Comment

Occupy LA, The ADL, and Bradblog

78
Obdicut (Now with 2% less brain)10/23/2011 6:19:56 pm PDT

re: #77 BradFriedman

But, that’s not really what they said, is it? That’s a nice shorthand which rather does a disservice to what they actually said (whether you like what they actually said or not.) I stand by my point that I believe it was a gutsy argument to make, and one worth discussing and/or disabusing, if one is so inclined.

Then what is it that they actually said, that you’re defending? They really, really did literally count the number of Jews in their semi-arbitrary list. They really, really are claiming that is somehow significant. They never actually get around to explaining why, except for the tired old dual-loyalty allegation.

Can you explain what the significance of counting those Jews is?

My opinion? I don’t think it actually was, in truth. In the neo-cons’ view, however, remember that guy who hated Israel, offered rewards to terrorists willing to blow themselves up to kill Israelis, and was willing to send scud missiles their way?

Sure. He was marginally less threatening to Israel than most of Israel’s neighbors. The scuds were sent when Iraq was attacked, meaning that that point is actually against the claim that it’s in Israel’s interests for Iraq to be invaded, unless you think Israel really likes being hit with Scud missiles.

It really is bizarre to me that with Bush (and Cheney) so adamant from day 1 about invading Iraq, that the supposed desire (never actually explained) of Jews to have Iraq invaded is given any credit.

And that is your right. Phew, glad I posted the actual text of the 1st Amendment for ya, so there’d be no confusion here. :-)

Jesus. I’m not confused about whether it’s my right or not. I’m pointing out that when you quote someone who is odious, and then are criticized for doing so, saying you support the rights of everyone to speak is inane. I support the rights of neo-nazis to speak. That doesn’t mean I’m going to reference them or give them the slightest credibility or platform. Do you understand?

Be concerned as much as you like. Though I would argue that whereever a large group of people gather to express their First Amendment rights, and where they are likely to be noticed by TV cameras and such, there are gonna be a lot of folks “attracted”. Just ask the Phelps family. Does it make you concerned that military families hold funerals, knowing that the Phelps’ are likely to show up and express their First Amendment rights?

Do you honestly believe that’s a good analogy? You’re citing people who are protesting the event from the outside— the Phelps— and conflating them with people who are at an event. That analogy fails. And it’s a completely unnecessary one. I do indeed think— and it was in fact what I was saying— that whenever a large group of people is around and whey’re they’re likely to be noticed, that they’ll attract bad actors. What I’m pointing out is that Occupy’s structure (or non-structure) makes it very difficult to ostracize the extremists and the outright bigots.

You didn’t really just write those words, did you?

Yes, I did. Feel free to actually explain what you find wrong with them, if you’re interested in actually communicating that.

yappy we see eye-to-eye re: ECI and the appalling, opportunistic attacks on Obama/Israel. That said, you justify the pass AIPAC gave to years of trading with Iran how, exactly?

Can you point out where you see me justifying it?