• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fallaci: "This is what I write about Europe..

This brave woman, and brave all of her life, was fighting terminal cancer while some cowards on these boards were joking about the medicine she knew would ultimately fail her.

'A prophet is not without honour, except in his own country, and among his kindred, and in his own house'

And so it is with Fallaci.
 
This brave woman, and brave all of her life, was fighting terminal cancer while some cowards on these boards were joking about the medicine she knew would ultimately fail her.

'A prophet is not without honour, except in his own country, and among his kindred, and in his own house'

And so it is with Fallaci.

It's nothing less than a betrayal, to boot. This woman has been fighting for women's rights and other TRUE liberal causes all her life, only to have these chittering, modern day Islamist apologists who have the audacity to call themselves "liberal" attacking her at every turn.
 
Isn't that often the way, first seen overtly (by me at any rate) with feminists. Emancipation has been corrolated with Marxism by too many of our peers, causing all kinds of diktats to be passed dictating that 'woman shouldn't be this' or 'woman shouldn't be that'.

True concepts of rights and responsibilities were swept away over recent decades, to be replaced with distorted politically-correct bastardisations.

So much so that we're now supposed to believe that political correctness is in fact the basic good manners and thoughtfulness which it seeks to replace. But if that's the case, why are government ministers encouraging public institutions to discourage certain people from applying for jobs because the demographic in England is 'too white'?!
 
Last edited:
It's nothing less than a betrayal, to boot. This woman has been fighting for women's rights and other TRUE liberal causes all her life, only to have these chittering, modern day Islamist apologists who have the audacity to call themselves "liberal" attacking her at every turn.

This is hilarious. We have a bunch of ultra-right wing crazies (mbig, Grant, Gardener etc) leaping on a band-wagon that none of them are familiar with all because she hitched herself to the Islamophobic cause. She began her career as a liberal journalist but trotted towards the right after her unfortunate (and significantly misadventurous exploits in Mexico).

She is moderately well-known in Europe but only because of her extremist views and anti-semitic later writings. This is a shame because earlier in her career her writings on Greece, Vietnam and Iran were genuinely courageous. In fact, her DP fan-club would be horrified to associate themselves with her most anti-American writings in L'Europa during the late-Seventies.

Fact is, bless her, that she struggled with mental illness for most of her adult life and this both ennobled and detracted from what she wrote. What she wrote was occasionally sublime. I like her enormously for her interviews with the likes of Ted Kennedy, Qadafi and the bastard Khomeini. Trouble was, she kind of lost it when her loathing of Islam pushed her into the arms of Ratzinger, the kind of religious demagogue she would have trashed so effectively in her pre-illness years.

Fallaci at her best was wonderful, at her worst she embarrassed herself. "I don't know why those bastards (Shi'a clergy) make me crazy when the fags in purple (Papal curia) don't. I can't explain everything, can I?"
 
It's nothing less than a betrayal, to boot. This woman has been fighting for women's rights and other TRUE liberal causes all her life, only to have these chittering, modern day Islamist apologists who have the audacity to call themselves "liberal" attacking her at every turn.

But of course, Gardener, it was never about women's rights, it was about political power.

If they had genuinely wanted power for women they would have supported Margaret Thatcher, but of course she wasn't the right kind of woman, politically.

So their hypocrisy on women, equal rights, peace, etc, is nothing new. It as familiar to their heritage as suppression of speech and barbed wire.
 
This is hilarious. We have a bunch of ultra-right wing crazies (mbig, Grant, Gardener etc) leaping on a band-wagon that none of them are familiar with all because she hitched herself to the Islamophobic cause. She began her career as a liberal journalist but trotted towards the right after her unfortunate (and significantly misadventurous exploits in Mexico).

She is moderately well-known in Europe but only because of her extremist views and anti-semitic later writings. This is a shame because earlier in her career her writings on Greece, Vietnam and Iran were genuinely courageous. In fact, her DP fan-club would be horrified to associate themselves with her most anti-American writings in L'Europa during the late-Seventies.

Fact is, bless her, that she struggled with mental illness for most of her adult life and this both ennobled and detracted from what she wrote. What she wrote was occasionally sublime. I like her enormously for her interviews with the likes of Ted Kennedy, Qadafi and the bastard Khomeini. Trouble was, she kind of lost it when her loathing of Islam pushed her into the arms of Ratzinger, the kind of religious demagogue she would have trashed so effectively in her pre-illness years.

Fallaci at her best was wonderful, at her worst she embarrassed herself. "I don't know why those bastards (Shi'a clergy) make me crazy when the fags in purple (Papal curia) don't. I can't explain everything, can I?"

If you're going to offer opinions, Andalublue, they should be opinions supported by facts. Let's have some examples supporting your claims.

Throwing labels around during a temper tantrum hardly supports whatever argument you might have.
 
This is hilarious. We have a bunch of ultra-right wing crazies ...... at her worst she embarrassed herself. "I don't know why those bastards (Shi'a clergy) make me crazy when the fags in purple (Papal curia) don't. I can't explain everything, can I?"

As usual, the Leftists ride the rail on the subject of Fallaci. Such comments come close to the old 'you must be demented if you don't think as we do' line of the Soviet Union. No wonder so many dissidents speaking out against the 'wrong' people ended up in asylums in the USSR. Very black-and-white analysis based on the likes and dislikes of some holocaust denier-by-proxy.

And considering army officers of my family's nationality ended up in the death pits of Katyn, due to orders from the top rank of Andy's favourite political party, I think he's also on thin ice about who he calls right wing crazies.

And I suppose you have to be a self-righteous Leftist to really appreciate rights for women? That itself is patronising and ignorant. As I say, there's a difference between real concepts of emancipation and politically-correct horse crap. And the latter is all we get nowadays. I'd much rather enjoy a real discussion with a real woman about fairness and decency, learning all the time, than a pointless slanging match with some old boot yelling about chauvinist pigs, mysoginism and how all men are potential rapists.
 
Last edited:
But of course, Gardener, it was never about women's rights, it was about political power.

If they had genuinely wanted power for women they would have supported Margaret Thatcher, but of course she wasn't the right kind of woman, politically.

So their hypocrisy on women, equal rights, peace, etc, is nothing new. It as familiar to their heritage as suppression of speech and barbed wire.

Of course because a woman came to power suddenly ALL women became powerful. Not!

Because Obama became president, did this mean that suddenly racial discrimination in the US ceased? Because Thatcher became PM, all women ceased being oppressed? Listen to yourself.

Perhaps all the World needs for oppression and discrimination to end is for a black person to win a Best Director Oscar, a gay man to be voted the NFL MVP, and a woman to be elected US president. There will be no further political battles to fight thereafter, will there?
 
Perhaps all the World needs for oppression and discrimination to end is for a black person to win a Best Director Oscar, a gay man to be voted the NFL MVP, and a woman to be elected US president. There will be no further political battles to fight thereafter, will there?

In a way that's a good idea. When that happens we can turn round to all the toytown Marxists and say "Right, you've got your socially-engineered minority people in positions you want, now shut the f*** up and let the rest of us just get on with living our lives!"

Thatcher did actually empower women, and the rest of us if we had the capacity. We could get anything we wanted and often did. Women in managerial positions increased for example, without a sandal-wearing boot-faced harridan in sight! Much better an incentive than co-ercion to open the doors.

If Thatcher was the first female socialist PM, she would still be feted by fans anyway, regardless of how gutted the nation would have been both industrially or financially. But you can take it as read that Obama's helpmate Carter, slagging off critics of his healthcare plans as racist, will do little to endear most Americans to a guilt-tripped half-caste President voted into office by a breathtaking number of black racists. (99% of Afro-Americans voted for him just for his colour remember.)
 
Last edited:
Of course because a woman came to power suddenly ALL women became powerful. Not!

The point was that "Women's" groups did not support Thatcher. They were left wing. It was political. Please read before responding.

"Because Obama became president, did this mean that suddenly racial discrimination in the US ceased?

Almost all Black people in the States voted for Obama, but left wing women did not vote for Thatcher. Can you see the difference? I don't want to have to talk down to you but please try to grasp the point or I'll have no recourse.

"Because Thatcher became PM, all women ceased being oppressed? Listen to yourself".

I never said that. Are you always this thick or are you just drunk?

"Perhaps all the World needs for oppression and discrimination to end is for a black person to win a Best Director Oscar, a gay man to be voted the NFL MVP, and a woman to be elected US president. There will be no further political battles to fight thereafter, will there?

Is that your take?
 
If you're going to offer opinions, Andalublue, they should be opinions supported by facts. Let's have some examples supporting your claims.

Throwing labels around during a temper tantrum hardly supports whatever argument you might have.

Back at ya, Grant. What do you want me to substantiate?

I'd like you to substantiate the claim:
"every couple of decades there is a new very special plan that comes along in Europe that will solve all their problems, that this new system is really the answer and, why didn't someone think of this before???"

Quote those plans and those who made the claim that these plans would solve all our problems.

When Karl Marx famously suggested that "Workers of the world, unite!", he obviously didn't take culture, nationality, religion, etc. into account. It seems that whoever came up with this EU idea made the same error.

Prove he didn't take these things into account and that nor did the EU.

I'll be happy to address your questions when you address mine. Simultaneously, if you wish.
 
No, answer Grant's post first.

Don't dodge and weave as I suspect you've got no answers.
 
Last edited:
"every couple of decades there is a new very special plan that comes along in Europe that will solve all their problems, that this new system is really the answer and, why didn't someone think of this before???"

Fascism, Nazism, Imperialism and Socialism come to mind, and not just for themselves but for others also. In fact they've insisted these ideas are so important that they exported them militarily, and of course propagandized for them also..
Prove he didn't take these things into account and that nor did the EU.

Because he didn't say any other groups should unite, only workers. As it is impossible to prove a negative I'll have to wait for a contrary quote from you to prove me wrong. The same law, of course, applies to the EU.

I'll be happy to address your questions when you address mine. Simultaneously, if you wish

It''s your turn,
 
The point was that "Women's" groups did not support Thatcher. They were left wing. It was political. Please read before responding.

Why should they? Because she was female? So I should support Geert Wilders racist policies because we are both blonde? Do you understand what feminism is? You think that they believe a woman, whatever she espouses, should be supported just because she's a woman? You'd better prepare your feminist texts to prove that point.


Almost all Black people in the States voted for Obama, but left wing women did not vote for Thatcher. Can you see the difference? I don't want to have to talk down to you but please try to grasp the point or I'll have no recourse.

See what you did there? " Almost ALL black people....', "...left wing women..." I CAN see the difference. So, right-wing republican black people voted Obama. Proof?

Left-wing women didn't vote for an extreme right-wing Tory party. True.

Two issues here:
  1. In Britain you don't vote for a President or Prime Minister, you vote for a party. Lots of people voted for the Conservatives DESPITE Thatcher, not because of her.
  2. Voting for a woman candidate is not the same as voting pro-woman.


I never said that. Are you always this thick or are you just drunk?

You said:
It was never about women's rights...If they had genuinely wanted power for women they would have supported Margaret Thatcher, but of course she wasn't the right kind of woman, politically.

In what way was the election of the Conservatives under Thatcher anything about "power for women"? In what way were women empowered by that election? It was the election of a government with fewer women sitting in cabinet than at any time for 20 years. What pro-women policies did it implement? I'm guessing you don't know because you weren't there.

Is that your take?
No, I believe it to be yours. What do you believe will ensure that discrimination has become a thing of the past? Do you even believe that racial, gender or sexual orientation discrimination are fundamentally and eternally bad things?
 
Last edited:
Fascism, Nazism, Imperialism and Socialism come to mind, and not just for themselves but for others also. In fact they've insisted these ideas are so important that they exported them militarily, and of course propagandized for them also..

I see, so "every couple of decades" turns out to be 4 in about 400 years. Them Euros, eh?

Because he didn't say any other groups should unite, only workers. As it is impossible to prove a negative I'll have to wait for a contrary quote from you to prove me wrong. The same law, of course, applies to the EU.

I'll take that as a "No, I can't prove he ignored everyone but the workers, but I'll say it anyway as it plays well with Republic of Public and mbig".
 
andalublue said:
This is hilarious. We have a bunch of ultra-right wing crazies (mbig, Grant, Gardener etc) leaping on a band-wagon that none of them are familiar with all because she hitched herself to the Islamophobic cause. She began her career as a liberal journalist but trotted towards the right after her unfortunate (and significantly misadventurous exploits in Mexico).
Who's an "Ultra-Right-wing Crazy?"
Or do you imagine everyone without an AK-47 and Machete is a fascist?

I posted just today Against a Conservative website/positiom..
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...rupt-politicians-2009-a-3.html#post1058603392

and again Just Today FOR an Environmental cause.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/Environment/67613-sushi-japan-wont-comply-possible-tuna-ban.html

and Gardener is the most consistently liberal poster I've ever seen. Which would include being against ILLEBERAL Islamism.

andalublue said:
She is moderately well-known in Europe but only because of her extremist views and Anti-semitic Later writings. ..
What?
She is Very well known in Europe, especially if you're over 30.

And What "anti-semitic Later writings"?
YOU BETTER HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THIS ALLEGATION OR I ASK FOR SANCTIONS.

In fact, she wrote a famous Treatise ON and AGAINST Anti-semitism.. late in her Life. 2002/Near the end.
http://www.hsje.org/oriana_fallaci_on_antisemitism.htm

What OUTRAGEOUS LIES andalublue posts.
Blatant Fabrication.

andalublue said:
Fact is, bless her, that she struggled with mental illness for most of her adult life and this both ennobled and detracted from what she wrote.

Another Wild allegation.
What FILTHY SLANDER. You just pull this Crap from your hat... or the other end.
This is Beneath debate.
Again.. You BETTER have documentation for this charge too.

What she wrote was occasionally sublime. I like her enormously for her interviews with the likes of Ted Kennedy, Qadafi and the bastard Khomeini. Trouble was, she kind of lost it when her loathing of Islam pushed her into the arms of Ratzinger, the kind of religious demagogue she would have trashed so effectively in her pre-illness years.
She wanted the Church to fight Back at Islam but was herself an Atheist.
There's no problem with trying to enlist a natural counterforce.

Fallaci at her best was wonderful, at her worst she embarrassed herself. "I don't know why those bastards (Shi'a clergy) make me crazy when the fags in purple (Papal curia) don't. I can't explain everything, can I?"
I like it IF TRUE!
You have a source for it?
 
Last edited:
Andalablue proudly votes for the Communist Party in Spain and seems to insist anybody not in possession of a full slate of handbooks on feminist or 'socialist' ideology has no right to common sense, of any kind. (He demanded Grant be up on his feminist dogma in order for him to be worthy of conversation on womens' rights.)

I don't think you can expect anything else, especially from one of a group of Leftists on here who can't really take a proper democratic debate and resort to bluster and repeated lies on tricky questions, or simply not bothering to talk to difficult people any more and dressing it up as a moral standpoint.
 
Last edited:
Who's an "Ultra-Right-wing Crazy?"
Or do you imagine everyone without an AK-47 and Machete is a fascist?
Come again?
and Gardener is the most consistently liberal poster I've ever seen. Which would include being against ILLEBERAL Islamism.
Which doesn't say a lot for your concept of "LEBERAL(sic)-ism"
What?
She is Very well known in Europe, especially if you're over 30.
Says you.

And What "anti-semitic Later writings"?
YOU BETTER HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THIS ALLEGATION OR I ASK FOR SANCTIONS.

Almost her entire later work was dedicated to attacking Islam in general and pan-Arabism in particular, on many occasions. Of course, if you only define anti-semitism as being anti-Jewish...

AskOxford: Semite
 
Come again?

Which doesn't say a lot for your concept of "LEBERAL(sic)-ism"

Says you.



Almost her entire later work was dedicated to attacking Islam in general and pan-Arabism in particular, on many occasions. Of course, if you only define anti-semitism as being anti-Jewish...

AskOxford: Semite

So you have NO answers to all the Outrageous FABRICATIONS you posted.

Including personal Insults about 3 of us being "Ultra-Right-Wing Crazies".

You made up New definition for 'anti-semitism' which Fallaci clearly came out strongly against...

and have had to completely Drop the Goofy Fabrication "she struggled with mental illness for most of her adult life" etc.

And.... No Source for the ALLEGED Quote you posted either.

I'm more than done with you now. I'm going to the mods. This is NOT a matter of differing opinions, this is LYING through your Teeth and making stuff up from whole cloth.

-
 
Last edited:

So you have NO answers to all the Outrageous FABRICATIONS you posted.

Including personal Insults about 3 of us being "Ultra-Right-Wing Crazies".

You made up New definition for 'anti-semitism' which Fallaci clearly came out strongly against...

and have had to completely Drop the Goofy Fabrication "she struggled with mental illness for most of her adult life" etc.

And.... No Source for the ALLEGED Quote you posted either.

I'm more than done with you now. I'm going to the mods. This is NOT a matter of differing opinions, this is LYING through your Teeth and making stuff up from whole cloth.

-

As you must if the spirit moves you.
 
You might want to read a little about Muslim conquests of the past, as well as the Koran and Hadith, to avoid further embarrassment.
 
Oh leave him. He just denies what he doesn't like the sound of, then uses a 'no platform' sanction against you when you call him out too much. (But you somehow hobble on!)

I wonder if he looks to the judges of Geert Wilders' trial as bastions of fairness, they who rule the truth to be inadmissible if it offends Reds or Muslims and they who won't allow most of his witnesses to testify for the defence.
 
Last edited:
Almost her entire later work was dedicated to attacking Islam in general and pan-Arabism in particular, on many occasions. Of course, if you only define anti-semitism as being anti-Jewish...

AskOxford: Semite

You are actually stooping to the level of trying to redefine the term antisemitism?

Usually, it's only Islamists and neonazis that ever try that particularly disingenuous ruse.
 
Hey, another reason for the similarity list! He promotes lies, supports a party which once held entire continents in murderous bondage, denies genocidal massacres (Islamic history) and wants to deport entire peoples too (Falkland Islanders).

And if this isn't right (which it is), he'd better put me straight on it. Else I've hit the nail bang on the head.
 
Last edited:
Hey, another reason for the similarity list! He promotes lies, supports a party which once held entire continents in murderous bondage, denies genocidal massacres (Islamic history) and wants to deport entire peoples too (Falkland Islanders).

Yep.


Spain is one of, if not the most antisemitic countries in Europe. It's elected leaders are antisemites, its schools indoctrinate children as young as 5 or 6 in antisemitism ( Israel summons Spanish envoy over anti-Semitism in schools - Haaretz - Israel News ), and, of course, has a long history of antisemitism that rivals that of Germany or Russia. Let's not forget its ethnic clensing of Jews 500 years ago when nearly a million were expelled.
 
Back
Top Bottom