writing in a pseudo "intellectual" format. Hate is hate and lies are lies. Shame on Claude for providing a link to that garbage.

[dan flanders]

"Peace", my ass! The issue is Security and Freedom. Just who is asking who to turn the other cheek and get it hammered too; and ultimately bow to the agressor's demands and accept their faith or their sword!<p> This whole issue has been boiling for at least a hunred years but in reality goes back to several dozen centuries. <p> The current phase however was brought into focus when little Jimmy Peanut pressured the NATO boys to allow the Ayotolla to go back to Iran. Then when the Embsssy affair came about he prevented the Delta Force which was ready to act just in that case, from an immediate reaction and then later sending in an inexperienced response and getting it whupped! Even little giant Ross Perrot did a better job of getting his boys out! Maybe he should have been made a General! Anyhow it isn't a matter of "Peace in our Time" as Mr Chamberlain called it -- it's a matter of whether we want to convert to Islam with a knife at our throats!

[eliot_rosen1]

I agree with Dan. Carter did us a great disservice by not supporting the Shah and facilitating the return of the Ayatollah and his band of fanatical murderes. The people of Iran (many or most of whom have the current government and have had enough of life under the Mullahs and Ayatollahs) have suffered as a result of this short-sighted attitude. There will never be peace as Bob would like once Iran under the Mullahs gets a hold of the bomb. Just a lot of death and destruction.

[35mmdelux]

RIGHT ON!

 

"...it's a matter of whether we want to convert to Islam with a knife at our throats!"

 

You're damn right, no matter what cowardly civilians say.

 

Hey, why don't we all follow bi laden and live in caves or a podunk town in northern Pakistan - no Speedos allowed. Forgive and forget, sure thing, no problem.

 

Many want to forget the Jewish Holocast or revise history BECAUSE most countries were complicit by not stepping up to the plate when it was needed that they have some morals. Better forget than live w/ the fact of their cowardice.

[nesrani]

Eliot, I wonder if you're prepared to countenance _any_ criticism of Israel as anything but anti-semitic?

 

As for the main thrust of the argument in the cited Counterpunch article, I can't judge the accuracy of her critique of the translations from Farsi - I wish I could, can you? - although her interpretations of the "correct" translations are generous, to say the least, but I can't see any anti-semitism or hate speech in that article on a first reading.

[peter]

Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them. -- Sir Peter Ustinov

 

But now on to the main point of my post,

 

AnotherBob said, "Eliot, I wonder if you're prepared to countenance _any_ criticism of Israel as anything but anti-semitic?"

 

It was not me you were referring to but AnotherBob may be right Eliot. Reserve accusations of anti semitism for those who are antisemitic. Do not use it a shot gun to knock down the criticisms of those you do not agree with. Otherwise these accusations eventually lose their force until they have the moral power of saying "liar liar pants on fire" or "Why dont you take a picture it will last longer" or some other silly doggerel. Too many accuse ANYONE who criticises Israel of being antisemitic. Quite the opposite. Some of us who are critical of the present admininstration and its policies (including many of course in Israel who did not vote for the present government) love Israel and desire nothing more than to see it prosper.

 

To put down an argument by saying it is just intellectuallism reveals blockage in your thinking. There is nothing wrong with being intellectual. Brains are what we use to think. Intellectualism is just about using our brains and understanding root caues and the true nature of the inter relationships between them, rather than falling back on myth and prejuduce.

[eliot_rosen1]

Peter, if the shoe fits, wear it. The person who wrote that article is an anti-Semite who uses intellectual cover to disguise anti-Semitism. It is a common technique. Especially common in pre-war Germany. I stand by my statement.

[peter]

I should have added that having said that I do not agree with the article, if Eliot is referring to Claudes first post. But the excessive tendancy to chuck the epithet "antisemitic" around as a means of shutting up people is what I was commenting on.

[35mmdelux]

Besides the US, please list the countries that support Israel in any way, shape, or form.

 

(PS: I'm not referring to countries that buy oranges)

 

Thank you.

[boris c hann]

"Eliot, I wonder if you're prepared to countenance _any_ criticism of Israel as anything but

anti-semitic?"

 

The odd thing about Eliot is the apparent contradiction of a man who blurts out the

allegation "anti-semite" towards anyone who so much as raises an eyebrow at the conduct

of Israel, while simultaneously polishing his special collector edition Arbeitslager M7.

Strange, very, very strange.

 

"London...Walk around town and you'll see places still marked by the blasts"

 

When did you last visit London? 1947?

 

"Besides the US, please list the countries that support Israel in any way, shape, or form."

 

Let's start with the EU countries. Look at the trade figures and you'll see that their support

goes a lot further than buying a few boxes of Jaffas.

[nesrani]

" The person who wrote that article is an anti-Semite who uses intellectual cover to disguise anti-Semitism."

 

Maybe you'd care to back that up with some corroborating evidence, Eliot - links to other articles by her, for instance - because I really can't see it in the article itself. Otherwise, we'll just have to treat it as an assumption on your part that any critics of Israel and its role in the ME are by default anti-semitic.

 

BTW - I have to say that I think the blanket use of the word "anti-semite" should itself be deemed hate speech.

[claude_batmanghelidj]

Raymond, that was a very interesting article. A close friend of my mother's when I was growing up in London was born in Shanghai.

 

She had an interesting life and you can read about her here: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/news/2006/02/04/db0402.xml">Marion Wrottesly</a>

[EricM]

"The odd thing about Eliot is the apparent contradiction of a man who blurts out

the

 

allegation "anti-semite" towards anyone who so much as raises an eyebrow at the

conduct

 

of Israel, while..."

 

Yet substitute any given country he criticizes above with "Israel" and he himself would fall under his same brush stroke of "anti-semite". Hypocrite.

[robert_clark]

"Karma is a neutral law of the universe. It's the basic mechanics of life. All things both sentient and insentient are subject to this law."

 

Claude, this is what you need to do a bit of careful reading on. Karma is not a neutral law of the universe (What New Age version have you been reading?) It is a neutral law of action, which is universal in application.

 

Karma means action. That's all. As far as I know rocks can't act, nor can other 'insentient things'. No action, no consequences - no Karma or Vipaka.

 

The Buddha's interpretation of Karma was a radical attack on the earler Brahmanistic version of Karma (one similar to yours). It was intended to put responsibility, and responsibility for change, into human agency. Through wise action (in its broadest sense), he claimed, we can make a positive difference to our lives and the lives of others. This (for that time) radical transformation of ethics was intended to counteract the Brahmanistic view of Karma that all was determined, and therefore nothing could be done about it, and what we did in our past lives determined EVERYTHING in future lives.

 

The Buddha himself found this fatalistic view repellant, and in the Brahmajala Sutra names it as one of many false views.

 

Of course everything we do has consequences, BUT that does not mean that all consequences are the result of what we have done. Some things just happen, like natural events, which are nothing to do with our past actions.

 

Many times, the Buddha said: we cannot know what is due to our Karma and what is due to other causes, and warned specifically against making such claims.

 

Think about it: do you think you could really tell someone going to the gas chamber that they were there, in the queue, because of something they did in a previous life? Would that be wise, or skilfull, or compassionate? If the Buddha warned against making such moral judgements (and it would be a moral judgement), why should we go there?

 

Give the Buddha credit for his radicalism. Please don't turn the Dharma into some wishy-washy feelgood/feelbad all-encompasing drivel.

[claude_batmanghelidj]

Sorry, Robert, but that is my understanding of it. Everything that happens to us is a direct

result of our karma. It's that simple. I don't know why you insist on complicating the matter.

If I am healthy or sick, if I live to be 45 or 95. It's all a result of my karma. Of course one can

change one's karma, but the fact remains that one's fortune or lack of fortune is determined

by one's own actions, not some random roll of the dice.

[nesrani]

To draw the two threads of this thread (buddhism and the middle east) together, there was a joke doing the rounds not long after Khomeini issued the fatwa against Salman Rushdie:

 

Q: What's Rushdie's next book going to be, then?

 

A: "Buddha, you fat bastard".

 

Well, it made me laugh. Twenty years ago. I'm much more mature now, of course.

 

***

 

So Claude, if a little girl is killed in a car crash, basically she deserves it? I don't think so.

[dan flanders]

You have to have patience with Claude. I don't believe he is really a troll, but he takes the 'Devil's Advocate' role so seriously that it tends to nudge him that way. Anyhow, the questions he posits often evoke interesting responses on all sides of the issue.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

This is a very very interesting thread. Fairly civilised too. As I have very little in-depth knowledge I enjoyed reading all the arguments, but am still not sure where the truth lies.

 

I know who I don't trust and Ahmadinejad and Bush are at the head of that list. I thought the article cited made some good arguments and showed no evidence of anti-semitism but I still doubt the Iranians' motives. I also think the Israelis today are angry, scared, paranoid, and sick of the hatred being focussed on them, and are starting to make mistakes. Very scary, especially since Bush is encouraging them.

 

Eric: Eliot is not a hypocrite; he's a good guy but he is very right-wing and leads with his emotions.

 

Eliot: if you are to call that woman an anti-semite you need to back it up from the text, or else you do your cause harm.

[eliot_rosen1]

Jack, what do you and others like Eric et al. think when you read someone who makes cute semantic excuses for a leader and a regime that would murder every Israeli in existence if they could. Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust and threatened Israel repeatedly. Iran has sent weapons (rockets and missiles) and Iranian revolutionary guards to Lebanon to help Hezbollah. They send money to Hezbollah, arms to Hezbollah, pour gasoline onto the fire and sit back to watch. The missiles go from North Korea to Iran to Hezbollah via Syria. This idiot anti-semite woman doesn't mention any of these facts.

 

You can hide your head in the sand and babble on about supporting my claim. Go ahead. The Iranians are the modern day Nazis and their goal is to exterminate the Jews. just listen to what their proxies (like Sheik Nasrallah are saying, they don't hide their intent).

[eliot_rosen1]

I forgot to add:

 

And don't ye f#ck with me. :-)

[EricM]

"Eric: Eliot is not a hypocrite; he's a good guy...."

 

I know. I'd still have a drink with him and give him a chance, regardless of his logic holding like water in a paper bag.