Monbiot On the "Sickness" of 9-11 Conspiracists
There is a virus sweeping the world. It infects opponents of the Bush government, sucks their brains out through their eyes and turns them into gibbering idiots. . . In the past fortnight, it has become an epidemic. Scarcely a day now passes without someone possessed by this sickness, eyes rolling, lips flecked with foam, trying to infect me. Wander but a few paragraphs into the comments under that essay and you'll find George being instructed in the details of the great Zionist plot behind it all. You'll find yourself in the same general vicinity as here, in the comments, where I show up as a gatekeeper to the Ziocon false-flag hegemony and an "Aspernazi whore."
Speaking of the Aspers, one of their harder-working minions, an old drinking and sparring partner, says complimentary things about my book and about me in today's Vancouver Sun. I bet you think it's just a coincidence, don't you. . .
posted by Terry Glavin at 3:31 PM
21 Comments:
Thanks again Terry
One of my biggest pet peeves are those who perpetuate this conspiracy "theory." The only explanation is that they apparently had their brains sucked out, by aliens!
Gosh. What would you make of this?
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical.
I'm with you on this one, Terry. Nine/eleven conspiracy theorists are an embarassment to the tradition of rational thought for which the left has been known.
As someone who have encountered them in various places on the internet, I have found that the best approach is to ignore them.
Dr Dawg, given that we still don't actually know what the context of that quote is, here's a thought.
Haaretz has an obvious reason to be interested in world events from a Jewish perspective. They also extensively cover sports figures who are Jewish, and review kosher cookbooks, for example.
What's your reason?
It seems that your sincerely-held belief is that two dozen Jews and hangers-on forced the leader of the free world, 150 million Americans (assuming half of them supported the war), 100 senators, the world's most powerful military, etc. into a war against their will. Fair enough, but I would have to ask how you believe they did it.
To my mind, there are two possible explanations: A. They made a damn good case or B. They have super-Jew powers of persuasion/control the world banks/Mossad knows everyone's secrets.
If you believe it's A, I am not sure where the "Jew" thing frankly comes into it. The neocons made their case. Some Jews are neocons, some Jews aren't, some were pro-war, some weren't. The argument either stands on the strength of it or it falls, regardless of who presents it. Obsessions about who presented the argument, especially when neocon != Jew != pro-war seem a bit "obsessive," don't you think?
If you believe it's B, than thanks for the compliment, but you can see why someone might be a bit concerned about you ascribing all these powers to a group, based on the following conclusive evidence: "The US government did not act in the way Dr Dawg wanted it to act."
It would be marginally fair if you actually noted that the person who posted that aspersion (pardon the pun) was thoroughly condemned on the Tyee books site you've linked to.
And, I think your characterization of the case against Israel is as monolithic and tone deaf as anything I've encountered anywhere.
I wonder if you'll have the intestinal fortitude and strength of character to actually leave this post on your own website though.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Terry, there's no actual point to trying to reason here, is there?
Dr.Dawg is the funniest thing in the blogosphere, he is a typical example of what Nick Cohen writes about.
It is strange how criticism of Israel is considered not anti-semitic, and in many cases that is correct. but criticism of a Muslim country is always considered by some on the left and their buddies as Islamaphobic.
Not much of a meal, T.
I quite enjoy a lot of the Tyee stories but the space alloted to readers' debate is always taken over by the same boring bunch, riding their favourite hobbyhorses and dispensing insults and non sequiturs on their merry chase over the horizon. Don't know why anyone bothers reading or debating with them; it's like talking to your hand.
Steve,
I would say it cuts both ways. There are both Jews and Muslims, not all, but some, who are guilty of overreacting to criticisms of their respective countries.
There are some Jews who attack the slightest criticism of the Israeli government at being anti-Semetic.
On the other hand, as you say, there are some Muslims who will attack any enlightened criticism of their country.
However, I want to clarify that I'm only talking about a minority within each faith.
I've seen it a lot in various places on the internet. A specific criticism is made of a policy or action of the Israeli government. A response is made by someone claiming to be a Jew, not merely disagreeing with the criticism (which of course is entirely within their rights to do so), but calling the criticism anti-Semetic. A specific example doesn't come to mind, but over the years I have seen a number of criticisms of the IDF being responded to in such a manner.
Well They do have a point about Carter's book.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ndude said...
Terry:
There are some who claim "the slightest criticism" of Israel is Anti-Semitic. I disagree and it muddies the waters. Abe Foxman (Head of ADL USA) theorizes that anyone who condemns Zionism as racism is anti-semitic (as did Dr. Martin Luther King btw) because all nations (and nationalities) have a right to pursue their own state. So why not Jews? I am not sure I agree 100 % but it's interesting.
What I do find disturbing is the tendency of "progressives" to use anti-semitic imagery and deliberately politically charged/loaded expressions to "criticize" Israel. (Rex Murphy commented on this "we have all too frequently in demonstrations almost everywhere in the world the placards and chants equating Israel and its government with its own demonic anti-type, the nazi-ism of Adolf Hitler. We have in effect the Holocaust, the mightiest engine of ethnic cleansing the world has ever seen, thrown in the face of the people who were its targets. http://tinyurl.com/2hm6pw) When they are called on it THEY use the anti-semitic accusation as a ruse to chill the debate although clearly it is a form of bigotry. Examples are the use of Apartheid (which recently a conference on Apartheid declared the use in relation to Israel as historically inaccurate), alleging that the use of the Holocaust is a cover for Zionist/racism, that Israel is a Nazi-like state etc. (Just see Babble a "progressive" forum where this dialogue is de rigeur http://tinyurl.com/2yy9k7 )Food for thought: Canada treats its First Nations Peoples disgustingly. We have institutionalized racism: confiscated their land, put them on reserves and make them subject to the "Indian Act." Israel inherited the Palestinian problem through a UN resolution, and wars that it didn't initiate. However Our First Nations aren't committing acts of terrorism, and the "progressives" aren't demonstrating in the streets. This is not a perfect comparison and it is fair to criticize Israel for the way it deals with Palestinians. The issue is how balanced that criticism is levelled and whether a double standard is used.
Dirk's comments above are an example of the double standard of criticism. Most Palestinians live outside of Israel(Jordon etc) in horrible circumstances such as refuge camps, where they are legally prohibited from voting, owning or passing title to land. Why? And Why isn't criticism levelled there?
Roads (in the territories, NOT Israel proper) are secured for (obvious) security reasons. I would ask Dirk to post links to the precise "laws" he is referring to.
Clearly Palestinian rights and quality of life are in issue. Israel bears some of that responsibility. But not all. Which brings us full circle, many use their "anti-Zionism" as a convenient cover.
Unfortunately, Terry Glavin's assessment of everyone and anyone who comments on his Tyee articles IS typical of this construction; namely, that the pathetic creatures who read ‘his’ incendiary journalism and comment about it are either apologists for Jew-haters and terrorists or guilty of these crimes themselves.
The fairness of some commentators on this subject in the wider media (among them, as pointed out by numerous examples both at Tyee and here, numerous Jews and Israelis) - which he has now reluctantly been forced to acknowledge, would be refreshing if it were now applied to his own writing and attitudes.
Well, George Monbiot - of all the people... My flabber is totally gasted. Yeah - probably he has been got to by one of our mind control reptilians.
And yes, agent Terry - I must commend you with another success - you forced Dirk B. into stuttering ;-) aNd mIXinG his ShIFts and cAPS lOcKs.
Cool - the bonus is in the mAlE. I mean, in the mail, of course.
Terry Dr. Dawg is one John Baglow of Ottawa. Notorious blog commenter who thankfully has ceased ending his litter like postings with a plea to visit his blog. He was a former VP of PSAC I believe who was instrumental in the formulation of that unions ground breaking foreign policy initiative, which in a nutshell may best be described as "The Uncritical Support of the Palestinian Cause Despite All Reason" or "Fill in the blank of your favourite Anti-US Thug here and PSAC Will Wave Banners" doctrine. He is or was a stalwart member of the NDP. He has unfortunately developed the bad habit of mistaking verbosity for analysis and insight.
Post a Comment
<< Home