Actual forums user "RedFury" does not like Jews

The BBQ Pit
241

Kim, do you really, honestly and truly, not see the racism inherent in this situation? Really?

-If a Jew has the ‘wrong’ politics on Israel, allege that they’re potentially engaging in ethnic-based treachery due to dual loyalty. No proof must be provided other than that they’re Jewish, and they disagree on what America’s politics should be and what’s in America’s best interest. This has the intent and/or the effect of trying to shut Jews up and prohibit Jews from participating in politics unless their opinions are “approved” by those who hunt for Jewish Treachery. This also demonizes Jews who dare to have a different political opinion than the hunters do, and reinforces centuries old anti-Semitic tropes that Jews cannot be trusted due to their clannish loyalty to other Jews which renders them perpetual Others in the states in which they live.

This is a loyalty test, only for Jews, and only if you need a weapon to personally attack someone whose politics you do not agree with.

-If a gentile has the ‘wrong’ politics on Israel, do not accuse them of dual loyalty, even if they have the same exact politics as the Jew. Gentiles are not to be investigated for treachery when it comes to Israel. Instead, accuse those gentiles who have the ‘wrong’ politics on Israel of being duped, bullied or coerced by a mostly-Jewish lobby. Ignore that those politicians can make up their own minds, that American support for Israel has generally remained very high among much of the voting populace, etc…

Jews who have the “wrong” politics may be traitors to the nation, and politicians who have the “wrong” politics may be patsies for the Jews.

You see nothing, at all, wrong with that Kim?
You don’t see the difference between “Mr. Smith has Opinion X on how the US should conduct foreign policy. I disagree for reasons A, B and C, and posit that my plan would enrich America to a greater degree due to ramifications E, F and G.” and “Mr. Smith has Opinion X on how the US should conduct foreign policy. This is quite possibly because he is engaging in ethnic-based treachery and selling out his home in order to benefit a foreign power at America’s expense. Or he’s in the pocket of those who are engaging in ethnic-based treachery in order to benefit a foreign power at America’s expense.”

You see a mid-ground between “racism” and “no racism”?

242

You keep saying this. Presuming that you mean to suggest the Rosenberg spy case, surely you are aware that the motive of the crime was ideology? Surely you know that a truly committed Communist of that era was expected to repudiate any and all religious belief and/or heritage?

Given your loudly proclaimed adherence to truth and clarity, I expect you to either explain this puzzling misnomer, or cease and desist. Preferably, the latter.

And what if you totally won? What if everyone here agreed that, yes, indeed, **Red Fury **is an utterly irredeemable anti-Semite, and his views are clouded and obscured by this overarching commitment? Suppose you could mount his head on your pike and go gallumphing back in utter triumph and vindication? What then?

What would you have proved? That one excitable person of Spanish extraction with a rather unfortunate dedication to a metrosexual sports franchise is anti-Semitic? All that energy and verbal ammunition expended to this puny result?

If what you say about Red is true, and I don’t for a moment believe that it is, so fucking what?

243

Yeah I am discussing “everything” in this thread.

What appears to be righteous offense to you is actually a measure of the effort required to get through to closed minded, either willfully or not, people like KimStu, who can’t conceive of the issues with their position, or ways to refine their message. Se my previous post where I offered some guidance in that way.

Note I am not offering an opinion on if KimStud is willfully dense or deliberately so. Whether he grasps my suggestions for refining his (or her, I don’t know) message will be telling though.

244

heh.

Those who are willing to point out the rhetorical problems with the posts of KimStu and RedFury.

Not that KimStu has asked for better ways to approach the issue, and I have provided some suggestions that would allow the issue of Israeli foreign policy to be discussed without pointing at people’s religions. The are pretty basic ones, I am sure they can be added to or fleshed out. Can you add to it?

245

Oh thank god; I missed you!

Though you’re disappointingly low on buzzwords this time. :frowning:

246

Once again, this is you demanding that your own opinion and your own interpretation should pass for incontrovertible fact, irrespective of any evidence about the existence of different interpretations.

Because Mearsheimer and Walt provide some evidence (which I quoted) about non-anti-Semites using the term “dual loyalty” in a different sense from the old anti-Semitic canard, and because you don’t want to admit that any such recognition of any alternative interpretation of the term exists, you respond by simply dismissing their work in toto. But dismissing is not the same thing as refuting.

If you personally don’t think much of The Israel Lobby, which is admittedly a very controversial work, then fine; it’s a free country and you’re entitled to your opinion. But ISTM that you’re out of line, again, in trying to pretend that your opinion is the same thing as a categorical fact about the book. Plenty of widely respected scholars have acknowledged Mearsheimer and Walt’s work as actual scholarship that merits serious consideration.

Fine, but that doesn’t seem to answer my question. Do you mean that you do or you don’t consider that it’s possible to articulate the concept of an “Israel lobby” or “pro-Israel interest group”, associated in particular with pro-Israel Jewish Americans, in an acceptable and non-anti-Semitic way?

And if you do, then what would you consider a proper way to frame that concept in discussion that wouldn’t be guilty of anti-Semitic bigotry?

247

Soon, if you Google “absolute and inarguable truth” you will be led directly to FinnAgains Wiki.

248

Without offering a shred of evidence that there is even one “dual loyalist”, it hence casts all Jews under the aspersion.

Are you aware of any people, Jewish or not, that are American and have dual loyalties? Any evidence at all?

You don’t find anything odd about the accusation itself, and the list of names, from which Greek Tenet was dropped earlier despite his politics being aligned with the rest?

Why aren’t folks like Huckabee on the list? That dude is running for President, shouldn’t we examine his loyalties too? Oh, he is Christian, he is cool.

249

You are willing to play “yes or no” games?

Hmm.

I have now done that - let’s see how YOU respond, are you going to reframe your point or not.

250

When Jack Straw (at the time, UK Foreign Minister) who attended talks on ME peace, says of Libby Scooter that “on any given day it’s a toss-up if he (Libby) is working for US or Israelis side” he may be commenting on simple case of annoyance where it’s hard to negotiate when you don’t know whose side a particular official arguing for (i.e. what’s the story TODAY?).

To some others, that kind of in plain view duality may seem more just than annoyance. Especially when we are talking about the longest ever conflict post-WWI. Personally, if more of these characters would be outed the peace would come more quickly.

251

You are not really reading along are you?

The issue is not Red the individual, it is that he repeats the tropes of others, memes if you will, that are dangerous. Showing them to be dangerous is a step towards replacing tropes and memes of hate with memes of rationality and freedom.

That can be a long slow slog, fought one step at a time, sure, but it is a fight worth fighting isn’t it?

Alternatively I suppose you could say that anti-Semitism is unstoppable so you might as well sit back and enjoy it.

Are you against anti-Semitism? Open to learning the insidious, and not always obvious ways in which it manifests itself historically and presently?

252

Take care. What you are suggesting is impossible without that ability to peer into “Scooter” Libby’s mind and inventory the contents. Is Richard Perle a utterly commited Zionist of Jewish extraction, or simply a ruthlessly practical politician, willing to play Risk with the lives of millions of innocent people? I don’t care, I simply insist that he be removed as far from the levers of power as humanly possible. Antarctica sounds about right.

253

Oh this is gonna be good!

Kimstu, what distinguishes this group of “pro-Israel Jewish Americans” from other “pro-Israel Americans” with identical politics?

254

Well, then by association everyone on the board that doesn’t agree with Finn would be …

255

A witch! No, wait, that can’t be it…

256

How do you separate Straw’s comments from an overall negotiating strategy? Surely you know there is closed door negotiation, and tactics brought to bear via the press or otherwise in public, all of which could be part of a unified strategy, right? Why would you view Straw’s quote as other than self-serving, which after all, is his role in a negotiation or as possibly positioning for the home crowd for a later negotiation?

257

Yes I am: what I said about rejecting the use of Jewishness as “a factor at all in considering qualifications for a government post or trustworthiness as a US citizen” applies to all other religious and/or ethnic categories as well.

Throughout my posts here, I’ve tried to be very clear that it isn’t religious/ethnic identity or religious/ethnic self-identification that I think is the potentially valid discussion topic on the so-called “dual loyalty” issue, but rather adherence to a specific political position that explicitly prioritizes the interests of the Israeli right.

That’s a good principle (and in fact, the point about not treating the “Israel lobby”, or “group of far right supporters of Israel” or whatever we’re calling it, as automatically synonymous with “Jewish” is one of the reasons I brought up Huckabee in the first place).

But ISTM that Mearsheimer and Walt, for example, in their book did pretty much exactly what you suggest in attacking policy rather than people. They were at great pains to point out that the so-called “Israel lobby” is not exclusively Jewish and that many Jews oppose it. And yet they were, and still are, bombarded with accusations of anti-Semitism anyway.

258

Politically? Nothing.

259

'cause his ad-hominen scrolls bore the shit outta me. Duh.

And you’ve just joined his ranks. Shove your leading questions where the sun don’t shine.

Yup, I did. But did you miss the part where I wrote that “my ideas remain the same” or are you just another dishonest piece of shit?

Again, you appear to incapable of reading in context. I did NOT retract the main thrust of the post in question – which, as you can see, I don’t mind discussing and/or dissecting with someone lucid – which is simply that there’s an “Israel can do no wrong” straggle of followers that make discussing said topic rather futile.

I’d like to end my conversation with you by thanking you for making my point.

And I do.

260

Honestly Kim, drop the bullshit.
Dual loyalty is an accusation of violation of allegiance to one’s home country and violation of of faith and confidence that politicians have placed on them that they will not betray their nation for another nation’s gains. It is an accusation of treachery. The very denotation of “treachery”. This is a fact.
You can bullshit all you want, but jamming your fingers in your ears and repeating “lalalalala!” is not a factual rebuttal.

Again, what do you think Red’s metrics were? Why was Tenet excluded simply because he wasn’t a Jew, even though he had the same politics as before Red was made aware of that? And why does Red, so often, use the lie that anybody has claimed that “Israel can do no wrong” when it’s simply people who disagree with his fanatically anti-Israel screeds? Does that little bit of dishonesty not bother you, that he used such a blatant anti-Semitic dual loyalty screed even while he lies and pretends that people who criticize Israel, but don’t subscribe to his twisted views are, in fact, uncritical of Israel and support it in everything that it does? Would it surprise you to learn that he’s used that lie in threads, sometimes right after someone’s criticized Israel, and Red’s response was to troll them by claiming that they never criticize Israel? That sort of pattern of dishonestly and racism doesn’t strike you as, maybe, something not worth your lukewarm apologia?

No, they provided it being used in the same sense, they just pretended it was different. I have trouble believing that you really don’t understand that in the Middle Ages the accusation was that you can’t trust Jews because of their dedication to other Jews above their own homes, and now the accusation is that you can’t trust Jews (with the ‘wrong’ political views) because of their dedication to the Jewish state above their own homes.

And characteristically, rather than provide a reasoned response as to why distrusting Jews for their alleged-but-never-proven loyalty to the Jewish state above their own homes, and treating them as an Other despite sharing the same political beliefs as gentiles isn’t a simple updating of the medieval slur, you’re just responding with The Argument From Nuhn Uhnn!

Rather clearly, when faced with facts all your response is, is “That’s extremist! That’s absolutist! You’re just saying it’s true as if that made it true!” All the while not even pretending to address the factual or logical backing of what I’ve said.

You’re using the same bullshit you tried to pull earlier. I’ll also note that you let your previous bullshit go at the slightest challenge. Do you or do you not have even one single cite of a time when, instead of dealing with the factual and logical underpinning of an argument I focused on an irrelevancy and ignored the meat of the argument? Even one cite? Your rush to change the subject suggests that no, of course you don’t.

Again, do you really and truly not understand that something that’s factually erroneous and methodically flawed, is worthless as anything other than a book-sized snarl word? Or is it that you just know that there’s something to it, so despite the fact that it fails in terms of both logic and facts, we can’t discard it?

W&M’s pseudoscholarship is factually erroneous on multiple key issues, monocausal oversimplification on many others, makes wild leaps of unfounded conjecture in place of actual logic and betrayed an almost complete lack of research into how the US government actually operates. That you’re defending it at all is absurd. This seems to be your standard bullshit. Something is shown to be worthless and rather than pointing out that fact, we’re expected to try to salvage something from it, like searching for undigested matter in horseshit. Thanks, I’ll pass.

The Argument From Nuhn Uhnn! is not a rebuttal, by the way.

Yes, it does.
If you want to criticize someone’s politics, criticize their politics. If you have evidence of actual Rosenbergesque treachery, then use that to build a case. Otherwise, alleging ethnic-based treachery is out of bounds.
This is hardly complicated.