Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Middle East Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1664)	5/10/2002 2:44:31 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6945

Ah, yes, so now you define "fascism" for us, and it turns out to be something quite a bit different that what you first implied. Chomsky is a unceasing opponent of governments that restrict freedom, which is the common definition of fascism. He is about as anti-fascist as it gets. You, for example, have strong fascist leanings, as you try to apologize, explain away, cover up, and lie about the crimes of your own government. Your innate desire to suppress dissent is the very essence of fascism. Regardless, in the text you provide, Chomsky states some historical facts. For you to turn this into some sort of advocacy is not surprising, since mud-slinging is about all you are capable of. Chomsky is clearly saying that fascism is the only economic system that "works". What is funny about this is that it directly follow the bolded text in which Chomsky said "it worked". Thank you for providing the contrast between his words and your interpretation in such a stark contrast. So, let's look again at the facts about Israel that Chomsky has dug up: --- In 1983, the Israeli government ordered Israeli TV and radio to stop using the Hebrew word "ishim" ("personalities") in reference to leading personalities of the PLO. "A careful investigation" revealed that there is "a positive weight of respect" with the use of that word. --- When a Jewish Israeli political party sought to broadcast a campaign advertisement showing an interview with Arafat announcing that he accepts U.N. resolutions 242 and 338, High Court Justice Goldberg ruled it illegal Not only do you fail to acknowledge the clear implications of these examples of the Israel government suppressing dissent, but then you go on to intimate that the person who dug them up (Chomsky) is a supporter of a freedom-crushing mode of government. You always manage to take hypocrisy to new levels. Tom