Lenin’s Tomb
you should be sueing him
I was thinking I might approach his internet service provider. Not to have him banned, obviously - Free Speech must be maintained at all costs - but just to see if they can't limit him to one defamatory post per month.
Dont associate me with HP, shut it down!
Who are these HP fuckers of which you speak anyway? I can't through one paragraph on it without switching off. Can anyone enlighten me?
"Can you enlighten me?" Snap here wedge. I have even hit my forehead on my my screen trying to read at close range where Richard is supposed to have said what Marko Whore says he said to no avail. I no len can stand up for himself. But one thing I cannot fail to say to this Whore is that as a member of the SWP, I cannot see how the Party can be put in any turmoill by comments from individuals. I don't represent the SWP and there is no where Richard ever claims to do the same.
We in the SWP are not a blog. We are revolutionary socialists from all backgrounds and from all walks of life whose International mission statement simply stands up against capitalism, wars and oppression the world over.
Richard, why not give this idiot a thrushing that will leave indelible marks? It is all down to jealousy and envy. If you run out of ideas my great friend, ask me and I will be happy to help you deal with these green eyed lying monsters! I have a life long track record and I always leave them with their guts stuck to the tarmac!That is why they are gutless. Opportunities don't knock twice.XXX
why not give this idiot a thrushing
I think Lenin would prefer to just stay friends.
jeezsh he's really a psycho. His parents must be so proud.
What I don't get is how he imagines this insistence that you admit either all muslims are "good guys" or all are "bad guys" is not insanely racist.
But his brain appears to be falling apart in his effort to appear an opponent of "jihadists" while a stanch supporter of the US and its clients.
The former head of the Sarajevo Jewish community, now living in Israel, made an allegation about the Izetbegovic government during the siege: that the government arrested seven Sarajevo Jews in order to steal their brand new Israeli passports - which they intended to use to flee (the seige, not persecution) - to give them to foreign fighters, jihadists serving the Izetbegovic regime to facilitate terrorist activities. This man is a Bosnian- born practising Jew from a family long settled in Bosnia, from the ancient Jewish community in Sarajevo, which had both sephardic and ashkenazi congregations and apart from the Nazi era, had prospered for centuries and never had any trouble with its Muslim neighbours, a community of Jews unusual in Europe for being always welcome in that community dominated by Muslims, and he has no ill will at all for Bosnian Muslims and no complaints whatsoever about antisemitism in Sarajevo. He is no apologist for the Bosnian Serb forces and described the horrors of the seige, during which he was among those running a very important Jewish humanitarian agency, with great poignancy. But he said that Izetbegovic tried to prevent Jews from leaving because it would look bad to the world, in the press if they fled, (excellent advice from Ruder Finn for Izetbegovic) and reported this arrest of seven out of several dozen Jews with Israeli passports intending to emigrate and he gave this reason - the theft of those passports to provision jihadists working as BH paramilitaries with false Israeli identities to facilitate terrorist activities. It is known that foreign CIA trained jihadists did fight in Bosnia for Izetbegovic. That the arrests happened is fact; the allegations about the reasons are credible although I am sure delouser can come up with something, bad typing perhaps, to discredit Ceresnjes (who is certainly biased, though this doesn't mean he's a liar; as both Hoare and deleuzer are biased and liars they seem to think the one requires the other). This kind of thing - arresting Jews during the Sarajevo seige to give al Qaeda jihadists their stolen Israeli passports - would normally be something Hoare would take seriously and demand everyone in the world denounce five times a day. But he is completely without principle or scruples; it's really very disturbing that so gross a propagandist as he, who very obviously does not himself believe a word he writes but simply works to create effects like a PR agent or ad copywriter, can be taken seriously by so many people.
Fuck it, free speech or no, I'd sue his arse for libel and do my utmost to have his pokey little site shut down. It's an unfortunate reality that we happen to live in a capitalist system, and that the only method by which one can maintain their academic reputation against slander is through such action - but hey, there's no use putting our heads in the sand. I wouldn't particularly trust Hoare to give you the same leniency you've extended to him.
I think it's obvious you're bothered because Hoare did such a good job pointing out that you're the IDIOTS WITHOUT ANY PRINCIPLES. But it's not because you are hypocritical - it's just because the world is just a little too complicated for you to understand.
Izetbegovic preventing Jews in Sarajevo from leaving?? Nobody could leave Sarajevo during the siege, except with UN or Press accreditation. That's what being under siege is about, you idiot. So what, now the Serbs aren't even responsible for that? Now all of a sudden Izetbegovic is the one who besieged Sarajevo? Wow. Get a brain.
'get a life' is now used in Britannia. It started out as rude people cussing out homeless for being drug addicts. This phrase should never be used, even under duress...there are too many people in the immediate vicinity to whom it applies...
What I mean is saying 'get a life' means that we have all become American, and this includes Limey parvenus too...
Sadly enough, the more well known and popular you get, the more you will be smeared, libelled etc. They will try to run you into the ground.
But I don't have to tell you that. And you're strong enough to rise about the fuckwits anyway.
Just found out your stalker is a lecturer - I always wonder what it must be like to have a Grade A arsehole responsible for teaching you, marking your work etc. How do the students cope in that situation?
This is the same Mark Hoare who doesn't think the UCU boycott is anti-semitic according to you? Deleuzer you need a big bite of a reality sandwhich!
"Nobody could leave Sarajevo during the siege, except with UN or Press accreditation."
Deleuzer, do stop shreiking. I am only referring to what is in the public record. I did not say the Bosnian Serb forces did not beseige Sarajevo any more than Lenin said that. Indeed, if you read the comment you will see that I mention Ceresnjes "is no apologist for the Bosnian Serb forces and described the horrors of the seige, during which he was among those running a very important Jewish humanitarian agency, with great poignancy."
Either what you say is not true, or the American Jewish Joint Distrbution Committee and La Benevolencija - you must have known some of these people in Sarajevo personally - are lying, because they claim to have evacuated thousands of people.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/
ful...752C1A964958260
http://www.jdc.org/p_ee_bos_history.html
"JDC helped over 2,000 evacuees, Jews and non-Jews, flee to a safe haven outside of Bosnia through airlifts and convoys, providing care and shelter in Croatia and Serbia."
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templat...&PID=0&
IID=1829
"I replied to Izetbegović that only the old, sick, and children were departing. In fact, we also evacuated non-Jewish and Jewish youngsters who did not want to be drafted. My own family stayed on for five more months so we could show him that the Jewish community's leaders were not running away...
...Since the airport was closed we had to take out people in buses. The first of eight such convoys was in August 1992; the last one in February 1994. The Bosnian government was often very unhappy with these. They said we were taking out draftees, people aged 17-55 and professionals needed for defense, and also were giving enemies the occasion to leave the city such as relatives of Bosnian Serbs."
Before you call Ceresnjes Jewish Serb- Loving Scum and Old College Friend of Milosevic' Wife, here is his account of the JNA behaviour:
"When the firing on Sarajevo started we organized the evacuation of those in the Jewish community who wanted to leave. We arranged to have a former Yugoslav-army plane come to the Sarajevo airport to pick up our members. The official Serb version is that it was made available free of charge. In reality we paid heavily for it-officially and unofficially.
"We decided that even though Serbia was considered an enemy state by Bosnia, its capital Belgrade was the better destination for the evacuees. The JNA-the Serb-controlled Yugoslav army, which was still in charge at the Sarajevo airport-might have reacted very negatively if we had chosen to send the plane to the Croatian capital Zagreb. The war between Croatian Serbs and the Serb-controlled rump Yugoslavia on one side and Croatian Roman Catholics on the other was then still going on.
"When our members arrived at the airport there was shooting by Bosnian Serb irregulars through the terminal hall, despite the JNA presence. Thousands of people had gathered at the airport because the air services to Montenegro, Kosovo, and Macedonia were still functioning. Our group came together on the first floor waiting to enter the arriving plane via the connecting bridge. Because of the shooting, however, the aircraft stopped in the middle of the runway.
"On the ground floor of the terminal suddenly doors opened and a flood of women, youngsters, and children ran out to the plane. The JNA had informed its officers in Sarajevo about the plane's expected arrival. They used the occasion to evacuate their families on our plane.
"The pilot together with the navigator came to tell us what had happened. The plane had space for 350 persons, as all seats had been removed. The pilot said that he still had a hundred places available. We threatened him and then he pulled out a pistol, saying he would kill us if we didn't let him do his job. So we sent only a hundred people with him."
"Thereafter I asked to see the JNA person in charge of the airport. From his office I called the general in Belgrade who was in charge of our operation and told him that if he did not call the plane back, I would give an interview to the international TV crews at the airport and tell what had happened including specifying those who had received bribes to allow the plane to come in.
"After an exchange of words the general promised that he would solve the problem within an hour. He soon called me and said he was flying in two planes from a military airport in western Bosnia. They had three hundred places available. On the seats we did not need, we took whoever else wanted to leave.
"At the time the Bosnian Jewish community numbered 2,000 of whom 1,300 were in Sarajevo. From Sarajevo three evacuations by air, using five planes, took place in the first weeks of the war, removing up to five hundred Jews as well as many others. Thereafter evacuations took place with great difficulty-by bus convoys-while the battle for Sarajevo raged. By its end the Jewish community had organized eleven evacuations that took three thousand people from the embattled city including one thousand Jews.
I know no one is seriously considering taking legal action against this racist non-entity. But it would be enjoyable watching Hoare squirm as he tries to justify his lies.
MC said - “Sadly enough, the more well known and popular you get, the more you will be smeared, libelled etc. They will try to run you into the ground.”
Second that - you are a world treasure Lenin!
MC also said - “But I don't have to tell you that. And you're strong enough to rise about the fuckwits anyway.”
Second that also. Yes, consider the source -- a section director of the propaganda tank; The Henry Jackson Society;
“The Henry Jackson Society: Project for Democratic Geopolitics is a cross-partisan, British-based think-tank. Our founders and supporters are united by a common interest in fostering a strong British and European commitment towards freedom, liberty, constitutional democracy, human rights, governmental and institutional reform and a robust foreign, security and defence policy and transatlantic alliance.”
http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/
Gag me with a fucking spoon! He must get some nice crumbs from that gig. That’s the real deflection of this Suburbiton resident. Forget the ass wipe and his transparent energy dissipating bait, take on the Henry Jackson Society - follow the money ...
Excerpt;
“I've been aware of this crowd for a while, but yet again a fusion of disparate messages from the political spin machine*, plus a few forward-thinking bloggers have brought the strands together with a jerk. Actually, quite a few jerks, as we'll see.
Late last month the Henry Jackson Society, a Cambridge University-based talking shop produced something called the 'British Moment', although even a superficial examination suggests 'Blonde Moment' would be more appropriate. This is an effusion of true ghastliness that should only be read with the images of death and destruction in Iraq and Lebanon close at hand, in order to strip off the comforting verbiage of the college Common Rooms and reveal the nihilistic horror underneath. It could, however, by safely ignored if it wasn't for the startling number of really quite powerful figures who enthusiastically reject reality for this tripe. What, for instance, are we to make of this from Alan Mendoza, a leading HJS light, academic and Conservative councillor (and doubtless future MP, if he carries on moving in the circles he's in), but evidently a man at right angles to reality:”
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/1290
Yes there were convoys, early on, and later in 1994 during the ceasefire, and not just those organized by La Benevolencia. I left on one of them. As for the rest, having read the article you linked to, your own description conflates several different incidents and mixes up the facts (not surprisingly). Notably, some jihadi thugs stopping people at a checkpoint and stealing passports does not mean "the government" arresting people.
In a separate incident, there is no suggestion that Izetbegovic 'prevented' or tried to prevent anyone from leaving:
"Bosnian president Alija Izetbegović requested that Jews should not depart, saying it was a bad omen for the country if they did. Indeed, foreign journalists routinely asked whether the Jews were leaving the city..."
That's what the article you linked to says. Now I don't know if English is your first language or not; it isn't mine, yet I can certainly appreciate the difference between 'trying to prevent someone from leaving' and 'REQUESTING that someone doesn't leave' - especially in the context as described above, which contrasts sorely with your own description. It's the difference between, say, I lock you in a room and throw away the key; and I say 'please don't leave'.
Tsk, tsk.
Notably, at the time when all this happened we were still in limbo; as I recall, it was only sometime in October 1992 that commentators on radio officially began declaring that the country was at war. And Izetbegovic's REQUEST was certainly aimed at preventing that catastrophe.
On a related note, how does the fact that Izetbegovic didn't wish Jews to leave Sarajevo vie with your (or was it Lenin's?) contention that he wanted to create an Islamic state? I suppose that for a state you need people, the more the better, so he must have had some scheme of forced mass conversion to Islam, no?
...you're the IDIOTS WITHOUT ANY PRINCIPLES.
Capitals MAKE THINGS BECOME TRUE obviously.
No, capitals are for emphasis. I guess you probably don't talk to other people in real life much, Juvenile Dwarf, or at least don't have much experience in oratory, but when people talk, especially in an argument, they tend to raise or lower their voice, draw emphasis to a particular word or sentence, etc; and in writing, things like capitals and italics serve that purpose.
"...it's just because the world is just a little too complicated for you to understand."
That's rich coming from a Nazi apologist who can't tell the difference between Croatian Nazi's murdering Jews and Palestinians who are being murdered by Zionists. Is the world too complicated for you to work out that neither anti-semitism nor islamophobia is acceptable? Consistency is not one of your strong points is it?
Perhaps the label, racist "left", could be added to this thread?
what?? What makes me a Nazi apologist? Where did I say anything about Islamophobia or antisemitism being acceptable? Lenin is the one using the Zionist logic of 'we were only targeting militants' to justify the Serb bombardment of Sarajevo, and accusing the Bosnian army of using civilian infrastructure as bait.
I guess you probably don't talk to other people in real life much...
I've had the occasional conversation, thanks, and do you know what, the ones I always try and avoid are the ones where someone has their own - absurd, fantastical - view of the world AND STARTS SHOUTING AT YOU in the middle of sentences. Often with flecks of spit, jabbing fingers, etc etc.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with internet convention, such as it is. Word to the wise: LOTS OF CAPITALS MARK YOU OUT AS A LOON. You can see the effect it has?
I don't even follow your logic, Ray - what IS the difference between Nazis killing Jews and Zionists killing Palestinians? (you seem to be suggesting there is some)
Lenin is the one using the Zionist logic of 'we were only targeting militants' to justify the Serb bombardment of Sarajevo...
That's a simple lie. (You could try putting it capitals, though I doubt it would help much.)
"Tsk, tsk."
Anyone who types this on a forum is asking for it. Are you a living person or a caricature? Captain Mainwaring without the troops to boss about.
Deleuzer, is says: "Once we obtained fifty-five Israeli passports, a great service that the Israeli government provided. By using them forty-eight people were able to leave Sarajevo, but the other seven were arrested. This was not because they were Jews but because Muslims needed these passports, probably for terrorist activities....Only after two months did we get the last passport back. It had been opened and cut into pieces. We destroyed the returned passports and informed the Israeli authorities of their numbers."
English is not your first language so you may want to look up the word "arrested". (Not that I think you don't know what it means, clearly you do.)
Lenin is the one using the Zionist logic of 'we were only targeting militants' to justify the Serb bombardment of Sarajevo
Where do I do this?
and accusing the Bosnian army of using civilian infrastructure as bait
No, that was UNPROFOR (block capitals not for emphasis).
No, it's not a lie. Lenin repeatedly made that very point in an earlier discussion, saying the Bosnian army were provoking Serb shelling, and I tried to make it clear that just as in Gaza, just as in Beirut, when you attack a city, practically everything is civilian infrastructure.
Lenin repeatedly made that very point in an earlier discussion...
No, he didn't make "that very point" of "justifying" the Serb bombardment of Sarajevo. It's a lie. You're lying.
"I don't even follow your logic, Ray - what IS the difference between Nazis killing Jews and Zionists killing Palestinians? (you seem to be suggesting there is some)"
Jesus H. Christ! Have the nuances escaped you?
here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=50175#426812
"...Bosnian army atrocities, including the deliberate attempts to provoke attacks on civilian infrastructure and buildings..."
Sounds just like some Israeli apparatchik in the Lebanon war to me.
Lenin repeatedly made that very point in an earlier discussion, saying the Bosnian army were provoking Serb shelling
a) that was the accusation of UNPROFOR eyewitnesses; b) it doesn't imply or state that the SRK were "only targeting militants"; c) it certainly doesn't justify the Bosnian Serb attacks.
You are the only one claiming that BiH provocations justified Bosnian Serb attacks. I have certainly never argued this.
Read my comment above, your own words. Doesn't sound like you're quoting UN experts.
Ray, I don't even know what the point you were trying to make is, so I will just ignore it. Try using some logic in constructing a sentence.
Read my comment above, your own words. Doesn't sound like you're quoting UN experts.
a) in fact, it does, because I specifically stated that I was, repeatedly. It was how I introduced the topic;
b) where do I state that this means only "militants" were targeted by the SRK?;
c) where do I state that the BiH provocations reported by UNPROFOR justified the attacks by the SRK?
tumbleweed rolls... wind blows...
Oh so you were just quoting, Lenin. Man, you sound like the fucking pope - 'I was just quoting a 13th century historian who said that Islam was a fanatical religion...'
Let's say some UN expert claimed that the Israeli bombardment of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon was deliberately provoked by Hezbollah. Would I take that seriously? No, because I know that it doesn't matter what Hezbollah does, because when you attack a city, practically everything is civilian infrastructure.
"Try using some logic in constructing a sentence."
I think you're confusing your lying with logic. I suggest you give up if you have any reputation left to preserve.
"That's rich coming from a Nazi apologist who can't tell the difference between Croatian Nazi's murdering Jews and Palestinians who are being murdered by Zionists."
If you can explain to me what that sentence is supposed to mean, Ray, I'm with you. I mean it sounds like you're saying that there is some crucial difference (apart from historical distance, circumstances, etc) between these two things that I am missing.
In other words, I agree: Nazis murdering Jews - BAD. Zionists killing Palestinians - bad. WHat's your point? And what statement that I've made are you referring to?
deleuzer - one last time:
b) where do I state that this means only "militants" were targeted by the SRK?;
c) where do I state that the BiH provocations reported by UNPROFOR justified the attacks by the SRK?
"how does the fact that Izetbegovic didn't wish Jews to leave Sarajevo vie with your (or was it Lenin's?) contention that he wanted to create an Islamic state? "
Oh I suppose I must have advanced that notion last time I had lunch with my very good friends Mrs. Milosevic and Abdic the Notorious Butcher of Chickenlandia. But we were tipsy you know.
Delouser, tell me something. How did you avoid military service? Something psychiatric?
OK, I'll just copy and paste it again:
"...Bosnian army atrocities, including the deliberate attempts to provoke attacks on civilian infrastructure and buildings..."
The basic suggestion is that the Bosnian army committed atrocities, "deliberately" drawing fire onto civilian buildings. Now, you could say 'alleged', or refer again to UN experts or something such, but that doesn't really make it much better, does it? The simple point is that you are giving credibility to the broader notion of 'collateral damage'; the logic of the 'war on terror'; the logic that holds that 'when the terrorists blow shit up, it's an atrocity; when big militaries blow shit up, it's either collateral damage, or the 'insurgents' were intentionally using civilian buildings...the logic that ignores that practically everything is civilian infrastructure in a city.
In other words, I am not arguing about facts here, but about the logic of war. 'Collateral damage' is bullshit - not because the US intentionally bombed civilians in Iraq, but because they KNEW that civilians would inevitably die, which is another way of 'intending' something to happen. That is why wars are bad, and why the only war that can ever in any sense at all hope to be just is a defensive war, and only to that extent to which it is defensive; and a pre-emptive war is clearly not a defensive war, but only another sneaky way of justifying an aggressive war.
"'Collateral damage' is bullshit - not because the US intentionally bombed civilians in Iraq, but because they KNEW that civilians would inevitably die"
A point which should clear up your question about why Izetbegovic did not want Jews or nonJews to escape beseiged Sarajevo.
Qlipoth, I was 15 when I left Sarajevo, you dope. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to leave. Well I'm also delusional schizophrenic paranoid psychotic, with a severe post-traumatic stress disorder, have a partial paralysis in my foot, a lazy eye, a fractured disk in my spine and a heart condition, but that's another matter.
deleuzer, you said that I had used "the Zionist logic of 'we were only targeting militants' to justify the Serb bombardment of Sarajevo". So far you haven't cited a single statement of mine to that effect. I have not said that the BiH were 'only targeting militants', nor have I said it was justified. How long am I supposed to put up with you defaming me in my own comments box? How can I or anyone else have a serious discussion with you when you don't listen, and are so dishonest?
I see - so Izetbegovic asked the Jews to stay and then housed them all in a hospital building, and ordered the Bosnian army to draw fire to it so they would all get killed by the Serbs. Brilliant, Qlipoth. But by your logic of transferring guilt to the victims, one could do the same to the Palestinians and Lebanese - so we're back to square one, because we've forgotten again who is doing the shelling.
I know you can't easily grasp just how ludicrous the idea of an all-out war was at the time, but just imagine you're living wherever you're living, in London, Glasgow, whatever, and this shit starts happening, and some loonies on TV start saying 'we will destroy you'. That's how it was.
yikes, there's a Henry Jackson Society at Cambridge?
let me guess, the first thing they emphasize is how that scumbag never apologized for pushing for the internment of Japanese Americans and publicly opposed their return to the Puget Sound area?
that's really why he was so supportive of the Vietnam War, you know, he was just a garden variety racist when it came to Asians
deleuzer - I've tried to be constructive, to treat you with kid gloves despite your frankly infantile and utterly irrational approach to these discussions. I have tried to get you to part with your religious attitude toward Izetbegovic and the SDA. My patience is at an end. You have the opportunity to withdraw your calumnious claims, upon which we can then talk seriously, or you can consider yourself banned.
"I am not arguing about facts here"
ummm... how many times has Deleuzer berated everyone for not knowing said 'facts'?
Here's just a few:
"And you seem to be very determined not to have a point at all, and to ignore the most basic and easily verifiable facts."
"How about the fact that you're all a bunch of proto-fascist idiots who can't fathom the reality of the events you talk about, because to you they exist only as TV screen images or bits of text on the internet or in some book you read in college in some Baudrillardian dystopian nightmare?"
"So you still can't get the facts straight and you're full of SHIT."
"I understand if you feel the need to invent facts in your situation, though."
"Some more facts:"
"Right, well, thanks for just ignoring my sincere and heartfelt efforts so far at bringing to your attention some FACTS"
"Like I said, Lenin is dead; you have buried him with your own stupidity, ignorance of facts"
"This is a simple mistake - it's like if you were arguing about the Vietnam war and listed the massacre at Mai Lai as a VietCong atrocity. Facts, facts."
"a Serbian-American lobby group, which itself admitted this fact."
"And your efforts at logic and factual accuracy - and even wit - Lenin and Qlipoth, are becoming increasingly pathetic."
"You wouldn't be able to distinguish an argument or a fact from a piece of cow dung, Lenin,"
"you should be able to figure it out. Fact and logic."
"Another fact:"
"But if you like, Lenin, you can just ignore all these easily verifiable facts, since they don't fit into your nice construction."
My god, Lenin, how clearly do you need it spelled out? If you say that the Bosnian army committed "atrocities, including the deliberate attempts to provoke attacks on civilian infrastructure and buildings" - you are saying that a Serb shell in response to such "provocation" is justified, since the "atrocity" is that of the Bosnian army, not the Serbs who fired the actual shell. I am saying that in an urban environment, you cannot speak about 'civilian architecture' as opposed to 'legitimate' targets in any precise sense.
" I was 15 when I left Sarajevo, you dope. "
Thank you, deleuzer. I suspected you were advancing childhood memories and what mommy and daddy said as something else, the experience and memory of an adult. I'm sure it was deeply traumatic, and this no doubt explains your irrationality on the subject. You must have been pretty scared - you nearly missed getting drafted. There were combattants on the Bosnian side as young as 12.
When I said I am not arguing about facts, entschwindet, I meant in THIS discussion - about shells fired on urban centres and the military logic of collateral damage. But you'd have to actually follow the discussion to get that.
"so Izetbegovic asked the Jews to stay and then housed them all in a hospital building, and ordered the Bosnian army to draw fire to it so they would all get killed by the Serbs. Brilliant, Qlipoth"
Oh enough already. This is no substitute for therapy deleuzer, as you must know deep down.
If you say that the Bosnian army committed "atrocities, including the deliberate attempts to provoke attacks on civilian infrastructure and buildings" - you are saying that a Serb shell in response to such "provocation" is justified
No, I am not. You are saying that. I didn't say that it justified the SRK's bombing. Nor did I say that the SRK bombing only targeted "militants". I have now pointed this out to you several times. I realise you think that by placing a particular construction on my words, you can extrapolate what you want to hear, and then engage with that. But that isn't the basis for a serious discussion.
I think the construction "was all" is a pretty clear indication that you were dealing with a mindless dick.
There may have been prior indications.
.
My god, Lenin, how clearly do you need it spelled out?
Hey, look! It's a very clearly-spelled straw man.
Now who do you think would have left such a thing lying around?
.
From
http://normblog.typepad.com/norm...tila-
hoare.html
Former WRP fellow-traveller Marko Attila Hoare syays he is, 'in favour of a universal system of state education in which all children would receive the best – wholly secular - education possible and be taught the values of free thinking, hard work, achievement, citizenship and patriotism,and in which there'd be absolutely zero tolerance of anti-social behaviour.'
Yes, patriotism and zero-tolerance. Rather like this party's education policy which says that, 'we will restore discipline in the classroom, give authority back to teachers and put far greater emphasis on training young people in the industrial and technological skills necessary in the modern world. We will also seek to instill in our young people knowledge of and pride in the history, cultures and heritage of the native peoples of Britain.'
Which party? I hear you ask, the BNP.
"Very nice, Qlipoth. You know, typically people resort to character assassination when they run out of arguments"
then there are those who start off with it, Boris.
"anti-war activists were people who experienced war first hand - precisely because they knew what they were talking about. You obviously don't, and can't even read your own sources properly"
Boris my dear, to describe Izetbegovic - who drafted unwilling teenagers to fight a war against what he termed genocidal forces and who obstructed (indeed) the escape of Sarajevans from the beseiged city while comparing the city's plight to that of Jews during WWII - as 'an antiwar activist' is more than a stretch. As for misreading my sources, there is actually more than one sentence in that interview with Ceresnjes (and he has written and spoken rather more about his wartime work than that interview covers, as have some refugees assisted by his organisation).
Deleuzer: Well I'm also delusional schizophrenic paranoid psychotic, with a severe post-traumatic stress disorder, have a partial paralysis in my foot, a lazy eye, a fractured disk in my spine and a heart condition, but that's another matter.
---
The influence of a surfeit of Lacan, to be sure.
"Like I said, Lenin is dead; you have buried him with your own stupidity, ignorance of facts"
If true, very sad indeed.
Len, when you say this:
"No, I am not. You are saying that. I didn't say that it justified the SRK's bombing. Nor did I say that the SRK bombing only targeted "militants". I have now pointed this out to you several times. I realise you think that by placing a particular construction on my words, you can extrapolate what you want to hear, and then engage with that. But that isn't the basis for a serious discussion"
you are plainly asking for it to be contradicted.
Don't you see, *you* are to blame for all the nasty, ill-informed, small-minded attacks on you.
In fact, if you continue in this vein, they will be able to pin the Big Bang on you...
Qlipoth, insult, or invective, is one thing; character assassination is another. I do not patronisingly dispute your ABILITY to get to the truth by saying that, oh, you were just a kid, you don't remember well, you're poorly educated; that is character assasination. (Especially since my position hardly relies on the validity of my personal experiences, and to the extent that it does, my personal experience of the siege can only be an advantage in grasping the events in question, at any age.)
By using invective, in other words, I do not dispute your background, so if I say that you are an idiot without principles, this is purely based on your position within the discussion; you contradict yourself. It is not character assassination - I am not precluding you from having a valid point in the debate by saying 'well you may sound convincing, and may have a good point, but since this paper says you're paranoid schizophrenic, or since you are too young, we can't trust you.' I am engaging with your flawed rhetoric, even if I do so in an insulting manner.
See the difference?
And I wasn't referring to Izetbegovic as an anti-war activist, but to myself, given the personal attack.
I won't even get into your conjectural bull about Izetbegovic, and the simple point about the article is that you misrepresented its contents, willfully or not. That is a simple indication of your intellectual tendencies.
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
