Sunday, August 23, 2009

Lockerbie and Guantanamo: YMGPFM

My twin has a piece up at the Huffington Post arguing that Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi return to Libya is an argument for keeping the Guantanamo prisoners in the United States. The argument in essence is that if we keep them in the US we will have better control over what happens to them in the long run. I am however, somewhat jealous: His piece has already gotten him called all sorts of nasty names. Nothing I blog about seems to ever do that.

7 comments:

Shalmo said...

name-calling only takes place when you are arguing with a wall

In the case of JP or Garnel, the reason so much name-calling happens on their blogs is because of the outlandish theological and political positions they ascribe to.

Shalmo said...

If you want name-calling on your blog, then try some of these topics:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

If you are not familiar with this portal it does generate plenty of comments, heated debate, and well sought after articles by dissidents. All backgrounds contribute and read. ...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23342.htm

Regards

Joshua said...

I'm not sure that's completely true. While that may be true on occasion the issue seems to me often to not be so much the presence of walls but rather of fundamentally different starting premises and worldviews. But that's not the only issue. Sometimes people engage in insults because they really lack any coherent critique.

eddie said...

If you crave name-calling, try advocating that the detainees get fair trials. Then when they are aquitted, as there is no evidence (your new obama administration still claims there _is_ evidence but refuses to make it public, just like the creationists), they can be released and compensated for their illegal abduction and torture.
Similarly with the Megrahi case; there was no fair trial, just a panel of judges and no jury, with little of the evidence made public.
What gets me the most is that those most vocal families of the victims of pan am 103 bombing are the most right-wing. At the time, they were vocal reagan supporters and they simply bought the lies about libya's WMDs. Where evidence was sought, it pointed to the iran-contra treason of reagan and north; that agents on behalf of reagan and north planted the bomb on 103, thinking it was one of the heroin shipments they were using to fund the fascists in central america.

FrumCurious said...

Hi! Thanks for commenting.

What other negative views have you seen from Chabad? I'm fully aware of their negative views of non-jews: almost every orthodox person I've contacted really tries to avoid associating with goys. It's very prevlant in the area I live as well, but it's really because the chabad here is in a town where it's mostly WASPs and we happen to have a large KKK population about an hour away....that do protests near my hometown about once a year. It's scary!

I digress, please, do tell.

Shalmo said...

"I consequently have decided to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that was launched by Palestinian activists in July 2005 and has since garnered widespread support around the globe. The objective is to ensure that Israel respects its obligations under international law and that Palestinians are granted the right to self-determination.

Nothing else has worked. Putting massive international pressure on Israel is the only way to guarantee that the next generation of Israelis and Palestinians -- my two boys included -- does not grow up in an apartheid regime."

http://counterpunch.com/gordon08242009.html

Joshua said...

Shalmo, could you maybe, just maybe try a tiny bit to stay on topic?

Frumcurious, replied back at your blog.