Interesting tactic, Poirot: when you can't come up with anything to cover the nakedness of your argument, divert.

So this thread is about what ? 'what are the underlying purposes of the Islamist attacks on police in Sydney a couple of weeks back' ?

So let's see, how can we divert attention from this blatantly conservative, somehow-anti-US, reactionary bunch ?

I know, let's talk about how evil the US was in its dealings with Iran sixty years ago. Yeah, that should do it. Nasty US, democratic Mossadegh.

From there, we could, if necessary, rabbit on about the Iranian film industry. Then from there, about innovations in film generally. Or about the Turkish film industry - it doesn't matter, as long as we stay away from talking about Islamism and its reactionary agenda, and why sections of the Left are opening their legs to it.

So, from Turkish film, we can go on to talk about what ? The role of Turkish expatriates in artistic work around the world; the place of film in a post-post-modern world; what Foucault might have said about Turkish film; how Turkish films might have dealt with a film-biography of Foucault - no, keep away from that one.

Foucault's shoe size ? His favourite ice-cream ? Contemporary Uzbek poetry ?

But the key is: to find anything that might divert attention away from the core issues, when one has no idea how to rally to the support of a bunch of ractionaries and their Trot followers.

Congratulations, Poirot, you almost got away with it. Brilliant !

Cheers,

Joe



:)

Yabby,

Sorry for leading you astray into taking about non-core stuff. Apparently when I bring anything up outside the core issue of this thread, it's called "diversion".

So apologies for "diverting".

I note that when others do it, it's referred to as being "slightly off topic"...and apparently being "slightly off topic" is just fine and dandy.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5377&page=0#146749

*Sorry for leading you astray*

Sheesh Poirot, you can lead me astray anytime :)

Dear Danielle,

The Middle East has been poorly served by their leaders and the effort required to oust them is often enormous and costly. They usually are supported by outside interests much to the detriment of their people and deals with the more stridently religious is a price ruling elietes are prepared to pay.

It would be difficult to call any of the Abrahamic faiths progressive. All, when given largely untempered power, do themselves great disservice.

In a piece for the ABC's The Drum Ben Knight makes the point; “If you think Israelis and Palestinians don't see eye to eye, the gulf between secular Israelis and the ultra-orthodox religious is probably just as wide.”

He continues;

“Secular couples have, on average, around two children per couple. Haredi couples have closer to eight or nine. And it's changing the very identity of Israel – away from the secular, socialist civil society it was created as in 1948 – to something quite different.

To see it in action, you only need to take a peek inside an Israeli school.

Israeli's government funds three streams of education; regular state schools, ultra-orthodox religious schools, and Israeli Arab schools.

Back in 1960, only around 15 per cent of Israeli children were enrolled in religious or Arab schools.

That figure is now around 50 per cent. In 30 years, it will be almost 80 per cent. That is a frightening statistic for the nation of Israel.

Arab Israelis have long had lower education, and higher unemployment levels.

But the real problem is in the religious stream.

In religious schools, children don't learn mathematics, science, or English; only the Bible. All day, every day. And Haredi men are expected to - and do - continue that Bible study for the rest of their lives.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-23/knight-make-no-mistake-israels-existence-is-under-threat/2935080

In what ways do you see this impending version of Israel (still nuclear armed) different from other regimes in the Middle East?

Dear Danielle,

As an aside I was thinking of those many of Americans living out life sentences in horrendously overcrowded prisons, sometimes without the chance of parole, for minor offences because of the 'three strikes and your out' rule currently operating in many states, Both are punishments are incredibly inhumane and I can't help wondering how many would be prepared to lose a hand to be free and with their families?

Dear Jayb,

If Military Law Manual Book 5, Section 7 is the best that can be thrown at my hypothetical then I think it makes its point.

Csteele,

You are absolutely correct about the corrosiveness of Jewish fundamentalism. The majority of Jews in Israel, perhaps are even secular, recognise the problems with this particular group. They have large families, their education does not fit them for life beyond their insular existence. The men devote their lives to study, they do not work, and they do not bear arms. In fact, they contribute nothing to their society ... they would argue that by prayer and study they are preserving the state of Israel. They are a drain on the public purse. From what I understand, any disapproval is quite mutual.