tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post1295641406954525892..comments2024-03-01T08:19:54.547+00:00Comments on BobFromBrockley: The ideas meme: Sackcloth and Ashesbobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-31206012263104267712011-01-21T22:40:58.392+00:002011-01-21T22:40:58.392+00:00And I ask you again, skidmark. Davenport. Right or...And I ask you again, skidmark. Davenport. Right or Wrong?sackcloth and ashesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-53761313386932546992011-01-21T22:39:41.931+00:002011-01-21T22:39:41.931+00:00Aside from the fact that Voltaire never came out w...Aside from the fact that Voltaire never came out with that quote (it was invented by one of his biographers), I think that comparing yourself with one of the luminaries of the enlightenment represents the depths of stupidity on your part. Particularly as when your party was involved in the 'RESPECT' fiasco you teamed up with the very theocrats Voltaire hated. Hence his statement 'ecrasez l'infame'.<br /><br />''Davenport, right or wrong? Answer'.<br />So you can establish a post-hoc justification for your stream of libellous misrepresentations?'<br /><br />No skidmark. The fact is that you still lack the guts to answer a straightforward question. <br /><br />'Funny, I don't see the SWP anywhere in that list'.<br /><br />(Facepalm). Got any comment to make on Comrade McGarr's statement?<br /><br />''Michael Erza has been through the back issues of that shitty and misnamed rag 'Socialist Worker', and begs to differ'<br /><br />'And I seem to remember that johng in particular (you remember the guy you keep making ad hominem attacks on over his educational achievements, possibly to compensate for your failures in the field)'<br /><br />Projecting again, skidmark?<br /><br />'put him straight in the following thread'.<br /><br />Yet again, I wish HP kept its threads (which it ceased doing after it was subjected to a malicious hacking attack inspired by a BNP loon called Lee John Barnes). The exchange actually went like this.<br /><br /><br />johng: The SWP condemned the Khmer Rouge once evidence of its crimes against humanity were published.<br /><br />Ezra: No it didn't. I've been through all the back issues and there isn't a mention of Cambodia after the articles I quoted. <br /><br />johng: (Silence).<br /><br /><br />So yet again, skidmark, you are either proving to us that you have the memory of a goldfish. Or you're lying through your teeth.sackcloth and ashesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-61356996801355017912011-01-20T19:01:01.043+00:002011-01-20T19:01:01.043+00:00McCarthy's victims were honourable people, not...<i>McCarthy's victims were honourable people, not Strasserite scum.</i><br /><br />Not a fan of <a href="http://ask.yahoo.com/20030331.html" rel="nofollow">Voltaire</a> then?<br /><br /><i>Davenport, right or wrong? Answer.</i><br />So you can establish a post-hoc justification for your stream of libellous misrepresentations?<br /><br /><i> Here's the stats from SIPRI on arms supplies to Iraq between 1973-2002:</i><br />Funny, I don't see the SWP anywhere in that list.<br /><br /><i>Michael Erza has been through the back issues of that shitty and misnamed rag 'Socialist Worker', and begs to differ</i><br />And I seem to remember that johng in particular (you remember the guy you keep making <i>ad hominem</i> attacks on over his educational achievements, possibly to compensate for your failures in the field) put him straight in the following thread, but then with HP running scared of libel actions because of the sewer that your ilk have made of its comments boxes we may never be able to see.<br /><br /><i>The SWP. Totally not in favour of keeping Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq. </i><br />Indeed. Still opposed to imperialist bloodbaths with it. I think I can recall Rob Hoveman pointing out the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja at an SWP meeting at the time the Americans were siding with Iraq in the latter stages of its war with Iran.skidmarxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-24276408414251276052011-01-19T13:39:35.022+00:002011-01-19T13:39:35.022+00:00Paul McGarr, 'Socialist Worker', 23 March ...Paul McGarr, 'Socialist Worker', 23 March 2003:<br /><br />'The best response to war would be protests across the globe which make it impossible for Bush and Blair to continue. But while war lasts by far the lesser evil would be reverses, or defeat, for the US and British forces'.<br /><br />The SWP. Totally not in favour of keeping Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq. Skidmark must think that everyone is as stupid as he is.sackcloth and ashesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-14971694034575221072011-01-19T13:36:26.918+00:002011-01-19T13:36:26.918+00:00'I recently saw a documentary by those damned ...'I recently saw a documentary by those damned Russkies in which a Vietnam veteran explained that he saw how genocidal the war was when he heard that they had reformulated napalm to make it stick to the skins of its victims better'. <br /><br />Wars tend to be pretty nasty, skidmark. And I suppose you think that when the other side killed fellow Vietnamese (as they did in their thousands) they did it in a nice, painless and humane way.<br /><br />'Your appeal to the left to turn into anti-communists isn't a suggestion for anti-Stalinism, but for a return to McCathyism,'<br /><br />McCarthy's victims were honourable people, not Strasserite scum.<br /><br />'which your style of smear and false exposure already exemplifies'.<br /><br />Davenport, right or wrong? Answer please.sackcloth and ashesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-24242602231048001612011-01-19T13:33:37.820+00:002011-01-19T13:33:37.820+00:00'I haven't endorsed genocide denial anywhe...'I haven't endorsed genocide denial anywhere, so you shouldn't have started in the first place.'<br /><br />Davenport, right or wrong? Answer.<br /><br />'And of course the SWP was condemning the attacks on the Kurds at the same time as the Americans you so admire were selling Saddam weapons'.<br /><br />Wow, that's a new one. Now skidmark's telling me that Scuds, MiGs, T-72s, Kalashnikovs etc are made by Uncle Sam. Here's the stats from SIPRI on arms supplies to Iraq between 1973-2002:<br /><br />USSR - 57.26% of total.<br />France - 12.74%<br />China - 11.82%<br />Czechoslovakia - 6.56% *<br />Poland - 3.83% *<br />Brazil - 1.65%<br />Egypt - 1.29%<br />Romania - 1.19% *<br />Denmark - 0.51%<br />Libya - 0.46%<br />USA - 0.46% <br /><br />* All prior to 1989.<br /><br />(See SIPRI Arms Transfer Database - 'Imported Weapons to Iraq in 1973-2002, 5th March 2003).<br /><br />'The idea that it, or its forerunner the IS supported Pol Pot is laughable, and shows the extent to which you are just a block to any sort of intelligent discussion, and a simple witch-hunter who only ever makes false accusations'.<br /><br />Is that a fact? Michael Erza has been through the back issues of that shitty and misnamed rag 'Socialist Worker', and begs to differ. <br /><br />http://hurryupharry.org/2010/12/14/the-swp-and-the-eichmanns-of-cambodia/sackcloth and ashesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-37324521662518972472011-01-17T10:59:01.109+00:002011-01-17T10:59:01.109+00:00I haven't endorsed genocide denial anywhere, s...I haven't endorsed genocide denial anywhere, so you shouldn't have started in the first place.<br />And of course the SWP was <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6yqwyff" rel="nofollow">condemning the attacks on the Kurds</a> at the same time as the Americans you so admire were selling Saddam weapons.<br />The idea that it, or its forerunner the IS supported Pol Pot is laughable, and shows the extent to which you are just a block to any sort of intelligent discussion, and a simple witch-hunter who only ever makes false accusations. <br /><br />I recently saw a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gendYmvs098" rel="nofollow">documentary</a> by those damned Russkies in which a Vietnam veteran explained that he saw how genocidal the war was when he heard that they had reformulated napalm to make it stick to the skins of its victims better. Your appeal to the left to turn into anti-communists isn't a suggestion for anti-Stalinism, but for a return to McCathyism, which your style of smear and false exposure already exemplifies.<br /><br />Which brings me to Bob's point, yes like most terms of abuse it is liable to overuse, perhaps you should. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> wikipedia on the subject, most relevant may be Michael Harrington's use of it to describe former leftists, though Joe Klein's comment that "today's neoconservatives are more interested in confronting enemies than in cultivating friends" might accurately descibe one of the memes from this post.skidmarxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-67462693713108609262011-01-16T14:05:25.481+00:002011-01-16T14:05:25.481+00:00'"I do not have 'polite and intellige...'"I do not have 'polite and intelligent' conversations"<br /><br />As Sisko said to the Kardassian tailor, "I think that's the first entirely truthful thing I've heard you say."'<br /><br />What a truly pathetic example of quoting out of context that is. I bet you're preening yourself over your wit.<br /><br />Now tell me some lies about Rwanda.sackcloth and ashesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-79147049572349297722011-01-16T14:03:43.407+00:002011-01-16T14:03:43.407+00:00'"I have repeatedly given you the opportu...'"I have repeatedly given you the opportunity to clarify your position on where you stand on this issue,"<br /><br />So that you can libel me more? You ascribed to me then views that I haven't formed, and have badgered me ever since to provide grist to your mill so that your lies might have some substance in retrospect"'.<br /><br />Skidmark, you have now gone so far you your arse you can scratch your tonsils with your nose.<br /><br />If you want to stop me (briefly using your own twisted excuse for logic) from 'lying' about your views, it's quite simple. You could say 'I think Davenport is wrong', or 'I have blundered into a subject I know nothing about, and I need to do some remedial reading. Disregard anything I've said up till now as mis-informed'. Either way, you will clarify that you do not endorse genocide denial on Rwanda, and that will be the end of that.<br /><br />But what your continued ranting shows is that you know that you stand alongside pseudo-scholars and ghouls who have made it their job to spread disinformation and outright lies about one of the worst acts of genocide committed in the latter half of the twentieth century - being up there with 'Year Zero' and 'Al Anfal', both committed by two regimes the SWP has acted as apologists for. All of which demonstrates my essential point, which is that you and your kind pollute the leftist cause in Britain, and that genuine progressives should spurn you as they would members of the far-right. Because essentially you and they are the same breed (or spawn, I should say).sackcloth and ashesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-89876774669502326182011-01-15T20:10:07.241+00:002011-01-15T20:10:07.241+00:00Anonymous writes:
'Skid uses the term “right-w...Anonymous writes:<br /><em>'Skid uses the term “right-wing” as an insult, both here and in his other recent comment, just as his ilk at the Hoare/Gibbs thread at Mod’s place use “neocon”. Using these words as substitutes for criticism indicates a refusal to think through the actual content of the ideas.'<br /><br />Isn't it funny that British neocons try to pretend that "neocon" has no meaning. Why are you so ashamed of being associated with your ideological partners on the other side of the Atlantic? They describe themselves as neoconservatives, what's your problem? </em><br /><br />Obviously "neocon" has even less meaning than I thought if I am being accused of being one! What does the term mean? And who is it that disseminated the term in our political discourse?bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-34495863285199610182011-01-15T11:14:12.422+00:002011-01-15T11:14:12.422+00:00I have repeatedly given you the opportunity to cla...<i>I have repeatedly given you the opportunity to clarify your position on where you stand on this issue,</i><br />So that you can libel me more? You ascribed to me then views that I haven't formed, and have badgered me ever since to provide grist to your mill so that your lies might have some substance in retrospect. I really haven't considered the question further since then, as it seems easier to point out what an obsessive liar you are, than to bother to engage with the demads of someone seemingly incapable of any honesty. <br />Of course there was one time I let up and pointed out that I didn't think all the blame for the deaths in Rwanda fell on the RPF, which you then reproduced repeatedly as me saying that the RPF was entirely responsible (or something of that order, with the threads deleted because HP realise that libelling people repeatedly is not a smart thing to leave on the internet indefinitely I can't be sure). If I had firm views on what happened I might defend them even to an arsehole like you. But I'm not going to "clarify" them just to give you sopmething to hang your lies on.<br /><br /><i>I do not have 'polite and intelligent' conversations</i><br />As Sisko said to the Kardassian tailor, "I think that's the first entirely truthful thing I've heard you say."<br /><br />As <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1486318" rel="nofollow">Adrian Mitchell</a> would say,or perhaps not, I'm sick of your denial of American atrocities.skidmarxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-8325628694877768752011-01-14T18:53:09.282+00:002011-01-14T18:53:09.282+00:00Furthermore, if we are to look at civilian deaths ...Furthermore, if we are to look at civilian deaths in the South, there is of course no indication from Hanoi as to how many were killed by the North Vietnamese or the VC. You may have heard of the Hue massacre, skidmark. Or maybe not.<br /><br />All in all, classing what is a major inter-state and intra-state conflict (Vietnam) as akin to a systematic genocide (Rwanda) just goes to show what a stupid, ill-informed and unpleasant little shit you are. Which is why of course you gravitated towards the SWP.sackcloth and ashesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-2827116488543526732011-01-14T18:46:42.082+00:002011-01-14T18:46:42.082+00:00Continuing - you will notice that the Vietnamese g...Continuing - you will notice that the Vietnamese give the figure of an additional 2m dead for the same time frame (1954-1975), but admit that they have not counted ARVN or other military/security force deaths. I point this out because someone as inherently dishonest as you will not. <br /><br />Hanoi provides the following figures for the bombing campaigns - Rolling Thunder (1965-1968) and Linebacker I and II (1972). 52,000 civilian dead from 'Rolling Thunder', and at least 1,623 from the two Linebacker campaigns. The mayors of Hanoi and Haiphong reported 1,318 and 305 dead respectively (see Clodfelter, 'Limits of Air Power', pp.136-137, p. 195 - yet another 'non-existent' scholar for you to ignore).sackcloth and ashesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-1512616535388309932011-01-14T18:39:16.223+00:002011-01-14T18:39:16.223+00:00'And the parallel with your denial of the exte...'And the parallel with your denial of the extent of the American killings in Vietnam shows(on the basis of some almost non-existent scholarship claimed to be based on Vietnamese figures'<br /><br />skidmark, the conflict in Vietnam happens to be something called a 'war'. As for 'non-existent scholarship', I could refer you (as I've consistently done) to Rummel, Record, DeGroot, Lewy, Kutler et al. But then just like the sources I highlighted on Rwanda, you obviously won't read them.<br /><br />As I have also pointed out, Hanoi admitted to 1.1m military casualties for both the North Vietnamese Army and the VC (see press clipping from NYT, dated 22 April 1995). <br /><br />http://www.virtual.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/232/2322414020.pdfsackcloth and ashesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-19321347237024250612011-01-14T18:30:18.502+00:002011-01-14T18:30:18.502+00:00'in the areas of a left blogosphere where more...'in the areas of a left blogosphere where more polite and intelligent conduct occurs'<br /><br />I do not have 'polite and intelligent' conversations with people I do not respect, and that includes members of the red-brown fraternity like yourself. And as I will never tire of telling you, you are not a part of the left, you belong to its totalitarian, crackpot fringe and have no place to count yourself amongst those committed to genuine progressive politics.sackcloth and ashesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-67532184240891784212011-01-14T18:26:53.349+00:002011-01-14T18:26:53.349+00:00'As long as you carry on misrepresenting what ...'As long as you carry on misrepresenting what I said I'm entitled to point out what a lying piece of trash you are'.<br /><br />Skidmark, you have taken umbrage at the description of Davenport as a genocide denier, even though he is engaged in genocide denial, and even though no scholar or genuine expert on Rwandan history and politics who treats his output as anything other than a distortion of the historical record.<br /><br />I have repeatedly given you the opportunity to clarify your position on where you stand on this issue, but since your comments on the Shiraz thread last August you have refused to provide any straighforward and honest answer to a simple question - Who do you believe provides the correct version of events in Rwanda from April-June 1994, Davenport or his detractors?<br /><br />That is a simple and unambiguous question, but your only response is to rant about misrepresentation. It is patently obvious that the only reason you do not want to provide an answer is because it will belie your claims that you are anything other than Strasserite filth. Just like the rest of the SWP.sackcloth and ashesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-58746245192086070182011-01-14T17:05:14.956+00:002011-01-14T17:05:14.956+00:00stop claiming I misrepresented what you wrote.
As ...<i>stop claiming I misrepresented what you wrote.</i><br />As long as you carry on misrepresenting what I said I'm entitled to point out what a lying piece of trash you are. What's likely to stop me is more boredom than anything else.<br />"Makes me think" implies an inclination towards an argument that challenges the notion that the genocide was all that's going on, precisely on grounds that the figures don't verify its correctness,nothing more. And what tended me to consider the argument seriously? The screeching on the thread by yourself and others that anyone who might consider the argument that the figures don't stack up is engaging in genocide denial themselves.<br /> That is a really bad cheapening of the serious offence that denial of verifiable mass murder is, placing as it does really genocide deniers as simply part of of a broader mass of people whose crime is to do some thinking of which you disapprove.<br /><br />Again, in the areas of a left blogosphere where more polite and intelligent conduct occurs, someone questioning a point I made would be far more likely to accept my interpretation of a statement of mine they disagreed with, not twist everything I say with their own interpretation of what it "really" means. You are a chronically dishonest debater, and deserve to have your ignorant and twisting ways exposed, and not considered as a valuable contributor to notions of left behaviour by anyone who can rub two brain cells together.And the parallel with your denial of the extent of the American killings in Vietnam shows(on the basis of some almost non-existent scholarship claimed to be based on Vietnamese figures; I'm sure if I bothered to check the official Vietnamese figures would be nothing like as low as claimed, but you're simply not worth taking the effort over)how hypocritical it is for you to libel someone as a genocide denier for being prepared to consider an analysis which doesn't deny the genocide but says there was more to events in Rwanda, when you are openly denying the extent of the slaughter of the Vietnamese.skidmarxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-86743300882597208652011-01-14T16:33:57.719+00:002011-01-14T16:33:57.719+00:00'Skid uses the term “right-wing” as an insult,...'Skid uses the term “right-wing” as an insult, both here and in his other recent comment, just as his ilk at the Hoare/Gibbs thread at Mod’s place use “neocon”. Using these words as substitutes for criticism indicates a refusal to think through the actual content of the ideas.'<br /><br />Isn't it funny that British neocons try to pretend that "neocon" has no meaning. Why are you so ashamed of being associated with your ideological partners on the other side of the Atlantic? They describe themselves as neoconservatives, what's your problem?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-38338121865423902922011-01-14T12:14:41.853+00:002011-01-14T12:14:41.853+00:00Skidmark, these are your own remarks.
'I used...Skidmark, these are your own remarks.<br /><br />'I used to buy into the RPF view of the events in Rwanda. Even after reading a couple of well-written articles at the Tomb last year I still tended to think that the genocide should give Kagame and co. a lot of leeway. But the weakness of the argument put forward here and its support makes me think that the other view was right all along'.<br /><br />This is what you are implying.<br /><br />'RPF view' = Established and verified accounts of the genocide.<br />'the other view' = Davenport's pseudo-scholarship. <br /><br />That's the end of that. So stop claiming I misrepresented what you wrote.sackcloth and ashesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-76327261328273710112011-01-14T11:23:29.862+00:002011-01-14T11:23:29.862+00:00it deliberately implies that their output is propa...<i>it deliberately implies that their output is propaganda </i><br />No it doesn't. And even if there were such an implication wrongly taken, there is nothing deliberate about the implication, though perhaps something deliberate about your misinterpretation.<br /><br /><i>You also state quite openly that you support Davenport's myth-making,</i><br />No I don't. I state as I have all along that I think the the abuse heaped on him is unwarranted, for the reasons BenSix gave earlier in the thread.Your twisting of my words here shows why I'm disinclined to bother investigating your sources further: if you had said at the beginning that you disagree with what Davenport said and put a coherent case for why he's wrong and why that might show that his thinking and methodology is so skewed as to make his views beyond the pale, I might have given your opinion respect and engaged with it and looked at your sources to see if they put a convincing case. But instead you have tried to lambast me as a genocide denier in a quite outrageous piece of libel, compounded by your use of the libel as a piece of whatabouttery on dozens of unrelated threads. When you are still twisting my words with such claims that I am "stating quite openly" what I am clearly not, it seems far easier to point out your errors than to satisfy your mendacity by providing you with more words to distort.<br />If I had the time right now I might expand this into a general point about how it is best to behave on blogs, with your penchant for the stupid lie top of the list of things to avoid.skidmarxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-73567625660496756072011-01-13T20:03:31.058+00:002011-01-13T20:03:31.058+00:00Oh, incidentally skidmark, my question about Daven...Oh, incidentally skidmark, my question about Davenport and his figures remains unanswered. I'm not holding my breath for an honest or coherent response.sackcloth and ashesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-86159344238592916472011-01-13T20:01:02.754+00:002011-01-13T20:01:02.754+00:00Skidmark, you have described reputable scholars on...Skidmark, you have described reputable scholars on the Rwandan genocide as proponents of the 'RPF view of events'. That is a smear on their reputation, as it deliberately implies that their output is propaganda rather than genuine research.<br /><br />You also state quite openly that you support Davenport's myth-making, which again shows that when you said you had 'no strong views' on this subject, you were lying.<br /><br />As for your rant about the HP threat, it just goes to show that the SWP are no good at telling jokes, but they're very good at recruiting them.<br /><br />Incidentally, I'm waiting for you to tell my why sources like this are a travesty of the historical truth but - hey - baby steps and all that.<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Leave-None-Tell-Story-Genocide/dp/1564321711<br />http://www.amazon.com/Rwanda-Crisis-G%C3%83%C2%A9rard-Prunier/dp/023110409X/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1294948738&sr=1-4<br />http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_39?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=philip+gourevitch+we+wish+to+inform+you&sprefix=philip+gourevitch+we+wish+to+inform+you<br />http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Murder-Rwandan-Genocide-Revised/dp/1844675424/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1294948829&sr=1-3sackcloth and ashesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-91152613509626066152011-01-13T17:39:56.634+00:002011-01-13T17:39:56.634+00:00And before this HP comment thread disappears due t...And before <a href="http://hurryupharry.org/2011/01/11/swp-leadership-smith-out-kimber-in/#comments" rel="nofollow">this</a> HP comment thread disappears due to their understandable fear of libel actions can I point out that this exchange:<br /><br />Lamia - Shaun Wright-Philips is a notorious right winger.<br /><br />skidmarx - but his dad was a great striker.<br /><br />sackcloth and ashes - Notice the fact that Lamia’s joke sails right over skidmark’s head (hence my point about the SWP’s ability to recruit morons only).<br /><br />shows your limited understnading of the English language, I was noting Lamia's use of the double meaning of "right-winger" by the double meaning of "striker". Before you set yourself up as a role model for anything you really ought to learn some English (and perhaps get a sense of humour and some civility, but hey, baby steps).skidmarxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-61774383253069819252011-01-13T17:15:57.586+00:002011-01-13T17:15:57.586+00:00Your attempt to smear anyone
I haven't tried ...<i>Your attempt to smear anyone </i><br />I haven't tried to smear anyone.<br /><i>Again, you're lying through your teeth. </i><br />No, I'm giving an honest view of what I think their argument is, thus lacking the intentionality for delibrate misrepresentation even if they are wrong <b>and</b> I'm wrong in my assessment.stiskidmarxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-27965851710884536912011-01-13T12:02:11.785+00:002011-01-13T12:02:11.785+00:00'The one view being that expressed by the auth...'The one view being that expressed by the author of the Shiraz post that anyone who questions Kagame and co. is a genocide denier,'<br /><br />That is a complete distortion of the debate. You do not have to be a supporter of the RPF (and - as I keep pointing out - people like Prunier are not) to accept the fact that up to 800,000 people were deliberately slaughtered by the Hutu supremacist regime in the spring of 1994. Your attempt to smear anyone who was written authoritatively on this subject as a Kagame apologist just goes to show how obnoxious and ignorant you are. <br /><br />'and the other view being that of the blogger Lenin and Davenport and Stam, who suggest that that there was undeniably a genocide, but that there were other deaths in the conflict as well'.<br /><br />Again, you're lying through your teeth. By claiming (on the basis of shoddy scholarship) that 'only 100,000' people were killed by Hutu Power, Davenport is trying to minimise the enormity of the latter's crime against humanity. And you, Seymour and other scumbags are cheering him on from the sidelines.<br /><br />Just one other question for you not to answer. If you believe Davenport when he says that only 100,000 out of up to 1m people who died in Rwanda during the spring of 1994 were the victims of the Hutu extremists, then what did the remaining 900,000 or so die of?sackcloth and ashesnoreply@blogger.com