I have no love for the Russian Revolution, and I regard Lenin as a criminal; in other words, I am not saying this to praise him. I am saying it to point out how the world really works. It works in favour of people who have a vision and a plan, and who are even willing to subject their own egos to their visions. Lenin was quite clear about the need to kill rather a lot of people to achieve the kind of society he wanted. He also understood opposing points of view well enough to make people feel, when he spoke, that all possible viewpoints had been considered, and the most practical one adopted. It is not surprising that the most famous of his writing had the simple title: "What is to be done?"
Lenin, as I said, was quite clear about killing people. You, on the other hand, are an anti-Semite and do not know it. You suggest that Jews danced with joy at the sight of the Twin Towers burning, and that the enormous number of seventy Israeli agents were smuggled out of the country after that; classic anti-Semitic fables, well known to anyone who has dabbled in that odious phenomenon. And yet you get angry at me when I point it out. That is another part of that disassociation I pointed out earlier - your having two very different standards, one for the way you are allowed to speak and act, and another for how others are allowed to speak and act to you. At least David Irving and John M.Allegro are quite clear that they do not like Jews. You walk in total delusion and think you are in the light.
Your views on the Middle East are so fabulously ignorant that there would be no point in even commenting on them, were it not that there is no excuse for a graduate to be ignorant in these matters unless the ignorance in question is a choice - that is, unless she refuses to know because any actual facts would conflict with her will. Your will is to believe that Bush and the Neocons and the Jooooos conspired to send America to war in the Middle East, and that they committed a peculiarly horrible crime - even rejoiced in it - for the purpose. That your imagination naturally gravitates to this kind of scenario, that you find it natural that people in politics should do this sort of thing, says all that needs to be said about your mental balance. After this sort of display, I cannot but regard your "excuse me" before using the word "Hell" as the rankest kind of hypocrisy. You are willing to accuse George W.Bush of deliberate mass murder, but you pretend to be ashamed to use strong language. Again, psychic disassociation.
You will inevitably ignore everything I say, if indeed your self-love has allowed you to plough through this far. You do not want to know that the US would sooner or later have had to re-start the never-properly-ended war against Saddam Hussein; that Saddam was leaving them no choice. You are bent on believing that the invasion of Iran was a pointless crime. Well, go on, if you insist. The facts are different, but that will not bother you.
The Middle East is one thing I have no desire to write about, but let us be clear on one thing: Saddam Hussein had to be put down. He was a throwback to Bismarck's nineteenth century, or indeed to the Dark Ages, a man who believed that making war was the natural business of a state. He came to power in 1978. Within a year, he was invading Iran, hoping that the Khomeini revolution had disorganized the country enough to wage a war of conquest. The plan failed (not least thanks to his military incompetence) and the two countries fought a purposeless war of attrition for eight years, losing over a million men. Untaught by this bloody lesson, as soon as the war with Iran was over he turned against his other neighbour, Syria, and I well recall that in the summer of 1990 he seemed fully about to go to war - he had even been building up a casus belli by supporting the losing side in Lebanon. However, he was distracted by an apparently weaker and juicier morsel - rotten strategy, again - and, by his stupid invasion of Kuwait, brought down the wrath of the world on himself.
I think it is my duty... part 3
Lenin, as I said, was quite clear about killing people. You, on the other hand, are an anti-Semite and do not know it. You suggest that Jews danced with joy at the sight of the Twin Towers burning, and that the enormous number of seventy Israeli agents were smuggled out of the country after that; classic anti-Semitic fables, well known to anyone who has dabbled in that odious phenomenon. And yet you get angry at me when I point it out. That is another part of that disassociation I pointed out earlier - your having two very different standards, one for the way you are allowed to speak and act, and another for how others are allowed to speak and act to you. At least David Irving and John M.Allegro are quite clear that they do not like Jews. You walk in total delusion and think you are in the light.
Your views on the Middle East are so fabulously ignorant that there would be no point in even commenting on them, were it not that there is no excuse for a graduate to be ignorant in these matters unless the ignorance in question is a choice - that is, unless she refuses to know because any actual facts would conflict with her will. Your will is to believe that Bush and the Neocons and the Jooooos conspired to send America to war in the Middle East, and that they committed a peculiarly horrible crime - even rejoiced in it - for the purpose. That your imagination naturally gravitates to this kind of scenario, that you find it natural that people in politics should do this sort of thing, says all that needs to be said about your mental balance. After this sort of display, I cannot but regard your "excuse me" before using the word "Hell" as the rankest kind of hypocrisy. You are willing to accuse George W.Bush of deliberate mass murder, but you pretend to be ashamed to use strong language. Again, psychic disassociation.
You will inevitably ignore everything I say, if indeed your self-love has allowed you to plough through this far. You do not want to know that the US would sooner or later have had to re-start the never-properly-ended war against Saddam Hussein; that Saddam was leaving them no choice. You are bent on believing that the invasion of Iran was a pointless crime. Well, go on, if you insist. The facts are different, but that will not bother you.
The Middle East is one thing I have no desire to write about, but let us be clear on one thing: Saddam Hussein had to be put down. He was a throwback to Bismarck's nineteenth century, or indeed to the Dark Ages, a man who believed that making war was the natural business of a state. He came to power in 1978. Within a year, he was invading Iran, hoping that the Khomeini revolution had disorganized the country enough to wage a war of conquest. The plan failed (not least thanks to his military incompetence) and the two countries fought a purposeless war of attrition for eight years, losing over a million men. Untaught by this bloody lesson, as soon as the war with Iran was over he turned against his other neighbour, Syria, and I well recall that in the summer of 1990 he seemed fully about to go to war - he had even been building up a casus belli by supporting the losing side in Lebanon. However, he was distracted by an apparently weaker and juicier morsel - rotten strategy, again - and, by his stupid invasion of Kuwait, brought down the wrath of the world on himself.