quote:

---

There has indeed been a dramatic and dangerous rise in religious fundamentalism in the Muslim world. The problem is that under the Likud Doctrine, there is no space to ask why this is happening. We are not allowed to point out that fundamentalism breeds in failed states, where warfare has systematically targeted civilian infrastructure, allowing the mosques start taking responsibility for everything from education to garbage collection. It has happened in Gaza, in Grozny, in Sadr City. Mr. Sharon says terrorism is an epidemic that “has no borders, no fences” but this is not the case. Everywhere in the world, terrorism thrives within the illegitimate borders of occupation and dictatorship; it festers behind “security walls” put up by imperial powers; it crosses those borders and climbs over those fences to explode inside the countries responsible for, or complicit in, occupation and domination.

---

[ 11 September 2004: Message edited by: Justice ]

quote:

---

Let me be absolutely clear: by Likudization, I do not mean that key members of the Bush Administration are working for the interests of Israel at the expense of U.S. interests — the increasingly popular “dual loyalty” argument. What I mean is that on September 11, George W Bush went looking for a political philosophy to guide him in his new role as “War President,” a job for which he was uniquely unqualified. He found that philosophy in the Likud Doctrine, conveniently handed to him ready-made by the ardent Likudniks already ensconced in the White House. No thinking required.

---

quote:

---

Bush and Putin listening to suggestions from Israel is highly likely. Did this have any influence on there courses of action NO!

---

quote:

---

To believe in a conspiracy theory of history is obviously foolish, to believe that history proceeds without conspiracy is naive.

---

I note that the word "Jew" does not appear even once in Klein's article.

quote:

---

The question is who are you accusing of a conspiracy?

---

You invented the conspiracy, so don't go around saying someone else is talking about a conspiracy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justice:
Russia and the US don't do what's in interest of Jews or Israeli's they do what's in their own interest.

---

quote:

---

You invented the conspiracy, so don't go around saying someone else is talking about a conspiracy.
Klein is talking about how Putin and Bush have adopted the Likud rationalization for their own aggression.

---

Intent is irrelevant. It is how that it is interpreted that is important and many people will interpret it as a conspiracy. Communism was no conspiracy nor was it evil or totalitarian but look how that got interpreted.

We also have the same problem with Jesus death.

quote:

---

Justice, Klein is just noting that often on the world stage, as now, interests converge. No one is talking about puppet-masters; we are talking about three Machiavels (or two Machiavels and the front-man for a third, immensely powerful Machiavellian administration) who recognize one another and certainly can, have, and are learning from one another. It is in the interests of all three to fuzz the outlines of their own imperial adventures by propagandizing about global terrorism, so that is what all three are doing. You doubt that they trade helpful tips?

---

I'm not denying they trade tips. That is not what I'm concerned about there are plenty of people concerned with what Bush, Putin and Sharon are doing. This is good and by all means necessary. Too bad some other areas are being neglected. There certainly commonalties between their actions and philosophy. I'm just very concerned on how this is interpreted and how it will reflect on other that may or may not be associated with them but just because they have some sort of common background. (Like live in the same country) maybe wrongfully accused of association with them. Look a Carolin parish she doesn't seem to see the difference between Americans and Bush.

Machiaveli is another Great example of misinterpretation. It can easily be argued that Machaveli was not a self-centered fascist. Here lies again a problem of interpretation.

quote:

---

This is true of Ariel Sharon and the Likud Party, as well...

---

apparently so.

Sharon calls on ministers to fight incitement] Sharon calls on ministers to fight incitement

quote:

---

Sharon calls on ministers to fight incitement

---

Yeah. And Bush is bringing peace and democracy to Iraq.

How can you tell when Sharon is being a self-serving liar? Check if his lips are moving...

quote:

---

I think now Sharon can use the same excuses that Arafat used for not making peace. At least if Arafat sacrificed himself for the cause he could get 72 virgins.

---

quote:

---

I'm just very concerned on how this is interpreted and how it will reflect on other that may or may not be associated with them but just because they have some sort of common background. (Like live in the same country) maybe wrongfully accused of association with them. Look a Carolin parish she doesn't seem to see the difference between Americans and Bush.

---

Justice, I know that this is a serious problem. It is especially a problem in a time when the propagandists, the PR/spin people are running so much of the show, actively working to dumb-down every debate that citizens attempt to have.

But Justice, our only defence against those dorks is to continue to testify to the most and the hardest truths we can. On babble, anyway, I believe that everyone hears in your voice that kind of authentic testimony, and I think you have found similar directness from others here.

It is true that we can't control a lot of audiences, though, and the way that they are receiving things right now. That's a problem. We have to think about it. But we won't solve it by turning into spinmeisters ourselves.

quote:

---

And this is supposed to mean..... what, exactly?

---

Its known fact today that one of the main reasons that Arafat did not accept Barak's offer back in 2000 is not because the deal was so bad and not because Arafat was greedy but because he was afraid that Muslim extremist would kill him. So now Sharon has an excuse not to take any positive steps sadly only this time it will be the fault of Jewish extremist . Saddly we all have are radical and sadly because of these few radicals we all have to suffer.

The other part I admit was a bad joke and if anyone got offended I'll take it back

[ 13 September 2004: Message edited by: Justice ]

quote:

---

Justice, there are a lot of things wrong with Arafat and the Palestinian Authority - a kind of corruption one finds in such situations of oppression and limited authority granted - some Band Council leaderships here come to mind, and I'm sure there are examples the world over in semi-colonial situations.
But one thing Arafat has never been is a religious fundamentalist - his party is secular in outlook. I'm sure that, like Sharon, he has had to make a show of faith for political reasons, but he is certainly not the 72 virgins type. On the contrary, he seems rather adamant on clinging to life, for a man of rather advanced age, in poor physical health, with much of his compound destroyed.

---

quote:

---

Intent is irrelevant. It is how that it is interpreted that is important and many people will interpret it as a conspiracy. Communism was no conspiracy nor was it evil or totalitarian but look how that got interpreted.

---

If intent is not important then you should consider that you are the only person posting on this thread who gives the article the meaining that you have. Everyone esle has rejected your interpretation. Therefore you can rest assured that the article does not project the prejudices, which you think it might.

Also, if you eschew intent as irrelevant to meaning then you are walking off the same pier as Jaques Derrida. Who is more-or-less universally regarded as completely incomprehensible. Even Derrida would note that the meaning is largely contextual and in the context of this thread, on this board, at this time, the text in question is interpreted by most people in a manner, which is completely diferent than yours.

[ 12 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Also, if you eschew intent as irrelevant to meaning then you are walking off the same pier as Jaques Derrida. Who is more-or-less universally regarded as completely incomprehensible.

---

Oh, dear, Cueball. I really wish you hadn't said that.

Resistance to the "Intentional Fallacy," as a complex and nuanced stance among literary critics throughout the English-speaking world, dates back to the American New Critics of the 1940s. Derrida did not invent it, and would have an even more nuanced position on it.

quote:

---

Who is more-or-less universally regarded as completely incomprehensible.

---

I didn't say that you or anyone else here finds Derrida incomprehensible. I said 'more-or-less' universally regarded as incomprehensible.

quote:

---

At least if Arafat sacrificed himself for the cause he could get 72 virgins.

And this is supposed to mean..... what, exactly?

---

It says more about the poster than about Arafat.