Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: peyton randolph; ninenot; sittnick; steve50; Hegemony Cricket; Cicero; GarySpFc; Wolfie; ...
"Bash the neocons/jews."

It is very cowardly on the neocon side to accuse their critics of antisemitism. Whether several neocons are Jewish or not is not relevant to the merits of neoconservative doctrine.

Seems that neocons, not being able to defend their views, try to claim victim status. How shameful!

25 posted on 01/07/2007 6:24:27 AM PST by A. Pole (Donald Rumsfeld: "Arguments of convenience lack integrity and inevitably trip you up.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: A. Pole
I've had a strange realization lately:

Many of the old Cold Warriors saw communism as primarily a jewish enterprise. They weren't really fighting for America, or freedom, in the Cold War, they were fighting against what they saw as Internationalist Bolshevik Jewry.

Now that we are fighting Jihadis in the middle-east, the old paleo-con Cold Warriors would just as soon see America destroyed as long as Isreal is too. The pro-arab paleo-cons seem 'OK' with Shari'a law, but I don't think they have really thought it through--they are reacting emotionally as much as the leftists are....

There is a weird nexus of interests right now between the Old Right, the New Left, the Arabists and the Jihadis. There is more common cause between Amadinejad and Pat Buchanan than there is between George Bush and Pat Buchanan.

A weird old queen like Greenwald has more common interests right now with a Palestinian rock thrower than with me.

I mean really, the ISG report was a Paleo-con wish list.

I think the Old Right is going to have to stop acting emotionally and support this war even if it tangentially benefits Israel.

34 posted on 01/07/2007 11:02:03 AM PST by Cogadh na Sith (There's an open road from the cradle to the tomb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: A. Pole
The two most popular forms or argument on FreeRepublic these days are:

1) Ad hominem, i.e. your post includes a quote by someone who once said something I found offensive therefore I refuse to entertain your entire argument.

2) The ever popular head-in-the-sand form of argument which usually goes like ... "Stopped reading at {insert word or phrase that poster couldn't take the time to comprehend}"

57 posted on 01/08/2007 9:06:32 AM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson