Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    An Anti-Semitism of the Left

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/op...left.html?_r=1

    "The zeitgeist on campuses these days, on both sides of the Atlantic, is one of identity and liberation politics. Jews, of course, are a minority, but through a fashionable cultural prism they are seen as the minority that isn’t — that is to say white, privileged and identified with an “imperialist-colonialist” state, Israel. They are the anti-victims in a prevalent culture of victimhood; Jews, it seems, are the sole historical victim whose claim is dubious.

    A recent Oberlin alumna, Isabel Storch Sherrell, alluded in a Facebook post to the students she’d heard dismissing the Holocaust as mere “white on white crime.” As reported by David Bernstein in The Washington Post, she wrote of Jewish students that, “Our struggle does not intersect with other forms of racism.”

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "What is striking about the anti-Zionism derangement syndrome that spills over into anti-Semitism is its ahistorical nature. It denies the long Jewish presence in, and bond with, the Holy Land. It disregards the fundamental link between murderous European anti-Semitism and the decision of surviving Jews to embrace Zionism in the conviction that only a Jewish homeland could keep them safe. It dismisses the legal basis for the modern Jewish state in United Nations Resolution 181 of 1947. This was not “colonialism” but the post-Holocaust will of the world: Arab armies went to war against it and lost."

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "The oppression of Palestinians should trouble every Jewish conscience. But nothing can justify the odious “anti-Semitic anti-Zionism” (Johnson’s term) that caused Chalmers to quit and is seeping into British and American campuses.

    I talked to Aaron Simons, an Oxford student who was president of the university’s Jewish society. “There’s an odd mental noise,” he said. “In tone and attitude the way you are talked to as a Jew in these left political circles reeks of hostility. These people have an astonishingly high bar for what constitutes anti-Semitism.”

    Comment


      "America’s left-wing academics and Hollywood celebrities have long romanticized Latin American strongmen as righteous revolutionaries, opposed to mid-20th century American military and business dominance of the region.

      But to people living in those nations, the reality is that the revolutionaries became cruel, oppressive dictators in the case of Arias, the late Venezuela President Hugo Chavez and most of all, Fidel Castro."

      "The release of 53 political prisoners by Cuba last January looks like window dressing to international human rights watchdogs who describe the reality of progress on Cuban human rights as a myth.

      The Wall Street Journal noted in a recent editorial that since Obama’s change in policy, “the number of individuals jailed arbitrarily has gone up. This past January, according to the Madrid-based Cuban Observatory on Human Rights, some 1,474 individuals were jailed at the regime’s whim, more than 500 of them women.”

      “The Cuban government continues to repress dissent and discourage public criticism,” according to the website of U.S.-based Human Rights Watch."

      "“It now relies less on long-term prison sentences to punish its critics, but short-term arbitrary arrests of human rights defenders, independent journalists, and others have increased dramatically in recent years. Other repressive tactics employed by the government include beatings, public acts of shaming, and the termination of employment.”

      Yet another respected observer of human and political rights, Amnesty International, comes to a similar conclusion on its website:

      “Despite increasingly open diplomatic relations, severe restrictions on freedoms of expression, association and movement continued. Thousands of cases of harassment of government critics and arbitrary arrests and detentions were reported.”


      http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-will...-cuban-mistake

      Comment


        New York Times and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Judith Miller.

        https://www.prageru.com/courses/poli...lie-about-iraq

        Comment


          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          New York Times and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Judith Miller.

          https://www.prageru.com/courses/poli...lie-about-iraq
          Oh no, you political dorks are back!

          Comment


            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            New York Times and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Judith Miller.

            https://www.prageru.com/courses/poli...lie-about-iraq
            NY Times Pans Ex-Employee Judith Miller’s ‘Sad and Flawed’ Book
            by Tina Nguyen | 6:18 pm, April 7th, 2015


            Last week, former New York Times reporter Judith Miller published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal insisting that her reporting, which helped push America into a war with Iraq in 2003, was never influenced by scheming neoconservatives attempting to manipulate the public. It turns out that the column was printed in advance of her new memoir, The Story: A Reporter’s Journey, and boy did the New York Times have nothing nice to say about it.

            In their review, the Times, which took a hit to its reputation when Miller’s reporting was discredited, could not believe her claims. “Ms. Miller’s defense of her work then was straightforward: She reported what her sources told her,” they wrote. “She has now written a book-length elaboration of that defense, [and] the defense is no better now than it was then.”

            The rest of the review touches upon Miller’s entry into the Times (“a prized assignment, largely because the newspaper was facing a lawsuit accusing it of sex discrimination, she writes”), and her work in the Middle East, fostered by cultivating friendships with powerful people. It then leads into the timeliness of her coverage (jihad + WMDs) that suddenly made her prominent in the wake of 9/11. “Whatever her actual politics, though, the agenda that comes through most strongly here is a desire to land on the front page,” the Times says, in response to claims that she was also driven by war agendas. “She rarely mentions an article she wrote without noting that it appeared on the front page or complaining that it did not.”

            More from the review:

            Ms. Miller’s main defense is that the experts she relied upon — intelligence officials, weapons experts, members of the Bush administration and others — were wrong about Mr. Hussein’s weapons. She acknowledges being wrong but not making any mistakes. She quotes herself telling another reporter: “If your sources were wrong, you are wrong.” This is where she gets stuck.

            Journalists, especially those who have a talent for investigative work, are taught early to write big, to push the story as far as possible. Be careful; nail the facts; be fair, but push hard. Nobody pushed harder than Ms. Miller. In this case, she wound up implicitly pushing for war.

            In the end, the Times dubbed the book, and Miller herself, “a bit lost”, firmly stating: “This sad and flawed book won’t help her be found.”

            Comment


              Pulitzer Prize awards are sort of like Noble Peace Prize awards.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                NY Times Pans Ex-Employee Judith Miller’s ‘Sad and Flawed’ Book
                by Tina Nguyen | 6:18 pm, April 7th, 2015


                Last week, former New York Times reporter Judith Miller published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal insisting that her reporting, which helped push America into a war with Iraq in 2003, was never influenced by scheming neoconservatives attempting to manipulate the public. It turns out that the column was printed in advance of her new memoir, The Story: A Reporter’s Journey, and boy did the New York Times have nothing nice to say about it.

                In their review, the Times, which took a hit to its reputation when Miller’s reporting was discredited, could not believe her claims. “Ms. Miller’s defense of her work then was straightforward: She reported what her sources told her,” they wrote. “She has now written a book-length elaboration of that defense, [and] the defense is no better now than it was then.”

                The rest of the review touches upon Miller’s entry into the Times (“a prized assignment, largely because the newspaper was facing a lawsuit accusing it of sex discrimination, she writes”), and her work in the Middle East, fostered by cultivating friendships with powerful people. It then leads into the timeliness of her coverage (jihad + WMDs) that suddenly made her prominent in the wake of 9/11. “Whatever her actual politics, though, the agenda that comes through most strongly here is a desire to land on the front page,” the Times says, in response to claims that she was also driven by war agendas. “She rarely mentions an article she wrote without noting that it appeared on the front page or complaining that it did not.”

                More from the review:

                Ms. Miller’s main defense is that the experts she relied upon — intelligence officials, weapons experts, members of the Bush administration and others — were wrong about Mr. Hussein’s weapons. She acknowledges being wrong but not making any mistakes. She quotes herself telling another reporter: “If your sources were wrong, you are wrong.” This is where she gets stuck.

                Journalists, especially those who have a talent for investigative work, are taught early to write big, to push the story as far as possible. Be careful; nail the facts; be fair, but push hard. Nobody pushed harder than Ms. Miller. In this case, she wound up implicitly pushing for war.

                In the end, the Times dubbed the book, and Miller herself, “a bit lost”, firmly stating: “This sad and flawed book won’t help her be found.”
                Bwahahaha! Isn't that an opinion piece that you liberals are alway b itching about??? Like I keep saying, you guys are a bunch of hypocrites.And you keep proving it over and over again.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  Bwahahaha! Isn't that an opinion piece that you liberals are alway b itching about??? Like I keep saying, you guys are a bunch of hypocrites.And you keep proving it over and over again.
                  Could you possibly be any more irrational?

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    Bwahahaha! Isn't that an opinion piece that you liberals are alway b itching about??? Like I keep saying, you guys are a bunch of hypocrites.And you keep proving it over and over again.
                    Opinion?
                    spinning a yarn of wmd for media spread, invading a foreign country, placing countless american lives at risk of death , ptsd, and in harms way for inner glory or sheer idiocy. A new episode of house of cards. These are the true folks federal prisons should hold, not the 5 g marijuana dealer reagan put away for life. cheez

                    (btw, i missed you)

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      Opinion?
                      spinning a yarn of wmd for media spread, invading a foreign country, placing countless american lives at risk of death , ptsd, and in harms way for inner glory or sheer idiocy. A new episode of house of cards. These are the true folks federal prisons should hold, not the 5 g marijuana dealer reagan put away for life. cheez

                      (btw, i missed you)
                      The nutters have been busy "celebrating" the life of the serial adultress and homewrecker Nancy Reagan (and one time blacklisted & alleged communist). Also responsible for the racist war on drugs - "Just say no!!!" not to mention her complicity in the death of thousands of people with AIDS. Until their friend Rock Hudson got it. Sorry but that is not a life to be celebrated...

                      Cujo

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        The nutters have been busy "celebrating" the life of the serial adultress and homewrecker Nancy Reagan (and one time blacklisted & alleged communist). Also responsible for the racist war on drugs - "Just say no!!!" not to mention her complicity in the death of thousands of people with AIDS. Until their friend Rock Hudson got it. Sorry but that is not a life to be celebrated...

                        Cujo
                        Bwahahahaha! Another looney liberal opinion piece! But the guy who was getting BJs in the oval office and actually responsible for putting more minorities in prison gets a pass. You guys keep proving what hypocrites you are!

                        Comment


                          What??? No comment from Cujo and company on these?

                          http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/op...left.html?_r=1

                          http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-will...-cuban-mistake

                          Comment


                            The Cons have no problem with a President who ignores repeated warnings from his Intelligence agencies about spectacular impending attacks against the country, and then lies the country into war. But they go completely ape$h!t about 'BJ's in the oval office'.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              The Cons have no problem with a President who ignores repeated warnings from his Intelligence agencies about spectacular impending attacks against the country, and then lies the country into war. But they go completely ape$h!t about 'BJ's in the oval office'.
                              I think his initials were LBJ?

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                                The Cons have no problem with a President who ignores repeated warnings from his Intelligence agencies about spectacular impending attacks against the country, and then lies the country into war. But they go completely ape$h!t about 'BJ's in the oval office'.
                                Obama's policies have resulted in AL Shabbats control of Somalia dropping to 5%, Isis is bleeding revenues territory and troops. AL Qaeda is virtually non existent. All with minimal loss of our soldiers. Bush created Isis ignored the AL Qaeda that Reagan created and wasted or ruined hundreds of thousands soldiers lives but the nutters hatred of a black president because he is black makes them blind to this fact. Obama has spent eight years cleaning bush and Reagan's messes.

                                Cujo

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X