← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · naBaron
Thread ID: 8203 | Posts: 3 | Started: 2003-07-17
2003-07-17 18:50 | User Profile
I had a lot of hope for Auster, and greatly appreciated his article in the last Occidental Quarterly. But his responses in this comment exchange show a reflexive side I think will be of interest.
**View from the Right Comments [MAIN]
Entry
Questions on the uranium controversy, by Lawrence Auster: "Does anyone know who is supposed to have forged the document indicating Iraq got uranium from Niger, and why thisââ¬Â¦"
Comments
I (like most paleocons and non-Christian/non-Zionist conservatives) opposed the war from the very outset. What is the present VFR position on the war?
Posted by Sporon at July 16, 2003 12:10 PM There is no VFR position on the war, since Mr. Kalb and I had different views about it, though he spoke little about it. I have written and conversed extensively about it, and you could do a search or look through the archives page for any number of threads we have had here. I supported the war as a necessary act of national defense. That view hasnââ¬â¢t changed.
By the way, since Zionism is the movement that brought the Jewish state into existence and has maintained it in existence,** for an American to identity himself (quite gratuitously) as a non-Zionist can only mean one thing: that he is against the existence of the state of Israel. **
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 16, 2003 12:24 PM Some of the most fervent supporters of the war self-identify as ââ¬ÅChristian Zionistsââ¬Â. Is pointing out that Iââ¬â¢m not one of them some sort of crime?
Posted by Sporon at July 16, 2003 12:47 PM I hadnââ¬â¢t heard of ââ¬ÅChristian Zionists,ââ¬Â but by that phrase they obviously mean that they support the existence and safety of the state of Israel against all the forces in the world who lust to destroy it, or who support and make excuses for those who lust to destroy it. **Identifying oneself as the opposite of those who support the existence of the state of Israel carries the self-evident meaning that I indicated. **
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 16, 2003 12:57 PM my guess is the document was some highschool studentââ¬â¢s art project pulled off the web.
Posted by abby at July 16, 2003 01:25 PM ââ¬Åa non-Zionist can only mean one thing: that he is against the existence of the state of Israel.ââ¬Â
An anti-Zionist would be one against the State of Israelââ¬â¢s existence.
A non-Zionist can also mean someone who doesnââ¬â¢t particularly care about Israelââ¬â¢s fate; or alternately, it can also mean one who neither supports nor opposes Israel, one way or the other, rather than being in favour of or opposed to its existence (and thus taking sides in the Israeli-Arab conflict). In other words, a non-Zionist isnââ¬â¢t necessarily anti-Zionist per se; if not anti-Zionist, this could be either because one is apathetic regarding the matter (doesnââ¬â¢t consider it important), or neutral for principled reasons (doesnââ¬â¢t see why one should take one side or the other).
Posted by Will S. at July 16, 2003 02:15 PM Respectifully, I donââ¬â¢t accept Willââ¬â¢s distinction between anti-Zionist and non-Zionist. When half the world wants to destroy Israel, to say ââ¬ÅIââ¬â¢m neutral about itââ¬Â is not a credible position. I stick to what I said: that a person would not go out of his way to identify himself as a ââ¬Ånon-Zionistââ¬Â unless his views were as I said. However, the Israel-Arab dispute was not the topic of my article; I only brought it up because Sporon did. I was seeking explanations of the famous forged uranium document.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 16, 2003 02:52 PM It is a unique semantic situation. There is no term that means ââ¬Åin favor of the existence of Franceââ¬Â. One can be anti-French without being against the existence of France, so certainly one can be anti-Israel without being against the existence of Israel. There is room to oppose France or Israel without wishing for their utter eradication. But because ââ¬Åzionismââ¬Â means ââ¬Åin favor of the existence of Israelââ¬Â is creates a clear dichotomy between those who see the existence of Israel as just as legitimate as the existence of other countries, and those who view Israel as uniquely illegitimate.
Posted by Matt at July 16, 2003 03:21 PM [url=http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/uranium030715_docs.html]http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/uran...30715_docs.html[/url]
It seems an underpaid Nigerian diplomat forged them and sold them to the Italians with only a modest profit for a motive. Or so it seems. The fact that the Niger documents were forged is not in dispute by anyone.
Posted by Jason Eubanks at July 16, 2003 04:31 PM Furthermore this fact about the Niger/Iraq documents was known months prior. The FBI even launched an investigation about who was behind the forgery.
[url=http://www.africaonline.com/site/Articles/1,3,52428.jsp]http://www.africaonline.com/site/Articles/...s/1,3,52428.jsp[/url]
Posted by Jason Eubanks at July 16, 2003 04:36 PM **
2003-07-17 19:14 | User Profile
But isn't Auster known to be Jewish? If so, what was the basis for the high hopes?
2003-07-17 20:13 | User Profile
**But isn't Auster known to be Jewish? If so, what was the basis for the high hopes? **
Ignorance.
Thanks for the tip!