Oy! I just finish noting Ignatieff’s idiocy and find out he’s up to more of it! What is wrong with this man? Does he now have an idjit writing his opinion pieces? Oh, wait! Lack of logic and poor argument are standard fare for Iggy.
His clever wordplay doesn’t disguise a poor grasp of the facts. Reading Ignatieff’s feature articles in the New York Times Magazine over the past four years, one discovers that the pompous professor is a bad student who doesn’t actually learn from his own mistakes. In ‘Nation Building Lite’ (July 2002), Ignatieff calls for heavy-handed nation-building in Afghanistan: ‘The [Afghans] understand the difficult truth that their best hope of freedom lies in a temporary experience of imperial rule.’ And to work, ‘imperial power requires controlling the subject people’s sense of time, convincing them that they will be ruled forever.’
Today’s illogical screed furthers his aim for idiocy:
International law defines “apartheid” as a crime against humanity. Labelling Israel as an “apartheid” state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself.
Criticism of Israel is legitimate. Attempting to describe its very existence as a crime against humanity is not.
As my friend, skdadl, pointed out at BnR, this is not a logical argument. The first two sentences set up a false relationship. In the Apartheid days in South Africa, no one working in the anti-Apartheid movement denied the right of South Africa to exist.
Likewise now, with Israel. No one is denying the right of Israel to exist. But what folks are saying is that the treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli state is reprehensible and is an example of an Apartheid regime.
Take a look at the word, apartheid. The Free Online Dictionary says it is, “An official policy of racial segregation.” Israel has segregated Palestinians, that much is very clear. And it’s done so systematically and with brute force.
And that, Mr. Ignatieff, is apartheid.
But hey, if you don’t believe me see what Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States of America, has to say.
Oh, and here are a few others on Iggy:
Anti-Ignatieff Primer
Ignatieff’s Public Hissy Fit
Ignatieff: Pop Intellectual
Bionic Liberal
Thanks to the BnR gang for motivation!
UPDATE: Double oy! Mister pogge’s nailed it! Sophistry, indeed!
UPDATE2: Had to add Mentarch to the list. Be sure to take the “once again” link!
Tide Waters
/ March 5, 2009Well done.
His Igginess must not have studied logic in any of them highfalutin’ schools he went to. If he did, he must have failed the subject – or got a pass due to his uppity background.
Beijing York
/ March 5, 2009It’s so hard to keep on top of the negative articles of his Iggyness before his ascension within the LPC. It’s like google has scrubbed them from the front of the line in search results. But further to a point made by Tide Waters in the Iggy Part 1 post, there was an article that went at length to describe how mediocre a professor Ignatieff was. Little tears were shed when he left the Carr/Kennedy/Harvard institute. I find it believable. I can’t imagine sitting in a lecture hall and having to pay attention for an hour or two of his “but if, if” circular arguments.
Ha, uppity background is right Tide Waters and he never fails to profit from it. The guy was born with a silver spoon the size of the Sudbury nickel. Ignatieff was bred to play the historical role of aristocratic sycophant. This time though, the monarch/emperor is the President of the United States. Anyone who is terrified by the SPP back room negotiations, should really take a close look at Ignatieff.
kwittet
/ March 13, 2009this is so true..has anyone ever googled what charles adler had to say about him..classic adler!!
here is the link!!
http://www.cjob.com/StationShared/AdlerOnline.aspx
Filiafaw
/ May 22, 2009eh… cognitively..