Dennis Prager's thoughts

Remove all ads!

Well, I’m not so sure it’s that easy, but I’ll try. I guess in a way I've been trying to discredit the messenger rather than the message.

Is the U.N. perfect? No, of course not. But IMO it’s better than nothing. If the world as a whole wants to see the U.N. changed, then let the world as a whole, and by consensus, change it.

Well, from what I understand, the U.S. lost it’s seat in 2002, but regained it in 2003. So either Prager or I have our facts mixed up.

This paragraph has already been addressed by BOC in his first post. I won’t bother restating it.

Has Prager never heard of the "two sides to every story" argument? Just because professors don’t sing regular praise to the U.S. or Israel, that doesn’t make them worthy of contempt.

Actually, I do agree with his comments about the media. They all have their agendas and biases, I tend to be skeptical of them all. (But not Prager; he’s too transparent.)

Well, I tried.

 

Well, some people either ignore history, or are just plain ignorant. But more than likey it is that when someone makes a statement like this, he/she is hoping that the reader has no grasp of history. Without the help of France it is unlikey that America would be enjoying the freedom and liberty that it does today.

I'm glad that this individual has had an opportunity to visit all the universities across this large nation and engage with all the thousands of "professors" and faculties in them, so that he can comment on what they all think and feel about Isreal. He is an amazing man if he can attend all the classes of "millions of students" in our college system. And then report on all the lectures that are given in them. Maybe he has the Cliff Notes.

Why should God bother, since He has Prager to do all the judging of others for Him? I mean, who else can judge "the world?"

Perhaps someone should hand Prager a mirror. Sometimes "evil" is where one least expects to find it.

[ April 27, 2004, 06:19: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I read the article twice, and even held off from responding as I watched with awe as people frothed at the mouth in rage over Prager's comments.

First off, look at the last word above... comments ...this was a political commentary and all of you who have vociferously disagreed with it had better realize it is commentary. Take a deep breath and offer a quick thanks that he is free to express himself...for it insures that you are likewise.

I would take objection with Prager on two things...if Israel was able to kill Rantisi...they could have captured him and brought him to justice, and his blanket statement of Europe murdering the Jews.

Prager makes valid comments...and raises issues that you had better learn how to deal with and live with...he has simply expressed biases which you don't have...and your vocal disagreement doesn't make them any less a real perspective for those who hold them...this editorial was no more inflammatory than some I have seen linked to that were critical of the US and our Imperialism , and your reactions are far more vehement when you are the ones offended.

Look down...on your chest...there is a big, red button that Prager has just pushed.

I nominate DMC for "Troublemaker of the Week"

 

OK, Let's see a couple of his assertion.

Well I agree with him that UN is dominated by the most brutal governments in the world since the last time I checked the UN Security Council's permanent members were USA, UK, France, Russia and China . Really, what is his alternative, with what would he replace UN?

Obviously he doesn't read international press.

From BBC:
Hamas opposes Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority and any other body that engages in peace talks with the Israelis. A major player in the Middle East crisis, it is a terrorist organisation that's been responsible for countless deaths and which will settle for nothing less than the destruction of Israel and the founding of a fundamentalist Islamic state in its place.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/news/7oclocknews/features/palestine_100903.shtml

and from CNN:
Hamas is a Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organization whose military wing has admitted responsibility for terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. The United States and Israel consider it a terrorist group.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/18/rantisi.funeral/index.html

Although, I agree with him (seriously, I'm not kidding )that every press agency has its own agentas and biases and that this has an effect in the way they present the news.

 

Well, yes, but don't worry on that account because very little of the content of this commentary could be mistaken for factual, except by perhaps those on Fox News.

This is an old argument, and one which is used often by those who suppport the KKK, for example. The Constitution allows them to also run around our streets with sheets over their heads, advocating the overthrow of the US government and preach the hatred of Jewish people and other ethnic groups. In Prager's instance, just substitute Muslim, or European, for Jewish.

Of course, there will always be those who preach hatred. As has been pointed out, they are free to do so by the Constitution. And much like the Klan it is done under the disguise of "noblity." They have in common with Prager a hatred of the academic community because it is not "morally pure" enough to suit their own dogma. It follows that those who, are in some cases, thought to be the brightest (professors) are really hard at work corrupting the young people of society. For the uneducated this kind of rhetoric holds great promise. Why bother with learning or knowledge when they can subsititute it for rhetoric and political ideology grounded in their own brand of "moral" purity? The religious right has been engaged in the same kind of rhetoric for years.

Why bother to learn of how relieved Washington was when he saw the first French ships appear in the Hudson? Or after many of his own generals turned against him - Conway, Lee, and of course, Benedict Arnold, how he knew he could rely on a young Frenchman named Lafayette? Washington knew that the Revolution had a fighting chance with French help.

But that was long ago. Men like Washington, Adams and Jefferson are mere fossils. We can just lump them all together and tag them as the "Founding Fathers," and as such, ignore what they believed as individuals and assign to them our own brand of modern political ideology. Perhaps the sum of them is greater than the individual parts. Besides, now we have Shrub and Cheney to lead us through the "dark times" of today's world, which Prager has demonstrated is full of hostiles and the "morally corrupt." Now, if Prager could only find a mirror....

[ April 27, 2004, 17:54: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I'd like to have a scientific test on that. Which red buttons get what people on each side on the pond to what reactions. And do they really differ in intensity ?

I live with those issues anyway, so I learned that and I fancy myself to be able to deal with them, thanks. As I mentioned above, besides is flames, Pager doesn't have anything to valuable to say, except for a summation of old things. Obviously, BTA thinks (at least I think he thinks, which is... äh) it's worth to take the chance, when presented with a list and ignore the indignities around it. But a person that obviously hasn't the faintest clue about WW2 history like Prager, doesn't seem to me like an interesting read anyway. Only the repeater of things in the air anyway. And a good orator maybe. Bother commenting about the WHO ?


But I do not like being called a Nazi. That is the biggest red button I can think of, as statistically, the chance of an European having relatives that where somehow victimized by the Nazis is dam high. And then, don't you remember that "hmhmhm"-law (Ok, I've forgotten the name), that every discussion has automaticly to end, when Nazis are mentioned ?

To go topicly astray, as member of the German-speakers, I always played with the thought to start a topic on usage of fascist history by German speakers. There is a quote from the current German foreign minister, something like "there is nothing that is not stained". Goethe, Shakespeare, God, the christian churches... everything. Care to translate "a truly great leader" into German ? Tricky. Mephistopheles is everywhere. Would someone care for such a topic ?

BTA worte:

It's the reflection of a difficult world. I think that commission came into being in other times, more idealistic and more full of hope. I think a very famous lady from your country was the first to sign that underlying charta. While the similar commision of European Human Rights (not EU-related) is a very succesfull project, as the project for European Development and Cooperation.

For one, all those countries where former colonies. An organization dominated by former colonial empires that weren't not so true to the ideals that they hold so dear now in their former colonies sticks the finger in the air and says:" no, no, we did that to you yesterday but you are not allowed to do it yourself today !". I think particularly China is known for its grudge against the countries that once assulted it. For one, I think every so-called "occidental country" lacks the ability to really claim to lead by example.

Then I think that plenty of those countries use some argumentation to avoid the universality of human rights. For one, they claim, that those rights are not part of their culture. That they're culture is different and those rights have no meaning for them. I think they even have a "charta of duties of the individual". I think that's humbug.

But I think, before a country can really approach the question of human rights in a meaningful way, it has to get some domestic questions and problems out of its way. Like who leads and how to get food on the table. South-Korea I think has made a great leap from a 3rd-world nation to an economically strong and powerful 1st world nation. With that, they also changed from dictatorship to a democracy. I personally think, that liberalism (original meaning) is more or less a sideeffect of economical progress.

So, I think that the UN-Human-Righs commission is planted in a world worried far more with other, more urging problems and therefore has to adopt a policy of a thousand little steps. And I'd call that adapting to reality.

I also think that many comments about the UN that Prager made are based on a important misjudgment of the world, in my view. The "Occidental Nation" don't have that much impact on the world. I mean, the don't wield that much political influence to force things on others. As I said before, China and a lot of other countries are much to big and powerful to be forced to something. So, in the end, at some point, those appointments have to be given to continents that want also to participate. For whatever reason.

 

Wow. I don't always agree with Dennis Prager, either. But all I can say is I've never seen him write or heard him say anything approaching this. What is going on with him? Saying that he is "revolted" by the EU and that "Europe" had murdered most all of it Jews?

I regard him as a generally enjoyable and often wise commentator, with whom I disagree on some issues like Europe. I do think that he is fearful of what he sees as a rise of new anti-semitism in the world (he is Jewish). I don't mean to make excuses for talk of revulsion and generalized accusations of murder. But I do mean to say he is not usually so extreme, in my exerience.

Btw, his thoughts on the contrasts between the US and Europe are interesting in several respects. Centrally, he feels that between "liberty and equality", there are times when they conflict. He believes the EU most often values equality at such times, and that the US most often values liberty.

 

I am not a fan of Michael Moore OR Dennis Prager. I have never heard Prager say much of anything that was insightful or interesting and Moore is OUR(I am a liberal) version of Rush Limbaugh, much of the time.

I also never opposed the war in Iraq(hope I don't get my liberal jersey stripped!) adn what's more I think there is no BETTER reason than control of oil to go to war(I am like that Vanity Fair writer...(what's his name...? Chris Hutchens or somesuch?)... in this regard.

I also think there is a VAST difference between Israel and the Palestinians.

The Israelies don't strap grenades to children and send them amongst other children and innocent civilians to fulfill the cowardly plans of the terrorist leadership.

My problem with this whole issue? That we have perhaps the dumbest(collectively) administration in US history in charge of this whole gig. As one general recently remarked, we have ALREADY FAILED! it is time to get out of there QUICKLY! America is going to have it's share of "Viet Nam's" and this is one of them. If it were up to me, as a liberal, I would pull out all troops and drop a very large bomb on the entire region and then invite the surviving muslim fanatics to a rational discussion about how we can resolve our differences. I am sure they would be much more receptive to such an invitation after such a large bomb were dropped and the end result would be much LESS loss of lives.

If the Japanese had been dealt with in the way that some are suggesting we deal ith the terrorists then there would be ten times the number of casualties adn who knows how things would have turned out.

Large bombs have a way of jarring people back to reality. "God is greatest" becomes less potent when your entire country was just leveled by a single bomb.

*Dons the asbestos*

[ Don't lump every Muslim or every Palestinian into the same boat. In this context, your solution reeks of genocide. ] - Beren

[ May 01, 2004, 06:40: Message edited by: Beren ]

 

RuneQuester:

They dont have to do this. The Isrealis have helicopters and tanks to kill palestinian civillians. The palestinians dont, so they are fighting back the only way they can.

Sorry mate, but this comment is what strips you of your liberal shirt. Not being anti-war.

 

O.K, those words were a little poorly considered. Apologies. The point I was striving for, was that the Israelis have lots of high tech equipment with which they constantly cause death of palestinian civillians. When they use a helicopter to target a millitant on the street, they kill numerous civillians too. Whether or not they are deliberately targeting civillians is not something I can judge, but they ARE guilty of this by continuing in doing this, knowing they will kill civillians by accident.

 

Sorry Takar but "liberal" does not mean "Anti-war". In addition to being liberal I am also a skeptic/rationalist. I do not buy into JFK conspiracy theories or "Bush orchestrated 9/11!" conspiracies even though many(MOST in the case of JFK)liberals DO believe these things.


Now here is the kicker...I am also a PACIFIST! I do not believe there is ANY GOOD reason for violence. I will NEVER personally own a gun, watch boxing matches etc.

But I also am a REALIST and I know that with an increasing population on a single planet, atrocities such as war MUST occur(unless evolution acts to somehow slow down our capacity for reproduction or somesuch which doesn't seem likely at this time). Having said that if there are going to be large numbers of people dying violently then the best I can hope for is that the people we can really do without(terrorists, fundementalists, serial killers and boy bands) are amongst those doing the dying.

Therefore as a liberal ADN a realist I must support Israel in their efforts to exterminate Palestinian terrorists. IF these terrorists hide behind children and civilians while pointing there RPGs then it is unfortunate that the occasional innocent get caught in the crossfire but this is hardly the fault of Israel(or America). It is the fault of those who feel that using children as bombs and women as shields is their "only means of fighting".

When the white man conquered the native Americans it was not something we should ever be proud of but I think all native Americans CAN be proud that NO Apache, Sioux or Cherokee EVER sent a child with a keg of gunpowder or stick of dynamite into a fort or camp and they did not hide behind their women when firing arrows at their enemies.

 

Firstly I didnt say that being pro-wwar makes you non-liberal. I said saying "Nuke iraq" was what made you a non-liberal.

Secondly, I was watching a news report today. It showed a palestinian woman walking down the street, minding her own buisness. She was doing nothing out of the ordinary, nor waving her arms about....just walking. All of a sudden, she was shot by israeli troops. The question is why? There were no militants about, no RPGs. What did she do? I suppose that's a rhetorical question.
When Israel uses helicopters to attack militants, it's not people hunkered in a crowd, waving an RPG about. It's a man walking down the road, or in a car, doing his normal thing. He is targeted because he's a militant. He isnt shooting, or causing havoc, or using people as shield. The Israelis then fire missiles at him. When he dies, so do civillians around him. These civillians are not human shields. They are passers by. That is why it is murder.

 

EDIT- Here is what you wrote:

Edit again. I realize after re-reading the quote several times that it can be read several ways and you probably intended it to read as you have said...that being pro-war was not what made me "unliberal"(in your estimation) but rather my being "pro-bombing".


I still don't follow your reasoning but then again...how do you define "liberal"?


Your comment was ambiguous enough that it could have been interpreted in different ways but in any case what is more "liberal" to your ears...1)Nuking a region full of terrorists resulting in the deaths of perhaps MOST of the terrosits adn severely crippling the whole faction(understandably many innocents will persish as well which I am not happy about) OR 2) Allow the terrorists to continue...perhaps delivering us a Nick Berg style beheading or a 9/11 type atrocity every year or so indefinitely? IF we had not dropped those two bombs on Japan to end WWII the number of civilian AND military casualties would have been astronomical in comparison.

I have no idea what ACTUALLY took place and you will have to forgive that YOUR interpretation of an alleged news report from who-knows what station with who knows what agenda/bias which I have no way of scrutinizing will not be very helpful to me here.

I truly wish with all my heart that there were some way to magically remove innocent people and isolate them from those mindless zealots who would take advantage of them, abuse them and hide behind them before attacking those savages.

But alas...

Groundless assertion. You would have a different opinion if YOU were an israeli who had watched these "innocents" run into your daycares adn marketplaces shouting "God is great!" before blowing themselves up killing everyone around them. people whose only crime was to be enjoying a meal at the wrong resteurant or riding the wrong bus to work. I am sure the israelis do the best they can with what intelligence they have adn I am also sure they have made mistakes. Terrorists are not enemy soldiers. They are notoriously difficult to fight because they DO hide amongst women, children and the innocent. They discuise themselves as a "simple man walking down the street with no weapons adn minding his own business" adn then dive into a hospital or elementary school and detonate themselves. Israelis do their best to seperate the real innocvetns from the cowardly murderers. I think most of the time they succede.

If you have evidence to the contrary...?

You need to turn off that Al Jezeera station. We have as similar propaganda station here in the US...it is called "FOX News Network".

DOn't believe everything you read or see on TV.

 

How about this ?

 

Runequester, I have no idea how to reply to your post as you've clearly not even tried to address my points. I'm not trying to argue who's right and who's wrong in the middle east. I'm just putting things in perspective, since all that seems to happen is the pro-Israelis fill these boards with their opinions.

Discrediting the news station is a poor attempt to dismiss my point. The report showed camera footage of a harmless woman being shot for no reason. If the station was showing it as properganda, instead of reporting the tragedy of the conflict, then we might as well ban all forms of journalism. Why is highlighting Israeli brutality such a no-no on these boards? people seem to like labelling all palestinians as terrorists.
You say that I'd feel differently if a palestinian blew up a cafe near me. I doubt it. I can seperate a group from a race. Can you? Maybe if you look beyond your hatred of palestinians you'd be able to see that they aren't all out to get Israel, and that they just want their freedom. Freedom from occupation, and freedom from terror at the hands of the Israeli army.

I dont have a problem with Israel targeting militants. I think it is a legitamate form of warfare. My problem is with their methods. Wilfully killing innocent bystanders is never acceptable, no matter what the provocation. These people didnt shoot any Israelis, they were just trying to live their lives. Being killed because they happened to be near a suspected militant is disgusting. It is state sanctioned murder. If the palestinians did this to Israel, the world would be howling for blood. You included no doubt.

 

BOC now that was a funny link. My favorite was

Would it be excessive force if the Israeli's threw stones back? I've always thought that would work better. Put the soldiers in body armor and teach them how to properly throw stones. This way they could save the bullets, grenades, cannon shells, and helicopter rockets for when they really need them.