Kibbutz Criminals

Re: #431 by Zeena on March 26, 2006 8:54pm PT

Most effective anger-management/language-solving solution; which i already have recommended to sumbudy else, would work on these 2 too.

Interesting threads

Re: # 453

Sorry to see the crap here Zeena. I do see tons of personal attackers but chows admin seems to be enjoyin them too.

However, many of these indivs are known for their personal attacks and creative use of language which for them creates a new culture --and guess what? They expect all to enjoy such civil conversations.


I guess poor felas feel that ``either this way or the highway`` [ Ps. that`s the either/or fallacy, no mediation exists]

It is simply impossible to believe that any one who has seen evidence of the outrageous acts conducted as part of the holocaust can remain an unaffected outsider. It is simply impossible.

I do not believe the author holds anti-Semitic views. The article ``Chasing Bloodhounds`` validates that observation, too (I admit that it was written a while ago - but I don’t believe the original well has gone absolutely dry).

As articles go - the current one is not that bad. The author quotes the two professors but their thesis is not her thesis. What the professors have done is much worse - they have tried to pin blame on a whole community and tried to make that community a villain - a bit like blaming the victims for getting raped. This author can at worst be accused of using terms like the holocaust in a rather flippant way - for which she was taken to task by at least by this interactor (and perhaps by others).

The way I read it, in this article, there is an indirect attempt to convince the ``wayward`` Muslims worldwide - whoever they are - assuming such a distinct entity actually exists - to learn from the ``success`` of the Jewish people and perhaps emulate some of their ``techniques`` and positive virtues. The ``rising above it`` aspect has been emphasized, too.

However, it comes across a bit like a car salesman trying to convince you that the Joneses next door - who are supposedly your eternal competitors - have already bought the car - and you look foolish by comparison, so better do something about it - i.e., buy my car! Now THAT ought to make the maulanas of this world really turn around and suddenly see her ``wisdom`` - one can see them slap themselves and go - ``Darn, a PR firm was all that I needed!``

Yet, whatever the eventual chances of such a ``sneaky`` approach actually being successful - in a circuitous way - the intentions of the author can not be considered anything but benign.

The tragedy of the holocaust was not a Jewish tragedy - it was a human tragedy. Every one of us who considers oneself human must never belittle it - for belittling is the first step toward marginalization of the tragedy and a potential paving of ways for its return at a later time. This author - if she had actually bothered to go through the detailed chronology that I put up earlier - should have been able to see the analogy with several contemporary events in her own country. Her decision to instead filter that particular interact was mind-bogglingly naïve - and probably made under the exhortation of the hate pots of this world!

Re: # 481

``1. The only facts, Farzana has used are that a paper by two clowns and some book by a jew Cohen was published. Can anyone deny these two simple facts? Everything else is her opinion.``

Read my previous post, go read Cohen`s book, and then come back. I DO deny these facts the credibility you shower them with.

``2. Throwing out some Jewish names, I guess is what she calls lending intellectual validity to her unabashed anger at the jews. It is done in the hope that maybe somone out there does not like what one of these Jew boys did. I for one like them all.``

Once again, read my previous post. If ``intellectual validity`` is unleashed via personal attacks and severly broad generlizations then there isn`t a finer example of ``intelectual validity.`` While we are at the subject this ``intellectual validity`` can further serve as the foundation for the Western worlds hatred against Islam, can it not? Surely there is no difference if all the ``Westerners`` come together and use Islamic personalities to paint their own picture and version of Islam - one full of negative generalization. Would they be correct to do so? They would, if you claim it is ``intelectual validity.``

``3. She is too good to pass off her opinions as `facts`. Show me where she did that and I`ll show you a way to nail jellow to a tree. ``

What is this kindergarden: ``I am rubber you are glue, everything I say bounces of me and sticks to you.`` Nail jellow to a tree? Go read Cohen`s book and you`ll see facts.

Good post bjkumar.

I have a clue. She is one step removed from nihilism as me :-)

#480 by mannyd

Yes Farzana is extremely difficult to decipher.

#480 by mannyd

[.... a paper by two clowns and some book by a jew Cohen was published. Can anyone deny these two simple facts? Everything else is her opinion. ]

I must disagree that those two individuals are clowns - they are well-reputed academics. The anti-defamation league web-site which provided its comments on the article has noted that. That is why it did not dismiss the commentary in an off-hand manner. (By the way, anti-semitism is not a new phenomenon in the USA! They have seen stuff like this countless times before.) When such attacks come from the mainstream - they are more cause for concern.

However, being a well-respected academic (or a lawyer, or a writer, for that matter) does not free one from the clutches of prejudice of one kind or another. But those who are professionals - be they scientists or writers - try to make a clear separation of their personal bias and the lack of objectivity we all have as human beings, from facts - and do not deliberately pick and choose facts which only bolster their ``case`` while disregarding other facts that point differently - and certainly they do not make a virtue of such lack of objectivity. Lawyers, who must do it as a professional requirement and face the compulsion of winning a ``case``, have been often compared to weasels and other lowly creatures. For writers, there is no such compulsion - and perhaps professional integrity and ethics demand the exact opposite.

This writer and this site has been egregiously indulging in the worst possible abominable behavior of this nature while the pack of clowns that frequents this site and the pack of fat-cats which pays for this site (but is too weasel to stick its own neck out and dumps the onus on a relatively less ``smart`` but higher-profile editor) sits mute like - I must hold back the very strong metaphors which are coming to my mind - suffice it to say that in my view, they sell their souls cheap and that too for a doomed cause - both in the writing itself, as well as in the response to the interacts - by selectively suppressing the Jewish point of view (using the ultimate dictatorial powers of chowk brahmins). It was a particularly low-class act to let the Hate Pot garbage sit there and accumulate while filtering out the eye-opening tabulation of facts related to the holocaust!

A particularly low-class act!

#479 Viskash Bhai: Yes, you can call me a fan of Bibi Farzana. She is a true P/R artist and very good to use innuendos, imaginary slights and persecution to cause a stampede of well wishers to kiss her ouchie and make the pain go away.

My problem with Farzana`s articles most of the time has been just understanding what she is saying. Please see her last article and my comments here.
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00006398&channel=gulberg&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1

Compared to the last article, there is a fairly clear scope of work here.

1. The only facts, Farzana has used are that a paper by two clowns and some book by a jew Cohen was published. Can anyone deny these two simple facts? Everything else is her opinion.

2. Throwing out some Jewish names, I guess is what she calls lending intellectual validity to her unabashed anger at the jews. It is done in the hope that maybe somone out there does not like what one of these Jew boys did. I for one like them all.

3. She is too good to pass off her opinions as `facts`. Show me where she did that and I`ll show you a way to nail jellow to a tree.

I once considered Farzana Bibi as a latter day Madre-Millat. It was an understatement. The lady is reaching for the stars and the brass ring. Islam is in danger like never before and she has honed her P/R technique to a nice Goebbles sheen in India.

2.

Re: # 478

You and everyone else, Mannyd, is a victim of take all facts without questions.
I repeat my problems with Farzana`s arguments:

1. She forgot to mention Lucky Lucianao - ITALIAN NON-JEW! ...Lansky(the Jew Farzana points her finger at) WAS NOT THE ONLY MAN behind ``murder inc.`` Rich Cohen is NOT the ``be all end all`` of organized crime expertise in America.

2. What does the mentioning of Jewish individuals have anything to do with your argument? Steven Spielberg? Kissinger? Allen? Miller?

3. She shouldn`t state such non-supported opinions as ``matter of fact`` statements.

Maybe, I shouldn`t demand a response but Farzana craddles herself with readers who take her opinon as matter-of-fact. Which essentially defeats the purpose of Chowk.com.

Think about my critique of Farzana`s argument, Mannyd. Farzana in evey post at Chowk and eslewhere has looked down upon Communalism and other monolith type labels in an effort to propogate a more individualist & independent thinking. Her advocation of an Islamic monolith DOES the exact opposite, my friend. I hope you see that.

Where would Jinnah be if he did what I am asking him? I don`t know Mannyd, maybe - for the sake of your suggested argument - millions of life would have been spared if there were compromises and concessions. That is how I would see it. You might see it as Muslims would be slaves to the majority Hindus, or that Pakistan the Islamic Qom might never have been born, and.... These are all matters of opinion which boils down to what you advocate: communalism(Islam, Hinduism, or whatever) vs humanism(individualism).

Everytime a community, be it Jews, Muslims, Christians, or whatever, turn inwards in so-called ``unity`` they in-turn refuse to see and respect everyone outside that circle. It is not a matter of what groups of people do, rather the end result of communalist thought - superiority is asserted to maintain uniquness. THIS IS THE ROOT OF ALL COMMUNAL VIOLENCE.

I`m sure, farzana, and all her fans are offended that I questioned her opinion being passed off as facts. Sorry, but deal with it, Farzana`s opinions are not supported by facts. Her hook of anti-Jewish personalities does not hardly qualify as a credible piece of evidence.

Viskash # 472, 473, 475:

I agree with Farzana ``....it is not to demand a response. The writer may further the dialogue if s/he wishes to at solely their discretion.``

You not only demand a reponse, but have the audacity to ask for `voice your opinion, make concessions, and TRULY BRING change by showing two points of view, yet you only serve yourself rather than an intellectual debate.` She is here to serve her greater community, the Ummah with P/R. It is crystal clear from her closing statement:

``........you need to have a cohesive and committed community to create such an indelible image.
There is a lesson in this for the Muslims to acquire the two ‘P’s: public relations and a good dose of persecution. ``

Close all ranks, Oh Muslims. Circle the wagons. Become a cohesive and committed community like the jews.
Farzana can provide the Public relations and can lead Ummah to the promised land but the Ummah must first provide a good dose of persecution like losing approximately 50% of their population, give or take a few millions.

Please be thankful that you are allowed to roam on Chowk freely. Do not question or interrupt Farzana`s real work. She is not here to talk to Hoi Polloi or explain her reasons for her views.

Where would Jinnah be, if he did what you demand of Farzana Bibi?

Laurel and Hardy thought that Saddam even with nuclear weapons was basically a nice guy and could be deterred like the Soviets.

``John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, ``An unnecessary war,`` Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2003

---

In the full-court press for war with Iraq, the Bush administration deems Saddam Hussein reckless, ruthless, and not fully rational. Such a man, when mixed with nuclear weapons, is too unpredictable to be prevented from threatening the United States, the hawks say. But scrutiny of his past dealings with the world shows that Saddam, though cruel and calculating, is eminenty deterrable. .......``

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/walt.htm

And now the heavy guns of peace would rather turn on the Jews than risk the wrath of Arab anger as quoted by Farzana in her attempt of intellectual validity of anti-semitism. Israel is the only country in the area, where Arabs can vote freely.

``The combination of unwavering US support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized US security..``

Looks like the dynamic duo has been consistent at least so far. Gandhi could have taken lessons from these two.

Professor Mearshmear has been right in the past. In an interview even in 2002, he had the foresight to say this about Laden Sahib:

``There`s no doubt that there are huge numbers of people in that world who hate the United States, and a significant percentage of those people are willing to either sacrifice themselves as suicide bombers or support suicide bombing attacks against the United States. What we have to do is we have to ameliorate that hatred, and we have to go to great lengths to win hearts and minds. I don`t believe that you can do that with military force. I think some military force is justified. If you could convince me that Osama bin Laden and his fellow leaders are located in a particular set of caves in Afghanistan at this point in time, I would be perfectly willing to use massive military force to get at those targets and to kill all of the al Qaeda leadership. But I think, in general, what the United States wants to do is not rely too heavily on military force -- in part, because the target doesn`t lend itself to military attack, but more importantly, because using military force in the Arab and Islamic world is just going to generate more resentment against us and cause the rise of more terrorists and give people cause to support these terrorists.``

USA should have talked to Laden Sahib or true Ummah representatives like Farzana Versey.

``Haji Mastan, Yusuf Patel, Dawood Ibrahim, Abu Salem, Iqbal Mirchi, Chhota Shakeel`` are her nemeses but they know precious little about Tehran or the Jews` persecution complex and have no capability to intellectualize destruction of Israel. Why are people asking Farzana often about these Muslim gangsters? Does it make any sense to have Farzana wear the millstone of her nemeses around her neck, while the world now knows that a jew ran Murder inc and Siclian Mafiosi were mere patsies, wrongfully framed?

Whatever Farzana, stop hiding behind your cop-out. Let`s face it you ARE MAKING PERSONAL ATTACKS ON JEWISH CELEBRITIES WITHOUT ANY BASIS and as a result the only assumption left is a personal vendetta against Jews.

For claiming you are a non-practicing Muslim you solely swing to the opposite end. (well, i guess it is true that regardless of what you put in front of it, the noun stays the same: bad car, good car, non-working car - they are all still cars). You are a Muslim even if you claim to be a non-practicing one. And you should face the fact that it irks you that a Muslim is being disenfranchised and NOT a human being. However, progressive you claim to be or are, you prioritize your religion over humanity.

You are quick to make groups of people into monoliths. Sure you point out some great problems but you continue on ALL of your rants without offering any clear solution. Not once did you criticize the role of Jordan(60% Palestinian population) for not having an active role in ANY peace process, surely they play a role in Islam monolith you wish to create? You take your facts and paint a picture which is false and one-sided. The sad thing about such an argument is YOU LOOSE CREDIBILITY entirely. You never make any concessions.

You, it seems, like the majority of Muslim population, complain about situtaions to which you have offered no solution to. You only play a one-sided game. For the sake of intellectual discussion and the premise behind Chowk.com - you present an opinionated harangue. Your purgative reportoire only serves your intellect.

DISCUSSION WITHOUT COMPROMISE IS FUTILE, and it seems you have brought this futility into Chowk.com. Intellectual discussions now play a submissive role to your entertaining internet persona: ``Oh, that Farzana, she`s really something....`` Welcome to the Arundhati Roy club, Farzana. Heavy criticisms, no compromise, no solution.

I`m sure this post violates some code or another in your ``InterAct Guidelines`` and you, the editor and persona al-mighty of Chowk.com, with your trigger happy finger will be sure to delete it soon. I hope you understand that I`m not making personal attacks, rather I am attacking your argumentative style which truly achieves nothing other than re-stating the problem in your own words.

You have a great platform to voice your opinion, make concessions, and TRULY BRING change by showing two points of view, yet you only serve yourself rather than an intellectual debate.

The idea of discussion at Chowk is to respond with your views on the writer`s work; it is not to demand a response. The writer may further the dialogue if s/he wishes to at solely their discretion. Besides, there are several responses by the writer in which a reader might find the answers, instead of trying the old bait trick and spamming the board.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts