Don’t think you need to be a post-colonial communist demagogue hypocrite (did I remember everything) to twig de facto imperialist action. But I’ll know more when the Venn diagram is finished.
Very coherent what the writings of a Palestinian christian academic of the last century has in relevance to the dialogue in this thread … racial and religious animus and hatreds are strange things.
because the train of thought Edward Said peddled is why so many “progressives” somehow manage to hate Israel, and sympathize with Islam terrorists, hence what goes on in the British Labour Party among even non-Muslim MPs.
I’ve never heard of Edward Said. Please explain to me the train of thought he peddled, in your own words.
After that, please explain to me why I, as a progressive who has been peddled that train of thought, do not hate Israel and do not sympathize with Islam terrorists. (Please note, as has been told many, many, many times to you, that disagreeing with Netanyahu is not either of the above.)
I’m getting more than a little sick and tired of you simply making these baseless assertions. Either start backing them up with evidence or stop making them.
I think this article says it best.
Is that article your own words?
Would you like to explain just who here is ok with an islamic empire, but down on oher forms of imperialism? There’s a good chap.
So because of a straw man not mentioned at all and views not referenced, but you imagine them as part of your straw man narrative
Interesting prejudices.
But Churchill is a fine hero for you, as the example of the narrow views, hating the muslims, the catholics, the indians generally, calling for Ghandi to be trampled by an elephant… all that counts to you is he supported the Israel for his cynical imperial reasons, and said things that fit with the deeply held racial and religious animuses.
Interesting website. “Middle East Forum: Promoting American Interests”. That’s sure to have some objective analysis on it.
And some great links too:
You really have to keep an eye on those sneaky radical non-violent Muslims.
But snark aside, I did read the article, and it reads like a freshman essay. The author takes a lot of tiny quote fragments and uses them to spin a skewed narrative, complete with lots of headline “questions” (including the title “Did Edward Said Speak Truth to Power?” as well as subheadings “Truth to Power?”, “Plagiarist?” and “Intolerance to Dissent?”). As an actual freshman essay I’d probably grade it pretty well since it at least flows and everything is spelled correctly; as an academic article it’s weak sauce.
But even that’s a moot point. Let’s say the author is 100% correct and Edward Said is a fraud, charlatan, mountebank, con artist and fan of Kenny G. That still wouldn’t change the fact that most of us had never heard of this man before you mentioned him, have no idea what his views on any subject are, and certainly haven’t been “peddled” anything by him. If somebody here has even alluded to Said before you did, please point it out to me.
You’ve responded to accusations of strawmanning by wheeling out an even bigger one. It’s all just a distraction from the fact that your own position isn’t particularly grounded in reality. Try harder.
In case you’ve not encountered that particularly fascinating resource before, it’s worth noting that the man behind it is Daniel Pipes:
“Pipes gained some public infamy in May 1995, when he told USA Today that the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was “just the beginning” of an offensive by Islamic fundamentalists.”