Probably, yes ... as is your comment on my comment, KLP .... funny how you fixed on that line, instead of addressing any of the ideas presented, eh ..... you had a choice, the melting-pot versus the bouillabaisse, the risks/benefits of state-decreed unilingualism versus those of a broader and more open approach, relative conceptions of just what should comprise this 'liberty' thing anyway .... you even had a whole bunch of -isms thrown in, you could have set your mind to any of this
But you didn't
Might you have done so had you seen me support each israeli getting a new acre of arab land each year - yes i think you might have .... or had you been under the impression that i was rooting for the DC neocon planetary subjugation project - oh yes then you might have tried, or just passed over it, eh
There are few thinkers on this thread, perhaps half a dozen among current posters [just scanning the thread list back a ways] ..... rest of it is partisan jabs, repetitive, mostly all about getting the current US regime reelected/unelected, little thought to it, everything said has been said before ..... a few good articles pasted in, worth the time it takes to scan for them, some days ..... from the start the volume has been too heavy here to follow it, i just catch Steven's posts, Bilow's, a couple of others, some responses to them, that's about it ... not meaning to get involved here, really, but since you bring up the concept of 'necessary', and on reviewing a few of your own, it does make me wonder just what standards you use to determine this status
A factoid that may amuse a thinker with a sense of humour, were you to encounter one - unclewest understood my enquiry that day, took it in the sense intended .... funny how things like that go, eh
Ah well, moving on ... the laughter thread has an Obligatory Joke rule, in honour of that here is some Obligatory Foreign Affairs, a golden oldie that i thought was worded especially clear -
'If you want the root of the Palestine situation, you can find it in one word:
Judenstadt. That was the original driving goal behind Zionism, the Jewish
State, the State that would be, as Chaim Weizman put it, as Jewish as
England is English. The Zionists also, of course, issued loud and frequent
proclamations that they desired a state of peaceful co-existence with the local
population, but that nominal goal was from the start utterly incompatible with
the primary goal of a Jewish State. It was clear from the beginning, to any who
desired to see it, that peaceful co-existence with a pre-existing non-Jewish
local population could never be achieved within the context of a Jewish State.
That goal could not be achieved unless the local population were subjugated
or removed, and that could not be achieved without violence. Violence,
therefore, was implicit in Zionism from the very beginning.' - #reply-18311394
... this was the start of an interesting series, which goes to here - #reply-18343037 .... from which point you will observe that no one attempts anything resembling an adequate answer to Steven's very relevant question .... too busy making little partisan jabs, or taking it upon themselves to decide what is 'unnecessary', i guess eh |
