Reply to Tim


Well, it seems that Tim has joined a conversation over at Ethical Martini.

I am highly amused at his descriptions of the respective blogs.

Tumeke’s mildly left-of-centre-ish in a libertarian pro-capital kind of way; Whaleoil is hard-right. Keeping Stock and SSGHML are variants of  some weird Christian intermediate thingy which both lean heavily rightwards.

My tagline (which alas does not show on this theme) is suitably updated!

He suggests this is a case of blog rankings rivalry. Here’s my reply. I’ve added a couple of comments in brackets.

Tim, my problem is this.

You are in this post promoting something, which taken to it’s end point will result in genocide.

We know where whipping up hatred towards jews ends up – we’ve seen it. Yet you seem to want us to sit there and pretend that “wiping off the map” half of all jews in the world is ok, but waterboarding 3 terrorists is not.

I can accept that your view on Palestine is different – it’s a complicated place. I differ from many of my readers in believing that one can oppose the Jewish state and not be anti-semetic. But I strongly believe you cannot believe in wiping Israel off the map without being fine with killing half of the Jewish race and hence being anti-semetic.

What I cannot accept is your description of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s raving lunatic comments as “all true”. They’re not, and they’re designed to achieve the same outcome as Hitler and you know it. Suggesting that NZ’s absence to hear him is somehow a US conspiracy is absolutely insulting and absurd. This guy has to be stopped, not encouraged. Yet you seem more concerned about criticizing the American press.

Now I have put in work on my own time to help you in YOUR stats. This is work I did NOT have to do, yet I have repeatedly offered it for nothing. I was quite prepared to put in the time to help you develop something where you could publish ranking daily if you wished, with no more than a single click of the mouse.

I’m sorry, but I have real problems doing something to help another human being who suggests opposing such racism and bigotry needs some sort of conspiracy. I have better uses for my time.

Worse, in my email to you, I stated “I will have to think about what to do with my own blog rankings.” Prehaps that wasn’t clear enough – consider them suspended.

Frankly, I couldn’t give a stuff about “who’s rankings are better – yours are. Mine are crap, it’s a formula which is totally absurd and I’ve never said anything different AFAIK. I published them to prove that it could be done faster, but now it’s a millstone and just gives me a headache twice a month.

I was going to call you a coward for commenting here without replying to my email, but since I didn’t comment on your post, that would be a fair cop.

The post on Whale Oil was, I admit a bit OTT in it’s conclusions. It was not that helpful and I’ll go on the record here that I had more than a little to do with it. Mea Culpa.

I was shocked at the way that the Gaza conflict divided some blogs, and the polarization that it created. I did not want to open that can of worms again, yet I cannot help a sinking feeling that New Zealand’s government is being abused for opposing the very guy who could easily start the next Holocaust.

And he’s doing it under the false pretence that Israel’s defensive actions are slaughtering of innocents indiscriminately – because any objective measure shows they are not.

6 comments

  1. Israel, the characterisation of Israel’s attacks as defensive is a bit odd.
    Using chemical weapons, helicopter gunships and fighter-bombers to attack and destroy clearly civilian targets doesn’t seem very defensive against small arms and fireworks.

  2. It isn’t odd. Defensive is correct, as opposed to your expectation that the action to stop rocket and small arms should be equally futile (futile in the sense only 5 people should die if random rocket fire into Israel happens to kill 5 people in any equal amount of time.)

    The issue about firing on civilians is a consequence of Hamas terrorists hiding amongst civilians. That might make such an attack unethical (just as firing from behind civilians is unethical) but it still can be argued as defensive.

    Israel could have easily killed tens of thousands had they wished, but they restricted attacks to locations where terrorists fire from, and warned civilians to keep away.

    They killed only slightly more than Hamas killed themselves when they fought for power against Fatah a few years earlier. Not much is ever made of Palestinian killing Palestinian though, obviously not a human rights issue.

    The right or wrong about what they did about stopping rocket attacks is a separate issue to the argument that this was or was not a defensive action.

  3. Sorry Zen: you did say “slightly more”? The Palestinian death toll was well over 1000, on the Israeli side “slightly” less by a factor of 20+.
    Stop it before you go blind.
    Dribblejaws all.

    1. EM: What on earth are you going on about? Israel was not involved in the Hamas purges.

      I guess when you don’t even read what people say before replying, that puts a whole new spin on your “Dribblejaws all” jab 🙂

    1. Yet this is what is claimed: that Israel is deliberately going out and killing as many Palestinians as possible.

      Clearly they did not, the suggestion is patently absurd. WOBH had a mathematician analysis at the time which quite simply proved beyond all doubt that Israel was targeting terrorists very carefully indeed.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: