The Iran deal

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:19 am

Aravar wrote:Where, precisely did Minardil mention racism? I seem to have missed that bit.



I believe he has conflated some of my comments in another thread, in which we were discussing some of the things that Donald Trump has said during his very entertaining campaign for President. Specifically, Mr Trump was praised for his rejection of "political correctness". I said that Trump goes way being being "politically incorrect". For example, it is "politically incorrect" to use the term "illegal immigrant", because according the PC crowd a person cannot be "illegal". Inset eye-rolling emoticon here. They're called "illegal immigrants" because they immigrated illegally, there's nothing wrong with using the term. So if that was all he said I'd be on his side in the whole "PC" argument. But he said that the vast majority of immigrants from Mexico were "rapists and criminals", and THAT is some pretty racist stuff.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:26 am

Minardil wrote:
Storyteller wrote:
Minardil wrote:No, I don't actually support those Arab "poison pills" at all. Certainly not a right of return, which I have stated is impossible for Israel to accept, nor the demand that Arabs control the Old City, though I may have floated the idea in the past of setting that particular section of town set aside as an international city, though that's just an idea, not a demand. And it's an idea from an old Tom Clancy novel. Certainly it makes sense to me for the Old City to be part of Israel. I have also suggested that the border between Israel and whatever they decide to call "Palestine" be drawn more or less along current lines of control, not the 1967 border. Probably the point I do actually believe that you would consider hostile to Isreal is that some Israeli settlements lying outside the current borders should be dismantled, or the people living there could chose to remain and become citizens of the new country. There are Arab citizens of Isreal, I see no reason their couldn't be Jewish citizens in "Palestine", particularly with a very protective Isreal being right next door to assure their safety. Perhaps you are misstating my positions the way you are misstating Mr Obama's, because you are engaging in the logical fallacy that if a disagree with you on some points I must disagree with you on all points?

Or I remember our discussions back when Obama made Israel's return to 1967 borders his official demand back in 2011.


His "official" position is NOT a "demand" for a return to the 1967 border. His position is that Isreal and Palestine should negotiate a new border with land swaps reflecting the current situation on the ground. Nor is this "Obama's idea, it has been the unofficial position of the last several U.S. Administrations including Republicans. Nor does he support any right to return for Palestinans. Why do you feel the need to lie about President Obama's position?

I don't. I have a long memory and uncommon Googling skills.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:28 am

Minardil wrote:
Storyteller wrote:
What will you do if they don't abide by the deal? Go to war? You've filled this thread to the brim with declarations that it's not going to happen no matter what.



Uh, that is the exact opposite of what I have been saying. I have been saying that once Iran has a bomb, war becomes "inevitable and necessary". Are you so accustomed to misrepresenting the views and positions of others that you think you can lie about my own position when my words are easily seen just by scrolling up?

My - as previously mentioned - long memory does not recall you saying that, so please quote yourself.

Also, would you actually back a war against Iran AFTER it actually possesses a nuclear bomb? A war that can actually turn into a nuclear war? Allow me to express some doubt.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:30 am

portia wrote:Story: every one of your arguments shows opposition to any deal. You have proved my point for me.

How do they show that? Especially after I've outlined what a good deal would look like?

Still argument by assertion.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby The Heretic » Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:01 pm

Storyteller wrote:Contradiction of terms right there, Minardil. You can't shut it down AND limit it to purely civilian activities.

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Sat Aug 29, 2015 9:36 pm

They are not contradictory. You are merely too blinded by your position. It is entirely possible to cut off the military uses, but continue the civilian uses.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Sun Aug 30, 2015 11:26 am

portia wrote:They are not contradictory. You are merely too blinded by your position. It is entirely possible to cut off the military uses, but continue the civilian uses.


Ah yes, many tools have multiple uses, and it is possible to consider some uses to be acceptable and others to be unacceptable. For instance, I consider it perfectly acceptable to use your AR-15 to go down to the local firing range and blow away paper targets for fun, I consider it unacceptable to take it to the local elementary school to massacre a classroom of first graders. But somehow whenever I try to argue against the latter, so-called "Gun Rights Activists" work themselves into a frothy Santorum of spittle beflecked rage over some imaginary attempt to outlaw the former. Whatever. Clearly we're seeing the same rigid thinking here. What I was saying was that the Military research program at the Arak reactor is to be pickle jars down, then subsequently civilian activities which are specifically permitted under the NPT will be allowed to resume subject to IAEA inspections. Opponents to the deal might disagree as to whether or not that is what will happen, but arguing that this sequence of events is somehow logically impossible is just silly, and a bit desperate.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Sun Aug 30, 2015 11:40 am

Storyteller wrote:
portia wrote:Story: every one of your arguments shows opposition to any deal. You have proved my point for me.

How do they show that? Especially after I've outlined what a good deal would look like?

Still argument by assertion.


Well, your alleged "good deal" essentially amounts to Unconditional Surrender, by your own description, and you have indicated that anything less than this full capitulation would be a "bad deal" which is worse than "no deal at all". So, right off the bat you have adopted a rigid and inflexible position from which you refuse to budge. This "all or nothing" approach is practical when you hold all the cards and your opponent is totally at your mercy, but it is a sure way to kill any attempts to achieve a genuine negotiated agreement. If Iran is really as close to achieving a nuclear wraps as you say they are, they will actually be in a much stronger bargaining position if they were to refuse your demand for Unconditional Surrender, walk away from the negotiations, and spend the next few months finishing their bomb. Now we have to deal with a nuclear armed Iran, which is something totally different.

Also, you have made it very clear that you don't trust the Iranians to abide by any deal, you don't trust the IAEA to inspect properly (THEY are the ones negotiating those "secret side deals" you hate so much, no the U.S.), you don't trust the Russians or the Chinese to NOT sell Iran nuclear weapons technology under any deal, and you don't trust the Obama Administration under any deal either.

These are all strong indications that you really don't believe any deal is possible, no matter what the terms.

Feel free to refute those points and describe that you DO trust any of the parties to the deal in any way. If you can't say that, our "assertion" is confirmed.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Sun Aug 30, 2015 5:35 pm

Your descriptions of a better deal involved elements that Iran will not agree to, and therefore constitutes a fantasy scenario.

We know that Iran will agree to this deal, as it has. Assumptions that Iran would agree to some other scenario are unclear, what would induce them to take another deal? How do you know they would take another deal?
Who knows what would induce a "better deal"? Until something is proposed, the idea of a "better deal" is someone's fantasy. (And I will bet that if you manage to get some of the proposers together, their proposals will not match.)
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Mon Aug 31, 2015 6:50 am

I think it should be obvious that one key requirement of any deal, "better" or not, is that the terms be acceptable to all parties to the deal. And by "acceptable" I don't mean necessarily "benificial" or "sympathetic" to any particular party, but simply that the terms be such that everyone is willing to accept them.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Tue Sep 01, 2015 8:58 am

Minardil wrote:
hamlet wrote:I see. So, there's no such thing as a legitimate objection to the deal at all? It's all just smokescreens, racism, hatred, and idiocy?

OK, got it.



Sure there are legitimate objections to the deal, but we're talking here about people who object to ANY deal. There isn't any legitimate objection to the base concept of trying to settle the dispute diplomatically, and this is the position that hard line conservatives have taken, that ANY deal is a bad deal.


Actually, while you might be talking about that, Story at least has been raising very specific objections to the existing deal with evidence to back them up. You've continually accused him of categorically being against any deal, which is absolutely ridiculous or merely intentionally obtuse. I'm an idiot and only slightly more often agree with Story than a broken clock, but I can tell that he's actually raised valid and legitimate concerns and provided alternatives which is the very basis of discussion after all. You seem to have missed that in the midst of berating him.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:01 am

Minardil wrote:
Aravar wrote:Where, precisely did Minardil mention racism? I seem to have missed that bit.



I believe he has conflated some of my comments in another thread, in which we were discussing some of the things that Donald Trump has said during his very entertaining campaign for President. Specifically, Mr Trump was praised for his rejection of "political correctness". I said that Trump goes way being being "politically incorrect". For example, it is "politically incorrect" to use the term "illegal immigrant", because according the PC crowd a person cannot be "illegal". Inset eye-rolling emoticon here. They're called "illegal immigrants" because they immigrated illegally, there's nothing wrong with using the term. So if that was all he said I'd be on his side in the whole "PC" argument. But he said that the vast majority of immigrants from Mexico were "rapists and criminals", and THAT is some pretty racist stuff.


Actually no. I was referring to your previous assertions (yes, in other threads) that any opposition to President Obama was always tinged with inherent racism since those evil Republicans and Conservatives can't handle the idea of a black president.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, is an unabahsed racist not worth the time of day and will vanish from the scene before much longer as he does a incredible job at making people like Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal look positively respectiable and intelligent.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:28 am

Hamlet:
Borrowing a poster's attitudes from other threads on other subjects is not a legitimate argument.

Story has particular attitudes and people in other countries may have other points of view. Suggesting substitutes for certain sections of the agreement does not necessarily mean that he is NOT willing to have any agreement. It depends on whether the substituted sections would be acceptable to the other side, all things considered. They my make sense, considered alone, but not make sense considered with other provisions.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:38 am

portia wrote:Hamlet:
Borrowing a poster's attitudes from other threads on other subjects is not a legitimate argument.


I would ask why not. Such things are part of Minardil's whole persona on these boards and are valid points to be brought up. Especially since he seems incapable of actually discussing the points in this thread on their own merits and seems from my perspective to think that anybody who disagrees with him is a clone of Trump or some Fox New zombie. The same goes for you. If you assume whole swathes of our thought and intent and motivation, it is only fair that we be permitted the same priveledge.

Story has particular attitudes and people in other countries may have other points of view. Suggesting substitutes for certain sections of the agreement does not necessarily mean that he is NOT willing to have any agreement. It depends on whether the substituted sections would be acceptable to the other side, all things considered. They my make sense, considered alone, but not make sense considered with other provisions.


There's a difference really. Story's substitutions might not be acceptable to Iran currently, but why in the world were Iran's acceptable in any way to a rational thinker? I'm asking that seriously. The impositions that Iran has imposed on this agreement are compoletely absurd, and the US has swallowed them whole and called it candy.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Tue Sep 01, 2015 8:45 pm

portia wrote:Your descriptions of a better deal involved elements that Iran will not agree to, and therefore constitutes a fantasy scenario.

We know that Iran will agree to this deal, as it has. Assumptions that Iran would agree to some other scenario are unclear, what would induce them to take another deal? How do you know they would take another deal?

That is a ridiculous question. What usually induces people to sign agreements on unfavorable terms?

Pressure, that's what. Countries sign unfavorable agreements to relieve pressure and improve their situation.

The way to a better agreement was to tighten rather than loosen sanctions, and wait for Iran to become more flexible.

Iran has played the same old trick that the Palestinians and various other autocracies always play when negotiating with the West - "my position is entirely non-negotiable, let's negotiate yours". And so it went. Red line after red line after red line. Google Obama's declarations on what constituted his red lines in negotiations over the last 3 years or so and you will see that he crossed them all. Google Iran's, and you will see that they've kept theirs.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:07 am

Dick Cheney, the man whose war in Iraq has turned out to be such a spectacular, catastrophic blunder, was on Morning Joe today declaring with all appearence of credibility that the US should kill the nuclear deal with Iraq. Looking at the results of Cheney's prior foreign policy initiatives, I think we need to listen very carefully to whatever this man says, and do the exact opposite.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:33 am

Minardil wrote:Dick Cheney, the man whose war in Iraq has turned out to be such a spectacular, catastrophic blunder, was on Morning Joe today declaring with all appearence of credibility that the US should kill the nuclear deal with Iraq. Looking at the results of Cheney's prior foreign policy initiatives, I think we need to listen very carefully to whatever this man says, and do the exact opposite.


And so . . . because Cheney had the idea and you don't like how that idea turned out . . . every idea he has is therefore complete garbage and the exact opposite should be done?

That's a logical fallacy I'm sure, but I don't recall the pretentious Latin name for it.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:51 am

If you want to run a race between Iran's development of an atom bomb (which will change everything) and Iran giving in to increased pressure, that is up to you. If you guess wrong, there is no going back.

I think this agreement is acceptable. And, of course, there is always time after this agreement has been in effect for a few years, to write a new agreement to extend the restrictions in response to something else that Iran wants. No agreement is ever set in stone.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:37 pm

Minardil wrote:Dick Cheney, the man whose war in Iraq has turned out to be such a spectacular, catastrophic blunder, was on Morning Joe today declaring with all appearence of credibility that the US should kill the nuclear deal with Iraq. Looking at the results of Cheney's prior foreign policy initiatives, I think we need to listen very carefully to whatever this man says, and do the exact opposite.

The nuclear deal with Iraq was killed by Menachem Begin, who forgot to ask what sort of solution would be most acceptable for Saddam Hussein.

As for Cheney and credibility, I am still waiting for an example of Obama foreign policy move that didn't turn into a catastrophe. Russia "reset"? "Reset" with the Muslims world? Handling Syria? Support for Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? The Libya campaign? How is Obama's credibility any better than Cheney's?
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:40 pm

portia wrote:If you want to run a race between Iran's development of an atom bomb (which will change everything) and Iran giving in to increased pressure, that is up to you. If you guess wrong, there is no going back.

Same on this deal, except this deal gives Iran tons of money to go with it.

I think this agreement is acceptable. And, of course, there is always time after this agreement has been in effect for a few years, to write a new agreement to extend the restrictions in response to something else that Iran wants. No agreement is ever set in stone.

Of course it will be renegotiated a few years from now. To Iran's greater benefit.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:28 am

There is something reassuring about a person whose attitude never changes--right or wrong.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:54 am

portia wrote:There is something reassuring about a person whose attitude never changes--right or wrong.


The irony in that statement is thick enough to cut with a knife.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Fri Sep 11, 2015 9:41 am

An example of the kind of rhetorics that were employed to ram the Iran deal through:

New York Times Lambasted for Chart Listing Jews in Congress Who Oppose Nuclear Deal

Leading Jewish organizations slammed The New York Times on Thursday for publishing an infographic listing Jewish Congressional Democrats who oppose the Iran nuclear deal.

The chart listed anti-deal Democrats in the House and Senate in columns, one of which was headed “Jewish?” Another showed the lawmakers’ “District and estimated Jewish population.”

The text accompanying the graphic points out that, “Though more Jewish members of Congress support the deal than oppose it, the Democrats against the deal are more likely to be Jewish or represent Jewish constituencies.”

Responding to the publication, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of Jewish human rights group the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC), described the chart as “a grotesque insult to the intelligence of those voting on the deal,” and warned against the connotations its publication evokes.

Cooper told The Algemeiner that the point The New York Times appeared to be trying to make is “flawed, mistaken and inappropriate.”

He said the piece suggests the “core opposition” to the nuclear deal is only from Jews, and that the only possible explanation as to why lawmakers would vote against it is “because of the Jewish factor.”

“That is wrong,” he said. “The idea of reducing this whole issue to the ethnicity and religion of an American voter is to essentially reduce the entire question about the nuclear deal. It beclouds the issue.”

Cooper said it would be “appropriate” for The New York Times to “explain themselves.”

“What exactly is the point behind this article?” he asked, and wondered whether such categorization is applied by the paper to other key issues.

“Are we going to see every immigration bill or debate in the U.S. Congress and Capitol Hill analyzed and broken down with graphs by The New York Times based on the Latino population of each district? Is this the new math?”

Jonathan Greenblatt, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, called the chart “offensive,” and said he would like to see The New York Times print an “admission of error.” He said the graph “reinforces stereotypes about American Jews and dual loyalty” and “distracts from real issues.”

Social media has also been abuzz with criticism of the chart. Jeffrey Goldberg, national correspondent for The Atlantic, poked fun at the article on Twitter, saying, “[It] would be helpful if the Times would also tell us just how Jewish each Jewish member of Congress is.”

Haaretz correspondent Allison Kaplan Sommer said that only The New York Times would “have the chutzpah to make a Jewcentric chart like this.” Asserting that any other media outlet would fear being accused of antisemitism for publishing such a graph, she concluded, “I confess … it creeps me out a bit.”

Jewish blogger Pop Chassid said the chart conjured up images of the persecution of Jews. “The New York Times just counted which Jews voted against the Iran deal…We Jews remember when we’ve been counted in history, and we know that it never ends well,” he posted on Facebook.

Following the backlash, The New York Times quickly modified its original post — by removing the “Jew” column from its chart of politicians opposing the Iran deal — but did not issue a correction.

On Thursday afternoon, New York Times deputy Washington editor Jonathan Weisman claimed responsibility on Twitter for the article, but refused to apologize for the piece. He also claimed to be shocked by the response it has received.

“I take responsibility, wanted to examine what was motivating few Dems opposed to the deal. I am not self-hating Jew,” said Weisman, who is Jewish. “It is an informative graphic & I’m stunned by response. Chill out, people. You’ve never used a yellow highlighter?”


Original graphic
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:39 am

Give it a rest, Story. You are beating a dead horse. And 10 years from now, people will have something else on their minds.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Jnyusa » Fri Sep 11, 2015 4:20 pm

Another example of how the liberal, Jewish controlled press of the United States represents Israel's inter ... oh ... wait ...
~
It may seem odd and exaggerated, but I do think the NYT approach represents in quite pure form the shape taken by ethnic prejudice (and in particular prejudice against Blacks and Jews) in the 21st century, when overt racism and anti-semitism would be avoided because it would be identified and criticized as such by the mainstream... as, for example, the Mearsheimer & Walt report were immediately identified as anti-semitic and decried far beyond the Jewish community.

To whit: you don't begin from the premise that Jews/Blacks are doing unsavory things, but you begin with some purportedly unsavory things that you observe happening, and then you notice and count how many Jews/Blacks are doing it.

During the summer when I had a slight amount of leisure time, I read some of the old Manwe threads and came across a post where I had talked about this phenomenon, using the "Jews control Hollywood" trope as an example. Jews are slightly over-represented among the 100 top paid directors and actors in Hollywood, being about 3% of the movers and shakers there while being 2% of the national population. (And in fact we might be more than 2% of the California population because we are not uniformly distributed across the 50 states.) But when someone is both wealthy and powerful in Hollywood and also Jewish, Like Stephen Spielberg, anyone inclined to be anti-Semitic 'notices' their Jewishness, while they do not correspondingly 'notice' the Protestant-ness of Tom Selleck or the Catholic-ness of David Hasselhoff, reportedly two of the most powerful people in Hollywood.

I find there to be something exceptionally creepy and ominous about 'counting the Jews' that goes far beyond any immediate threat posed by the exercise. I don't think it's a dead horse, as Portia says, but something that we should notice when it happens. It is irrelevant, of course, to whether the Iran deal itself is good or bad.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby The Heretic » Sat Sep 12, 2015 2:05 pm

Storyteller wrote:An example of the kind of rhetorics that were employed to ram the Iran deal through:

New York Times Lambasted for Chart Listing Jews in Congress Who Oppose Nuclear Deal

Leading Jewish organizations slammed The New York Times on Thursday for publishing an infographic listing Jewish Congressional Democrats who oppose the Iran nuclear deal.

Democrats opposing the deal? How can that be? Only the 'reflexively anti-Obama' 'right-winger' 'Republicans' oppose it. It is known. Bootlicking Big Baracther shills have said so.

Besides Schumer etc are now unpersons...
Last edited by The Heretic on Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Sun Sep 13, 2015 4:38 am

portia wrote:Give it a rest, Story. You are beating a dead horse. And 10 years from now, people will have something else on their minds.


Declaring the debate to be over and that any who still disagree to be fringe lunatics is really classy. :roll:
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:37 am

portia wrote:Give it a rest, Story. You are beating a dead horse. And 10 years from now, people will have something else on their minds.

I know. Just like 14 years after 9/11 people talk about other things. The horse always dies eventually.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:04 am

hamlet wrote:
portia wrote:Give it a rest, Story. You are beating a dead horse. And 10 years from now, people will have something else on their minds.


Declaring the debate to be over and that any who still disagree to be fringe lunatics is really classy. :roll:


Time changes everything, including whatever is in the news. Even if something about Iran is newsworthy, it will not be this agreement.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby The Heretic » Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:18 pm

hamlet wrote:
portia wrote:Give it a rest, Story. You are beating a dead horse. And 10 years from now, people will have something else on their minds.


Declaring the debate to be over and that any who still disagree to be fringe lunatics is really classy. :roll:

Particularly since support for is at 21% per PEW. Applying the standards of the fellow travelers to themselves, that would make them the extremist fringe lunatics.
But I forget myself, applying their own standards to them is not allowed.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests