[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Pathetic - the first sentence disqualifies the entire piece. The attacks on Khalidi have focused on everything but race.
The predictable shriek of “racism!” is nothing more than someone wanting to change the subject.
Oh, and GDollars, to your defense against comments that you are anti-Semitic: if the standard is so low that merely being a critic of a Palestinian makes you “racist”, then by that very same standard merely being a critic of Israel is “anti-Semitic”.
You can’t have it both ways. Figure out which way you want to have it and get back to us - in the meantime, spare us this low-grade Buchanan impression.[/quote]
Nice try. It’s racism because Khalidi is not an Islamist, nor is he even affiliated with the PLO. He was a spokesman at the Madrid PEACE talks. It is as simple as “Obama hangs out with A-rabs!” That’s the message behind the whole (hilarious because McCain was involved in giving him money) attack.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
What’s even more laughable was that both McCAin and Obama were falling all over themselves to demonstrate their support for Israel during their last debate. It appears the “zionists” have gotten to Obama also. [/quote]
Absolutely. Both parties are equally beholden to the Israel lobby.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Pathetic - the first sentence disqualifies the entire piece. The attacks on Khalidi have focused on everything but race.
The predictable shriek of “racism!” is nothing more than someone wanting to change the subject.
Oh, and GDollars, to your defense against comments that you are anti-Semitic: if the standard is so low that merely being a critic of a Palestinian makes you “racist”, then by that very same standard merely being a critic of Israel is “anti-Semitic”.
You can’t have it both ways. Figure out which way you want to have it and get back to us - in the meantime, spare us this low-grade Buchanan impression.
Nice try. It’s racism because Khalidi is not an Islamist, nor is he even affiliated with the PLO. [/quote]
Stop right there. He’s funded by the UAE and the Saudis. The UAE and SA export jihad all over the globe.
What’s so funny is that you used almost the same language as Khalidi in one of his statements:
“Racist,” “apartheid”, “Likud,” etc. Of course, every bit of evidence that we bring is zionist propaganda (Pipes is an agent of the Jews, etc).
The fact that you obsess over a Jewish state the size of Rhode Island really says a lot.
Nice try. It’s racism because Khalidi is not an Islamist, nor is he even affiliated with the PLO. He was a spokesman at the Madrid PEACE talks. It is as simple as “Obama hangs out with A-rabs!” That’s the message behind the whole (hilarious because McCain was involved in giving him money) attack.[/quote]
It wasn’t a “try” at all - McCain complained that a mainstream media outlet was giving political cover to Obama by not releasing a tape that may have reinforced Obama’s tied with radical elements (see the list).
It has nothing to do with race, but instead with approach to Israel - which, regardless of sympathy, is a question of politics and ideology.
It wouldn’t be “racist!” if McCain complained about Obama having a relationship with someone having sympathy for Putin’s machinations in the Caucasus - it’s only “racist!” here because of the predictable tactic of slurring opponents of the Palestinian “cause” with the most damning slander possible to shout down legitimate criticism…a brainless hysteria you have shown yourself too enamored with to be taken seriously (to the extent you were before, a separate question).
And the charge I suggested sticks - if one can come to the sloppy thought that objecting to a pro-Palestinian’s radical views amounts to reflexive “racism!”, then one can just as easily come to the sloppy conclusion that objecting to a pro-Israel views amounts to reflexive “anti-Semitism!”.
And, follow the response, if you feel like learning anything - Obama has distanced himself from Khalidi, and Obama is black. If there were some reasonable inference that McCain was trying to invoke “racism!”, a black candidate could have a field day with it.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
That’s interesting that they’re Copts. Doesn’t change the fact that their website is by all outward appearances a Likud front. I just read every one of those links, and ran into the usual AIPAC-style propaganda.
“AIPAC,” “Zionists,” “Likud”. You’ve effectively made my point for me. The Jews that agree with you are cited, the Jews that don’t are Zionist propagandists. The Jews you like are the ones most inclined towards their own self-destruction through “talks” with organizations who warmly refer to Surah 2.65 in their charters.
[/quote]
Ah, the stereotype of the self-hating Jew. Martin Van Creveld is about as Israeli (and as brilliant) as you can get. He also thinks Israel should pull out of the Territories and make peace with Syria. I recommend his “Defending Israel.” It’s not some kind of Stockholm Syndrome to be an Israeli and want to make peace. It might be the best available option.
I’d agree with all of the above. Support for overthrowing Saddam WAS an idiots’ consensus. Americans ARE brainwashed into seeing Israel as our embattled ally, despite the USS Liberty, Jonathan Pollard, and what Israel has done to its Palestinian subjects. Khalidi has condemned killing civilians, but says attacks on the soldiers occupying his country are legitimate. Not sure why this is an odd position to take, nor why it’s terrorism. We supported the same thing in Afghanistan and a dozen other places.
OK, relevance? This is not Khalidi. And it’s certainly not Obama.
That’s rich coming from Daniel Pipes.
Hard to care too much when Columbia has an equally prominent Jewish studies center, funded by the owner of my New England Patriots.
[quote]
Where did I do that? Keep up the anti-Semite slurs though, it’s the mark of a non-existent argument.
My argument is a darn-sight better than the your slur of “racism” for anyone who dares point out Khalidi’s connections to terrorism. Why don’t you just recite the shahada right now and start banging your head towards Mecca 5x/day? You’ve got plenty of criticism for “Zionists” and “Neo-conservatives” (many of whom happen to be Jews), but never an ounce of condemnation for those who’ve openly pledged their lives to our destruction. In fact, you identify with them! [/quote]
Nice, putting all Muslims under one big umbrella. Palestinians, Iranians, Saudis, they’re all the same. For a guy who quotes the Koran non-stop that’s stunningly ignorant. Why don’t you toss a useless propagandistic term like “Islamofascism” into the mix?
McCain is bringing Khalidi up because he doesn’t want peope to that McCain (personally) and with his organization raised/gave Khalidi over $880,000.00 which is something Obama has never done.
He also rails on and on about Obama and ACORN while failing to note he was their keynote speaker once, somehing else Obama has never done.
This is why even with his own party he has little to no credibility.
[quote]That’s rich coming from Daniel Pipes.
[/quote]
Who is he to you, another Jewish operative?
The three countries you just named all support terrorism and jihad fi sabil Illah against unbelievers, as evidenced by numerous terrorist attacks, hostage incidents, and terrorist funding cases, but you can’t find an ounce of condemnation for the ideology that drives it. What’s more, you can’t find a shred of evidence that anything I’m saying re: the Qur’an or Islamic exegesis is even wrong. I referenced the most authoritative manual of Sunni jurisprudence available - the one produced by Al-Azhar University - regarding the “clash of civilizations” that Muslims THEMSELVES believe in, and it doesn’t matter to you. I could quote AT LENGTH the various anti-semitic motifs in the Qur’an and Sunnah, and you would still maintain your asinine assertion that I’m using “propaganda.”
Who, exactly, are the Israelis supposed to hand the reigns over to, Hamas? They quote various Qur’anic antisemitic motifs in their charter:
How about Islamic Jihad (no, not the peaceful inner struggle). How about Fatah? They proved to be a disaster as well.
Meanwhile, Iran is constructing nuclear devices and holding Nuremberg rallies while Ahmedinejad mentions Israel and the Jews at every opportunity, but there’s nothing wrong with that either.
Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the other ARab countries export jihad like there’s no tomorrow.
Meanwhile, the rest of the Islamic world is at war with practically everyone (just as you imagine the US to be), yet there’s no condemnation from you for the Copts murdered in Egypt, nor the Buddhists killed in the Thai south, nor for the jihadists in China, the Phillipines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Britain, Europe, Russia, etc. Nope. I’m just putting all Muslims under a “big umbrella.” There is no clash of civilizations. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.
It’s not that I haven’t presented any evidence, it’s just that there’s none you’ll accept. You’ll just go on fretting about Rhode Island-sized Israel, AIPAC, and Jewish neo-conservatives while sticking up for the Muslim Arabs who mean us actual harm.
Your particular brand of conservatism is not represented by even Buchanan. It’s more akin to that of David Duke. The only good Jews are the ones that agree with you. Speaking of self-loathing Jews, did you see the ones that showed up to the Holocaust denial conference with Duke in Iran? Yeah, those were a figment of my imagination as well.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Pathetic - the first sentence disqualifies the entire piece. The attacks on Khalidi have focused on everything but race.
The predictable shriek of “racism!” is nothing more than someone wanting to change the subject.
Oh, and GDollars, to your defense against comments that you are anti-Semitic: if the standard is so low that merely being a critic of a Palestinian makes you “racist”, then by that very same standard merely being a critic of Israel is “anti-Semitic”.
You can’t have it both ways. Figure out which way you want to have it and get back to us - in the meantime, spare us this low-grade Buchanan impression.
Nice try. It’s racism because Khalidi is not an Islamist, nor is he even affiliated with the PLO.
Stop right there. He’s funded by the UAE and the Saudis. The UAE and SA export jihad all over the globe.
[/quote]
They are also among the only rich Arab states that would be funding an American professor looking at Palestinian issues. Again, I could say the exact same thing about Israeli millionaires, only substitute “appartheid” for “jihad.”
This is essentially the same point made, in only slightly more moderated language, in George Packer’s “The Assassin’s Gate,” which is still probably the definitive account of the genesis of the Iraq War. Packer’s a left-center New Yorker writer who is widely respected. Colin Powell apparently made the same points to President Bush behind closed doors. Are they both now anti-Semites too?
[quote]
The fact that you obsess over a Jewish state the size of Rhode Island really says a lot. [/quote]
Not at all. I don’t have any enmity or obsession about Israel at all. It’s the neo-cons and their allies who do. A state the size of Rhode Island, as you note:
Receives more U.S. aid than any other country on the globe.
Is given access to advanced U.S. military technology despite trying to sell such technology to the Chinese in the past.
Has its flag adorning the governor’s office (!) of a U.S. vice-presidential nominee.
Attacked one of our ships in broad daylight and was immediately forgiven.
Completely distorts U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Maintains an absurdly powerful lobby in Washington, powerful enough that its PAC compels annual, ritual obeisance from the most powerful politicians in the land.
I have no special interest in Israel. I just wish we would treat it like we do any other country. The neo-cons don’t.
Nice try. It’s racism because Khalidi is not an Islamist, nor is he even affiliated with the PLO. He was a spokesman at the Madrid PEACE talks. It is as simple as “Obama hangs out with A-rabs!” That’s the message behind the whole (hilarious because McCain was involved in giving him money) attack.
It wasn’t a “try” at all - McCain complained that a mainstream media outlet was giving political cover to Obama by not releasing a tape that may have reinforced Obama’s tied with radical elements (see the list).
It has nothing to do with race, but instead with approach to Israel - which, regardless of sympathy, is a question of politics and ideology.
[/quote]
Except that Khalidi is not a “terrorist”, or a terrorist sympathizer, or has any but the most tangential and incidental relationship to either. So what are we supposed to be up in arms about, remind me?
Coming from you that’s funny, the pot calling the kettle black.
[quote]
And, follow the response, if you feel like learning anything - Obama has distanced himself from Khalidi, and Obama is black. If there were some reasonable inference that McCain was trying to invoke “racism!”, a black candidate could have a field day with it.[/quote]
No he couldn’t, not when the subject is an Arab, and Americans are largely and unthinkingly pro-Israel. If you are a smart politician who never takes a stand and will gladly throw anyone under a bus when needed (Obama, see FISA, for example) then you don’t say a word about racism here.