In reply to the comments made on my article "An Opinion on Israel"
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/350405.html
Which on some Indy sites has been hidden (for reasons unknown to me).
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/350405.html Which on some Indy sites has been hidden (for reasons unknown to me).
I have two notes on my “Opinion On Israel” article which are on opposite sides of the spectrum and equally racist, bigoted and narrow minded.
To the one who is critical of Islam, why don’t you come forward and name yourself: be accountable for your views, unless, as I can only assume, you fear the comments and verbal reprisals.
To Twilight; at least you named yourself, even if it is a pseudonym. But you seem equally racist; lowering yourself it would seem to the depths of you “Zionist” masters.
If you guys are leading the revolution, it’ll make great television, non?
All I was saying – and now have made it an intention to state again – is that Israel has a right to exist, as do the Lebanese.
Writers like yourself truly give Indymedia a bad name; your closed minded, over biased, arrogant angst filled rants. It appears that any other view contrary to with the Islamaphobia-sufferer or the Zionist-hater would be unwanted. I would be unsuprised if, it was in either of your powers, to censor that which you do not agree with. Although opposite sides of the spectrum, you are both of the same breed.
And to call me a terrorist Twilight only shows your stupidity. Again, I say to both of you, grow up! Submit your articles refuting my claims, my opinion, but be calm about it. Geeze...
Give me your address; I shall send each of you some weed. You need it.
Im writing more of what I think about Israel, and I shall include my own views next time too. I am looking forward to both of you two cowards replies – its going to make great comedy!
Kind regards from a fellow writer a little less hot under the collar.
PS: Twilight, I may understand that you assumed the Islamaphobic comment before yours to be my own writing. Everything I write I put my name to: Jack. If you misunderstood, then please apologize.
And be careful with the word terrorist, as I am sure you would be the first to acknowledge that one mans terrorist is the next mans freedom fighter.
See you on Indy – im looking forward to it.
To the one who is critical of Islam, why don’t you come forward and name yourself: be accountable for your views, unless, as I can only assume, you fear the comments and verbal reprisals.
To Twilight; at least you named yourself, even if it is a pseudonym. But you seem equally racist; lowering yourself it would seem to the depths of you “Zionist” masters.
If you guys are leading the revolution, it’ll make great television, non?
All I was saying – and now have made it an intention to state again – is that Israel has a right to exist, as do the Lebanese.
Writers like yourself truly give Indymedia a bad name; your closed minded, over biased, arrogant angst filled rants. It appears that any other view contrary to with the Islamaphobia-sufferer or the Zionist-hater would be unwanted. I would be unsuprised if, it was in either of your powers, to censor that which you do not agree with. Although opposite sides of the spectrum, you are both of the same breed.
And to call me a terrorist Twilight only shows your stupidity. Again, I say to both of you, grow up! Submit your articles refuting my claims, my opinion, but be calm about it. Geeze...
Give me your address; I shall send each of you some weed. You need it.
Im writing more of what I think about Israel, and I shall include my own views next time too. I am looking forward to both of you two cowards replies – its going to make great comedy!
Kind regards from a fellow writer a little less hot under the collar.
PS: Twilight, I may understand that you assumed the Islamaphobic comment before yours to be my own writing. Everything I write I put my name to: Jack. If you misunderstood, then please apologize.
And be careful with the word terrorist, as I am sure you would be the first to acknowledge that one mans terrorist is the next mans freedom fighter.
See you on Indy – im looking forward to it.
e-mail:
Comments
Hide the following comment
Is it possible to think and speak towards a universal set of moral values?
10.09.2006 20:43
10 Sep 2006
1. And as an effort towards that, is it also possible to agree some of the values?
2. Like, for instance, innocent until proven guilty.
3. Proof is subject to the highest standards of rigour known to human beings so fart,
4. Not torture, not violence. but intelelctual, evidential rigour. Objective. As objective as objective can be.
5. And is it also possible to then abide by those?
6. If it is possible to agree on these stages, is it then possible to question, try and prosecute [under the highest forums of international human rights laws] anyone, whoever they may be, as based on what they say and do, rather than on any prior decision about their right to say or do whatever it is that is under review?
7. Now can we apply these principles to all states?
8. Conceptual pause here for the actual tests and trials - hypothetically, of course.
9. What does the exercise show us?
10. Is it the case that ALL the statements by or via Bush and Blair about the Middle East have been shown to have been unproven?
11. Is it then possible to look for the same values against Bush and Blair as were apparently applied against Saddam Hussein and the Serbian perpetrators at the givens times?
12. What is the intrinsic superiority of an infant born to one race or religious group as compared to the intrinsic inferiority of another infant born to another ethnic or religious group?
13. What makes one ethnic ore religious group a superior group victims as compared to another group at another time?
14. What evidential ground and thence right is there for one terrorist state to demand existence for itself while it denies the same to its questioners to imagine coming into existence?
15. What kind of fairness, rule of law, civilisation, and values does that state recognise?
16. Who are its backers?
17. What are the criteria that can be applied to classify them and find them as coming from a very narrow and closed background albeit they are scattered c across the planet earth and may at first appear to be drawn from a wider background than is the case?
18. Can we also agree that any state that may oppose the internationally agreed course of action, should be independently examined by that forum and if found guilty that state be recommend for expulsion form the world forum?
19. What state could come to mind?
20. Do we have a world platform and system to get there?
21. If not, why not?
22. How much worse do things have to get, how many infants and other innocents must suffer before we the people of the world get a forum like that which we all spontaneously rationally back?
Justthought