Moto: Loathesome Pustule

[Mr.Moto]

I was wrong to say, elucidator, that you were blaming things on the Jews. You were not in fact doing so, and I allowed the heat of a political discussion to overheat my own rhetoric there.

I apologize for this particular comment, and ask forgiveness from anyone that I hurt with it. Especially you.

However, I’m only going to do so for this comment only, because it was wrong and quite clearly wrong. My comment before this one, where I accused you of peddling cheap conspiracy theories, still stands.

Picking the villain of the week and shoehorning him into what is going on in the world is the essence of conspiracy theory, and you did your share of that in your post. And by doing so, you used the tactics of a Cynthia McKinney or a LaRouche.

It doesn’t matter if your post was 90% realism and 10% nuttiness. All conspiracy theories, even the craziest ones, have to have some resemblance to reality or they’ll be dismissed outright. That’s why I scoffed at the notion that your post should be considered apart from the sentence in question.

[GIGObuster]

@Mr. Moto

However, I’m only going to do so for this comment only, because it was wrong and quite clearly wrong. My comment before this one, where I accused you of peddling cheap conspiracy theories, still stands.

Picking the villain of the week and shoehorning him into what is going on in the world is the essence of conspiracy theory, and you did your share of that in your post. And by doing so, you used the tactics of a Cynthia McKinney or a LaRouche.

It doesn’t matter if your post was 90% realism and 10% nuttiness. All conspiracy theories, even the craziest ones, have to have some resemblance to reality or they’ll be dismissed outright. That’s why I scoffed at the notion that your post should be considered apart from the sentence in question.

I wish Billy Graham and their buddies were cheap and non influential Mr. Moto.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=5854

But Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, rejected the apology as “mealy mouthed.”

“He does not address the ugliness, the sinisterness, of his beliefs,” Foxman said in a telephone interview. “All of a sudden he has lost his memory and says these things don’t reflect his view? Whose views do they reflect?

“It’s so sad that an icon of the church doesn’t have the guts to say that what he said is horrible and that nobody should believe it.”

Foxman added that Rev. Graham’s assertion that a second Nixon administration “might be able to do something” about the Jewish stranglehold on the nation “is chilling and frightening, even today, 30 years later. It is shameful that one of America’s most respected religious leaders and a spiritual adviser to presidents believed and espoused age-old classical anti-Semitic canards.”

Rabbi James Rudin, senior interreligious adviser for the American Jewish Committee, said he was shocked and disappointed by the revelations because it was uncharacteristic of the man he knew for 30 years.

He said the role of a religious leader in the White House is to hold the leader to the highest levels of behavior and standards, “to be Nathan the prophet to King David,” referring to the biblical prophet who admonished the king.

“He could have confronted Nixon and said, ‘This is ugly and poisonous and also untrue.’ Instead he seems to have agreed with Nixon,” Rabbi Rudin said.

At one point on the tape, Nixon and Rev. Graham share their antipathy of American Jews while complimenting “Israeli Jews.”

“The best Jews are actually the Israeli Jews,” says Nixon.

“That’s right,” agrees Rev. Graham, who later concurs with Nixon’s assertion that a “powerful bloc” of Jews confronts Nixon in the media.

“And they’re the ones putting out the pornographic stuff,” Rev. Graham adds.

**Marty said the split of Evangelicals being “pro-Israel and domestically anti-Semitic is a very familiar story.”

But the pro-Israel support is deceptive, he said, because it is based on the belief that a strong Israel is necessary for Jesus to come again, when they believe all Jews will be either converted or killed.

“Israel needs all the friends it can get, but not for these reasons,” Marty said.

“[Evangelicals] were Zionists before Jews were, but for another reason. [Evangelical leader Jerry] Falwell gave [Prime Minister Menachem] Begin awards and vice versa. We all thought Jews were getting snookered here. Many Evangelicals, and Billy on this tape, disassociate ‘secular’ and ‘liberal’ American Jews from their Zionist, ‘good Jews’ camp, and that was what Billy was reflecting,” Marty said. **

In his written apology, Rev. Graham said his legacy has been one of working for stronger bonds between Jews and Christians.

[Guinastasia]

@Mr. Moto

I was wrong to say, elucidator, that you were blaming things on the Jews. You were not in fact doing so, and I allowed the heat of a political discussion to overheat my own rhetoric there.

I apologize for this particular comment, and ask forgiveness from anyone that I hurt with it. Especially you.

However, I’m only going to do so for this comment only, because it was wrong and quite clearly wrong. My comment before this one, where I accused you of peddling cheap conspiracy theories, still stands.

Picking the villain of the week and shoehorning him into what is going on in the world is the essence of conspiracy theory, and you did your share of that in your post. And by doing so, you used the tactics of a Cynthia McKinney or a LaRouche.

It doesn’t matter if your post was 90% realism and 10% nuttiness. All conspiracy theories, even the craziest ones, have to have some resemblance to reality or they’ll be dismissed outright. That’s why I scoffed at the notion that your post should be considered apart from the sentence in question.

Cheap conspiracy theories? Um, most of them have admitted that’s why they support Israel-because it’s all about the End Times.

[John_Mace]

@Mr. Moto

I was wrong to say, elucidator, that you were blaming things on the Jews. You were not in fact doing so, and I allowed the heat of a political discussion to overheat my own rhetoric there.

I apologize for this particular comment, and ask forgiveness from anyone that I hurt with it. Especially you.

Good.

However, I’m only going to do so for this comment only, because it was wrong and quite clearly wrong. My comment before this one, where I accused you of peddling cheap conspiracy theories, still stands.

Picking the villain of the week and shoehorning him into what is going on in the world is the essence of conspiracy theory, and you did your share of that in your post. And by doing so, you used the tactics of a Cynthia McKinney or a LaRouche.

It doesn’t matter if your post was 90% realism and 10% nuttiness. All conspiracy theories, even the craziest ones, have to have some resemblance to reality or they’ll be dismissed outright. That’s why I scoffed at the notion that your post should be considered apart from the sentence in question.

But it wasn’t a conspiracy theory. The post in question, like many of elucidator’s, was indeed a triumph of style over substance, and I had to read it several times to tease out the meaning. All he really did was ask a question: to what extent does Israel fit in to the war in Iraq? He didn’t even imply that it was a major reason, just that there might be some connection. After all, that was what the thread was about.

[elucidator]

@Mr Moto

…I apologize for this particular comment, and ask forgiveness from anyone that I hurt with it. Especially you…

Accepted. If it never happens again, it never happened at all.

If the Illustrious Ones Who Sit at the Right Hand of Cecil are so moved, I have no objection to closing this thread.

(Beside, sooner or later I was gonna succumb to the nagging temptation to ask Lib what the hell a “Volvo fallacy” is…)

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Liberal

My sister is a fundamentalist Christian who believes that Israel plays a central role (not a bit part) in what she believes is the Last Days. I think that where she might differ with the Falwells, et al, is that she believes that Israel is fulfilling God’s plan, and not hers. She does not believe that Israel benefits her in any way. She believes that her salvation is a personal matter between her and God.

[hijack]

May I posit that your sister’s conception of Israel’s central role would indeed be seen as a bit part to one who does not share her theology? To an Israeli like our friend Alessan, for example? It seems to me, as a lapsed Congregationalist, that her strong feelings about Israel are based not on the needs or hopes of that country or its inhabitants, but on how Israel fits within the context and concepts of her own salvation.

I trust you understand that I’m in no way denigrating her sincere beliefs, nor accusing her of harboring any illwill toward Israel. I do believe that there are some among the end-timers who wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about Israel’s existance if it didn’t support their version of salvation. I believe that there are sincere Christians, like your sister, who feel genuine good will toward that country. I also believe it’s legitimate for those who do not share her beliefs to regard the role in which her theology places Israel as a bit part.

Okay, having made a thoroughgoing hash of beating Adam’s obvious ox, I’ll wander off now.

[FinnAgain]

@elucidator

(Beside, sooner or later I was gonna succumb to the nagging temptation to ask Lib what the hell a “Volvo fallacy” is…)

Whee.

[New_Iskander]

@elucidator

Put simply, I am not now, nor ever have been, anti-Semitic. It distresses me greatly to have to make such a statement, I regard it as a given. I shouldn’t even have to say such a thing, any more than I should have to confirm that I am not a child molestor.

Tut-tut-tut. That was only an exaggeration. The whole point of exaggerations is to ventilate an issue, bring it into the light of public scrutiny, so it could be freely discussed,- no stones unturned,- and if the public concludes that there is indeed no substance to the outlandish charge, why the whole Respublic is so much better for it. And the more conspicuous the charge, the better. But you knew that.

So stop whining and do your civic duty.
P.S. Since you mentioned it, are you not a child molestor?

[Mtgman]

While you’re at it, how about those rumors of pigfucking I heard about? Care to deny those?

Enjoy,
Steven

[elucidator]

Oy! Neutron density treyf! ;j

And if you don’t drag your sister into this, there’s no reason I should.

[Miller]

@elucidator

(Beside, sooner or later I was gonna succumb to the nagging temptation to ask Lib what the hell a “Volvo fallacy” is…)

It’s generally more reliable than the Ferrari fallacy, but not nearly as sexy.

[DMC]

@Jackmannii

Mr. Moto’s comments are the first real evidence I have seen on this board of someone invoking anti-Semitism as a direct counter to a critique of Israel.* As such, it will probably be referred to repeatedly by those who like to wail about how they can’t say a negative thing about Israel without being labeled bigots. Bullshit, yes, but now they have a shred of justification.

It’s happened quite frequently, even if they didn’t trot out the term “Anti-semitic” when doing so. Hell, december could write a textbook on how to imply that someone is anti-semitic without actually using the term. There are a few posters (to be honest, you seemed to be one of them at times in the past, but never to the extent of some others) who expect that every time someone criticizes some Israeli infraction that they need to also criticize the Palestinians at the same time. It’s quite clear that many of us do hold the Israeli government to a higher standard, and that should be considered a compliment, not an insult. I also hold the American government to a higher standard (and am equally disappointed in them for not meeting that standard in many cases).

It is wrong and self-defeating to infer bigotry in such a context, Mr. Moto, unless you have sufficient evidence to do so. Here you do not.

I agree completely with this, but would amend it to say that if you do have sufficient evidence, that you shout your discovery from the rooftops. Bigots do need to be called out. The lucidifier isn’t one of them.

There have been numerous other cases where virulently anti-Israel posters have betrayed their anti-Semitic feelings, so there’s been ample opportunity to demonstrate this linkage in the more extreme cases.

Sweet, will ya give us an example?

*I use the word “critique” loosely, as it reeks of conspiracy theorist blather.I would be pleased to hear an authoritative argument in the first place.

Now you lose me here. Are you saying that you have yet to see an valid criticism of Israel on this board?

[elucidator]

Oh, you poor, innocent naif. Its not the Ferrari that is sexy, its having enough money to buy a Ferrari that’s sexy!

[New_Iskander]

@elucidator

And if you don’t drag your sister into this, there’s no reason I should.

Sound like clear admission of guilt to me. String’im up boys (Lubbock style).

[elucidator]

Actually, DMC, that “authoritative argument” stuff does deserve a bit of explication, if only for the sake of clarity.

When I said I craved a strong counter-argument, I meant specificly that I would very much like to be relieved of these suspicions which I can neither verify nor silence. Its like we hunker around the campfire, and in the surrounding darkness, shadows lurk, and some are hungry.

Item: Israel has put an enormous amount of energy in lobbying and shaping US opinion. As well they should, from their vantage point, they would be fools not to.

Item: In my opinion, Israel has the very best intelligence/covert action agencies in the world, bar none, hands down. LeCarre’s Karla is Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm by comparison, they have no peer. (Or perhaps the Belgians are better, but we never hear, 'cause they’re so good at it…)

Item: For the life of me, I cannot see where our invasion of Iraq is of any benefit to us, or at least nowhere near the cost. I don’t buy the “oil!” argument, whoever sells the oil sells the oil. Clearly, we are not troubled by moral qualms about who sells the stuff.

I suspect that GeeDubya is a naif. He is fed ideas which he parrots back, and the men who fed him those ideas pretend to be stunned by his brilliance and leadership. But even such cynics who promote an agenda without a thought to the moral dimensions of thier jingoism/patriotism have some purpose in mind.

Israel benefits enormously from a permanent American base in the ME. But do we? How? Why? Saddam wasn’t going to stop selling his oil. He was no threat to his neighbors, who we don’t much like anyway! Would we be appalled and aghast to see Iraq and Syria in a fight? Iraq and Iran?

Let me re-emphasize: this is a conjecture. I do not have the facts, indeed, if these suspicions are well founded, I would never get those facts. The Israelis could sneak into Saudi Arabia and steal the crown jewels and never leave a fingerprint. They are that good!

And it scares the bejabbers out of me to think this way. So, yes, I very much would love to hear this conjecture pounded into goo and entirely, solidly rebutted. And I can’t offer an “authoritative argument” to rebut because…I ain’t got one. Doesn’t make me any happier.

Now, on the gripping hand…if the presence of America in Iraq gives Israel the assurance it needs to relent and use a lighter hand in dealing with Palestinian intransigence, and that leads to a resolution of that miserable situation (…from my lips to God’s ear…), it might even have been worth it! Strictly from a realpolitik point of view, of course.

PS: I like “the lucidifier”. Nobody ever asked me if I like being called “luci”. Don’t mind much, save that it brings to mind Ricky Retardo running around banging a bongo and yelling “Bobbaloo! Bobbaloo!”

[DMC]

@elucidator

Actually, DMC, that “authoritative argument” stuff does deserve a bit of explication, if only for the sake of clarity.

Ah, I had actually understood his use of the word “critique” to mean any critique of Israel, as the rest of his statement was in reference to the entire volume of posts on this board. Upon reading your response and then rereading his statement, I agree that he likely meant your particular critique, not critique in general.

Jackmannii, consider my last question completely retracted, thanks to elucidator living up to his name once again.

[Liberal]

@elucidator

(Beside, sooner or later I was gonna succumb to the nagging temptation to ask Lib what the hell a “Volvo fallacy” is…)

Too late! I already explained it in post #26.

[Liberal]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

[hijack]

May I posit that your sister’s conception of Israel’s central role would indeed be seen as a bit part to one who does not share her theology? To an Israeli like our friend Alessan, for example? It seems to me, as a lapsed Congregationalist, that her strong feelings about Israel are based not on the needs or hopes of that country or its inhabitants, but on how Israel fits within the context and concepts of her own salvation.

I trust you understand that I’m in no way denigrating her sincere beliefs, nor accusing her of harboring any illwill toward Israel. I do believe that there are some among the end-timers who wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about Israel’s existance if it didn’t support their version of salvation. I believe that there are sincere Christians, like your sister, who feel genuine good will toward that country. I also believe it’s legitimate for those who do not share her beliefs to regard the role in which her theology places Israel as a bit part.

Okay, having made a thoroughgoing hash of beating Adam’s obvious ox, I’ll wander off now.

Oh, sure, I agree. All perceptions are subjective. Speaking for myself, it’s hard to conceive of being chosen God’s Chosen People (per the Hebrew scriptures) as a bit part. Still, some Christians so trivialize God that being chosen by Him is no more significant than pre-game selection for a third grade kickball game.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Liberal

some Christians so trivialize God that being chosen by Him is no more significant than pre-game selection for a third grade kickball game.

Just as long as one isn’t chosen to be the ball. :eek:

[Jackmannii]

@DMC

It’s happened quite frequently, even if they didn’t trot out the term “Anti-semitic” when doing so. Hell, december could write a textbook on how to imply that someone is anti-semitic without actually using the term.

I did not appreciate much of his posting style, but I still have never seen an example of him equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. A number of posters have made the “happened quite frequently” claim, which I have never seen documented.

There are a few posters (to be honest, you seemed to be one of them at times in the past, but never to the extent of some others) who expect that every time someone criticizes some Israeli infraction that they need to also criticize the Palestinians at the same time.

I am generally dubious about any line of argument that finds one side in the Mideast conflict to be white as snow and the other starkly evil. I did not appreciate it when december did it, nor am I likely to respect it when coming from the other side. In fact, the more virulent and one-sided denunciations become in relation to this subject, the more likely it is that the denouncer is a bigot.

Sweet, will ya give us an example?

Yep, and I really need to update my collection. London_Calling deserves a glass case of his own.

@elucidator

Its like we hunker around the campfire, and in the surrounding darkness, shadows lurk, and some are hungry.

Uh-oh. Now I’m connecting the dots - and it’s…it’s…

The Masons!!

Run for your lives, boys! The dam has busted!!!