Yesh Gvul
Courage To Refuse
Shministim
Pilots
Free The Five
New Profile
Refuser Solidarity Network


Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Comment Rules
About Me:
See my complete profile



Google
Web antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions



Blogs

Sites




Previous Posts



Powered by Blogger

 


Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Fair go for all

Reuters reports an important development in Israel's understanding of the conflict:

"Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on Monday acceptance within the international community of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state would erode with time as conflict with the Palestinians dragged on.

"Unless progress was made towards establishing a Palestinian state as mandated by a U.S.-backed peace road map, Livni said in a speech, pressure could grow to turn Israel into a bi-national state in which Israelis and Palestinians would share power.

"With a higher Palestinian birth rate, that could mean the end of a Jewish majority in what is now Israel, she said, giving voice to an argument interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has raised for trading occupied land for peace.

"'I say that time works to our disadvantage, not only from the standpoint of demographic numbers...but also from the standpoint of the legitimacy of a state for the Jewish people in the eyes of the international community,'" Livni told a policymakers' forum near Tel Aviv."

I've long believed that a bi-national state is the ideal way to resolve the conflict, but it must be reached in stages. Therefore, a two-state solution is the best way forward for the foreseeable future. A full and frank appreciation of suffering on both sides, reparations for Palestinian losses in 1948 onwards, the eradication of the occupation, a shared Jerusalem and joint environmental policy will, at some point in the future, be the only solution.

Livni - Jews Sans Frontieres rightly asks: "Where else on the world would a politician so obsessed with 'demographics' be described as 'centrist' and by Reuters too? - has merely articulated the fear within many Jews. Can you imagine the outcry if George Bush publicly stated he wanted a white majority to remain in the US? When Israel talks about "demographics", however, it's labelled "pragmatism."

70 Comments:

Blogger Mike Jericho said...

You know, I adore your ability to be completely oblivious to the pathological Jew hatred that drives the Muslim unwillingness to recognise Israel. You honestly are blind to all of the vitriolic bile that is slung by Muslims across the Middle East, the hate-filled rhetoric which totally negates the supposed nationalistic motives of the Palestinian leaders.

Your capacity for self-loathing and self destruction is, quite frankly, remarkable.

Were you the only Jewish person at stake, I'd wish you well in oblivion, and wave you off cheerfully. Unfortunately, with the coming of a second holocaust, rather a lot of truly worthwhile people will be exterpated.

So I'll have to respectfully point out that you are as naive to Israel's destiny as is a rabbit, caught in the headlights of a car being driven by a drunken teenager who has a particular hatred for small furry animals.

He isn't interested in a diplomatic solution which repects both his and the rabbit's rights and concerns.

He just wants the animal dead.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:04:00 pm  
Blogger ABNER said...

Mike.. you just discovered why socialism does not work :)
People like this author, who 'see but do not perceive' to quote Isaiah the prophet.

The demographics were mentioned in passing, but the truth is (admitted by Palestinians) is that each new person is a fighter in waiting. The demography is just another weapon.

Israelies are also a bit silly by not having more children, they have been infected with 'Western selfishness' mostly where children can get in the way of having a good time.

The idea of a bi-state solution will happen..without question.. just after ARMAGEDDON... there will be sheep and goats, saved and lost.

Anyone who can say such a thing (bi-state solution) just after quoting the demographic issue, needs therapy.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:12:00 pm  
Blogger smiths said...

you all talk like fucking gods, astride the earth, analysing huge philosophical and political movements in one fell swoop, socialism doesnt work eh, because you've studied it in great depth,
armegeddon, you moron, this is it fool, no afterlife, no land of milk and honey when the world is suffocating under a depleted uranium cloud,
there is only one choice if you are not a psychopath, work for peace, talk for peace,
or just admit that you actually want the action, the killing and the maimed bleeding kids in the street, maybe your kids

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:30:00 pm  
Blogger Melanie said...

hey smiths, go here:
http://www.icq.com/friendship/pages/browse_page_18981.php
and press the red button. Hurry.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:25:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 9:21:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

Mike, I agree with you. Although I think the whole world is in serious trouble, not just Israel. Out of the 98 Islamic countries in the world, 97 of them do not allow religious freedom, nor do they tolerate other religions. The Pope recently explained at a forum that the demographics of Europe will, within a few decades, explode with Islam and have a Muslim majority. The result will be an Islamic Europe with no freedom to choose religious preference. He predicts the USA will rise up in opposition to this. For a very interesting discussion with the Pope's friend see this article, which did not make the mainstream press, or very little attention was paid to it.

He also discusses (some of it cut & pasted below) rather pessimistically how he believes Islam cannot undergo a Reformation. This, to me, is tragic. I believe it is the only hope. It must be adapted to modern living. Women cannot continue to be treated as half the worth of a man, with no civil rights and very few human rights in many countries.

"And immediately, the Holy Father ...said in the Islamist tradition... God has given His word to Mohammed, but it’s an eternal word. It’s not Mohammed’s word. It’s there for eternity the way it is. There’s no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism’s completely different, that God has worked through His creatures. And so, it is not just the word of God, it’s the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He’s used His human creatures, and inspired them to speak His word to the world, and therefore by establishing a Church in which he gives authority to His followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there’s an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations...

...But Islam is stuck. It's stuck with a text that cannot be adapted, or even be interpreted properly...

...adapting it to our times, especially with the dignity that we ascribe to women, which has come through Christianity"

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 9:27:00 pm  
Blogger Melanie said...

The European countries are already preparing for the Demographic nightmare that faces them. A few EU countries in the last month have changed their citizenship screening that is specifically designed to weed out Islamists or Muslims that are sympathetic to Sharia Law, or don't share Western values.
Antony has a problem with people that don't want to live with those that wish them dead. Yes it is pragmatic.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 9:38:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

melanie

Yeah, I know, and they are complaining very loudly about it, claiming discrimination and prejudice. I fear for Europe. France is bankrupt, and the future there looks like a nightmare.

The gang rape of young Muslim girls and women in the banlieues is rampant. In fact it's so commonplace, it isn't even reported. When a young Muslim girl, Samira Bellil, wrote a book about her experience of being continually gang raped by Muslim boys (called In the hell of the tournantes) it shocked France. Now she is dead and they have forgotten all about it. And in Norway, Sweden and Denmark it is not much better. Women in these modern European countries are being treated like animals.

When Egyptian scholar Sheik Yusaf al-Qaradawi visited London he claimed that "female rape victims should be punished if they were dressed immodestly when they were raped". And he added, “For her to be absolved from guilt, a raped woman must have shown good conduct”.

And people can't see the problem with Islam? (They'd rather call me a racist than look this shocking behaviour in the eye).

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:35:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

MORE crazed neo-Nazi trolls. Back to your caves, blog-terrorists, back to your caves!

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:39:00 pm  
Blogger David said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:49:00 pm  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

What, Ed, didn't you know that Islam is about take over the world and steal 'our' women?
I'll send you a pre-warning email.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:51:00 pm  
Blogger David said...

My previous post - with typos rectified:

Ah, Antony, your previously mentioned piece in Online Opinion is a treasure trove of tortured syntax and contorted grammar. And that's not even mentioning your rank hypocrisy. If this is indicative of what awaits us with your book, we're all in for a real treat.

A few telling examples:

Such was the reality for extreme ideologues that had formulated plans to reshape the Middle East in the hallowed halls of academia and listened to the ramblings of Orientalist Bernard Lewis.

Eh, that should read extreme ideologues WHO formulated plans... Last time I checked, ideologues were people, and thus the pronoun who, rather than that applies. And your comment seems to indicate that those devious ideologues intended to reshape the Middle East in the hallowed halls of academia. I know Wolfie & co are pretty smart, but I fail to see how even they could move an entire geographic region into some buildings on a university campus.

This is simply crappy writing, and there's even less excuse for bad prose than there is for specious logic. And you claim to be a journalist? No wonder they canned your ass from the SMH's web supplement. Pure incompetence.

And then we get to your hypocrisy. You reprove the 4th estate for their failure to engage in the sort of on-the-ground reporting in Iraq that would provide a full picture of the debacle that you believe is unfolding. But Antony, that belief is predicated solely on second-hand evidence. You say:

The security situation is precarious, to be sure, but this is no excuse for ignoring the ever-deteriorating lives of Iraqis under occupation.

But I don't see you rectifying that lack by hopping on a plane to do a little first-hand reportage from beautiful downtown Falluja. You talk-the-talk real well. But you are more than a bit deficient in the walking-the-walk department.

You go on to declare:

It is no longer necessary to wish for the defeat of the US and its allies in Iraq; circumstances have seen to that.

Well I can't tell you how pleased I am to hear that you no longer yearn for the sight of dead Australian soldiers, Antony. But, of course, even when you did want to see dead diggers, you would never have had the guts to go over to the Middle East for a bit of trigger time yourself. You are very clearly a 'stay in the rear with the gear' kinda bloke.

More vintage Loewenstein hypocrisy:

The question remains how we can rescue the country [by this you mean Iraq] from the clutches of political leaders with no sense of history or cultural understanding.

we? You actually have the temerity to use the first person plural pronoun? Yet I don't see you doing any volunteering to rescue anything from anybody. Last I heard, you were still safe and sound in Sydney, pontificating from afar. And with your Hebrew illiteracy having already been amply demonstrated, allow me to express my profound scepticism as to whether you know anything of the Arabic language or culture.

So let me get this straight: Loewnstein, who doesn't speak a lick of any language of the region, wants to save Iraq from indigenous leaders who have more Arab cultural literacy in their fingernail clippings than Antony does in his entire body.

There's only one response to that: Ha!

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:57:00 pm  
Blogger Mike Jericho said...

Abner, Melanie and Violet, I insist you become frequenters of my blog. In this way I can siphon away a portion of your brilliance and take credit for it.

Seriously though, we must talk more. Plan the annihilation of rainbows and fluffy cats and everything else which leftists hold dear and we conservatives inherently love to destroy.

Now, to business.

Smiths, I cannot counter your brilliant argument, as you have cunningly concealed it within a thick cloud of rambling incoherence. Sorry.

Violet, I have spent years online wailing and gnashing my teeth over the threat Islamism poses the western world. I even started a group blog devoted to it (A Western Heart). It is encouraging to occasionally meet someone with the intellect to perceive the danger Islamism poses before it has swept over us like a malevolent tsunami.

Most people aren't like us. They're like Antony. They're the kind of smug people who were scoffing at the ancient versions of ourselves, who were busy shouting warnings about the Goths, Vandals and Huns headed their way. Naturally, they weren't listened to either.

People just don't want to hear bad news.

Good link on Benedict. I wrote a post on that just yesterday. Funny how the media doesn't want to talk about it.

Edward, Edward, Edward. I say that so many times because I quite like your name. I would say your entire name, but that would take rather more time than I'm willing to expend.

It is, and you'll have to forgive my bluntness, rather silly to compare myself or any other conservative to Nazis.

Nazis hated Jews, would have opposed Israel's existence, curtailed private gun ownership, turned the relatively small Weimar Government into a totalitarian collossus, nationalized most of the major private industries and corporations, developed the first nature preserves and paid maternity leave. They were obsessed with Eugenics (a "science" pioneered by secular leftists and vehemently opposed by religious conservatives), went crazy with euthanasia and enforced abortions and sterilization amongst Antony's relatives. They also practiced state-sanctioned racism. Want to know the only people left who still support doing that? Leftists, through Affirmative Action. Conservatives want a race-blind society.

All of the real hallmarks of Nazi society, you may have noticed, conservatives have always rejected wholeheartedly.

Churchill was a conservative. Hitler was a socialist. Don't believe me? Here. Let's ask Adolf what political persuasion he was:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

- Adolf Hitler, Speech of May 1, 1927.

That sound you just heard was several of your cherished misconceptions shattering under the weight of their own dishonesty.

Conservatism in its current form has its roots in the Jeffersonian rejection of large, controlling governments. We want less government and more freedom. Leftists want to control and regulate everything. That naturally requires a massive government. Massive governments love to regulate, and they inevitably become totalitarian.

How many times do you guys need to commit genocide to learn these lessons? I would have thought that Germany, the USSR, China, North Korea and Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia would be enough.

Now don't be a Neo-Nazi. Become conservative. Join the good guys.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:24:00 am  
Blogger Mike Jericho said...

Strange. It appears that Antony's blog doesn't want you visiting either one of my sites.

Simply click on my name for the links.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:28:00 am  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

Antony L

1. It just saddems me when I see people given a platform who are unethical and intellectually dishonest. You do not know anything about Bernard Lewis. Your sophomoric ramblings betray your ignorance of Lewis' exquisite scholarship.

2. Israel is not a "jewish" state;

3. For how much longer do you think the world will continue to suuport the Islamic states across the globe? How about the Protestant state of the UK?

4. Given that Israel is one of the top 5 most multi-racial nations on the planet, we all await your next blog bashing those states that are racist compared to Israel.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:08:00 am  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

Mike Jericho said...
"Strange. It appears that Antony's blog doesn't want you visiting either one of my sites."

Is it possible you didn't put the correct addresses? E.g. one of your addresses is:
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/
but in your post you seem to have typed in:
http://www.blogger.com/awesternheart.blogspot.com

"Simply click on my name for the links."

Done.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:11:00 am  
Blogger Clumsy Birds said...

Strange. It appears that Antony's blog doesn't want you visiting either one of my sites.

Dont worry Mike. I for one have the links bookmarked :D

I heart AWH!

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:13:00 am  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

Mike Jericho said...
"It is, and you'll have to forgive my bluntness, rather silly to compare myself or any other conservative to Nazis."

I wasn't comparing you to a neo-Nazi. I thought you were one of those neo-Nazi trolls who go around to people's websites trying to make Zionist ideology, Israel and Jewish ethnicity look absurd, deliberately misleading, callous, etc. The objective of this ploy is to try to generate anti-Semitism among readers.

Assuming I was wrong about your identity, apologies.

BTW, "A Western Heart" is bearable, but "The Fall of Jericho" is a bit of a worry (although the "Gorgeous George" post was amusing).

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:25:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Mike Jericho,

You believe in the comming holocuast too I see. Cna you or anyone point me to a link or piece of evidence to suggest this has any bassis in fact, or it some prediction made by a tarrot card reader in Jerusalem?

If there is an ARMAGEDDON, it seems that Israel is doing everything it can to ensure it arrives safely.

BTW. None of your links work. May be symbolic of your reasoning.

ABNER , yotheory about why socialism not working misses the cpoint completely. No system works, at least not indefinitely. All movements are cyclical. Socialism, fascism, coimmunism, nationalism etc. We wee tol dafter WWII that fascism was dead and yet it made a brief appearance in the 60’s and appears to have returned via Heir Bush. People say socialism is dead and yet more than 80% of Latin America now lives under socialist goerverments.

Vioet, you thin the world is in trouble because of Islam. I got news for you dear. Bush and his psychopaths are the ones steering the world off the end of a cliff. You think France is bankrupts? The US is in serious shit right now, with a $2 trillion surplus in 2002 converted into a $3 trillion deficit. The US debt will hit it’s peak next month (approx 8.5 trillion) and that’s after the limit was raised by Congress in 2004. if the Us does not raise it again, the US is officially bankrupt. How long do you think the US’s debtors are going to keep loaning the US $2 billion a day just to stay solvent?

The shit will hit the fan long before the predicted Islamic empire arrives.

Yes gang raping of women is serious business, as is any violence towards any human being, but your attempt at typing these issues together is completely convoluted.

David, how many times has your mother told you to the bong down while you’re writing?

Your attempt to find fault with Antony’s argument is the lamest example of non issues piled into a post that I’ve ever seen. You criticize Ant for not hopping on a place to Iraq, when it is widely reported (first or second hand) that the situation is too dangerous for western reporters. Was it lost on you that a Western woman reporter was kidnapped last week, in spite of her adherence to local customs? What chances do you think a Jewish white man would have in Iraq right now, or are you that clueless?

And in typical chicken hawk fashion, you suggest that the only way for Antony to show hois courage is to go and fight in a war he does not believe in. Fing hilarious. That’s the same ad hominem that Violet used. You guys must belong to the same book club. You also dredge that non issue about antonym not being a Hebrew scholar and how this precludes him from a right to an opinion about the Middle East.
Your ignorance of that situation in Iraq is profound, but hardly surprising for a war apologist. Here’s a word of advice sure, when you hear a press conference, it’s not because the poli’s want to tell you the truth.

You are utterly deluded.

Neo baby, what is the significance of a country having the 5th most multi-cultural societies o the planet, when it has one of the worst human right’s records? By the way, I thought you were an non believer in human right?

Now, I'd better get bakc to prepapreingfor the Rapture. I hear Pat Robertson is having a wrap party.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:43:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Other than showing how fasr your head is up AL's ass, your post was so much drivel.

Israel has one of the worst human right's records? Are you that stupid or deliberately lying?

That AL doesn't really know much about what he is commenting on is the issue.

Enough addamo slaying for the moment. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:48:00 am  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

neoleftychick said...
"2. Israel is not a "jewish" state"

...but, but, but at 6:15am on Monday, the 23rd of January, on the "AM" programme, Colonel Uri Dromi (Director of International Outreach at the Israel Democracy Institute in Jerusalem, formerly chief government spokesman under Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres) explicitly referred to Israel as a "Jewish state". Why do prominant Israeli's keep saying that Israel IS a "Jewish state" despite what you say, neoleftychick? Do they just refuse to listen to you, or is there something more to it than that?

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:52:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

I don't know why neo is saying that Israel is not a Jewish nation, unless there is some legal definition that shows it is not. Perhaps, unlike in most all islamic nations, the jewishness does not translate into unequal rights for its citizens.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:59:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

But I thought Neo was the most knowledgeable poster on this forum. That's what she keeps telling us anyway.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:02:00 am  
Blogger RHRoss said...

Of course Israel is a Jewish state. It is its sole raison d'etre!

Most of Israel's paranoia arises from this source.

It's why Israeli Arabs who leave Israel to live somewhere else for a time.... say for work ... can't return; it's why Israelis who marry Palestinians or Arabs can't bring them to Israel; it's why Israeli Arabs can't build homes or build onto their homes in the same way that other Israelis can; it's why Israeli Arabs are not allowed to bring their parents, no matter how ill they are, to live with them in Israel; it's why Israel has sought out any Jews, anywhere, or even people who might think they could be Jews, like a lot of Russians, and encouraged them to emigrate to Israel .... it's all about maintaining the numbers of the Jewish state.

It's also why Israel has continued its colonisation and land theft .... more land means more immigrants means more Jews and maybe more of us than the Palestinians.

It's a racist concept and doomed to fail by any democratic or civilized standard but it is what the State of Israel was founded upon and is still about.

It is good to hear voices of reason coming out of Israel in regard to the need for a Palestinian state because it really is the only way that a Jewish State can have any hope of continuing to exist.

Even with two states though a Jewish Israel is as doomed as an Islamic Saudi .... such concepts, as I said, are racist and backward ... they can't survive and will not survive in times to come.

I'd give a Jewish State, following the establishment of a palestinian state and reparation for the dispossession and colonisation, say, fifty years, max.

Israel has changed anyway since the time of its foundation and it will change more. Many Israelis are secular and very aware of the fact that perhaps there greatest threat comes not from without but within .... the religious nutters who impose their primitive views on everyone else.

That's an issue which will need to be settled and when it is Israel will emerge as a secular state, more interested in making money than curling their hair and the way to do that will be to co-operate with neighbours and establish economic ties. Ultimately, when all the religious paraphanelia is put where it belongs .... into people's private lives, a very long way from the State, you will have an economic confederation of Palestine/Israel because it is the only way that makes sense.

The same thing will happen to Islamic States. They too are backward. All nations founded on such concepts will fail.

The irony of it all is that Israelis would have a far better quality of life if they created one State now and gave up the Jewish State fantasy. As it is, because of this fantasy the Palestinians will get their State and they will get a viable one and they will get Jerusalem as their capital and all of the colonised land back ....

because they must. There is no other way as this article says, for Israel to remain a Jewish state.

The gods play sport with us. There is no doubt of that. So much blood and misery for pretty much nothing.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:27:00 am  
Blogger RHRoss said...

violet
You are right, fundamentalist Islam is stuck, but you overlook the fact that fundamentalist Judaism is stuck too .... the difference is that for the moment fundamentalist Muslims have power in a number of States.

What sort of scenario do you think you would get if fundamentalist Jews ran Israel? Something very similar to their Islamic counterparts.

Fundamentalists of all persuasion are problematic. Christians too.

And, given the rate at which orthodox Jews breed there's a good chance that any Jewish State, should it continue to survive, is going to be run by the fundamentalists eventually.

Even more crazy Shabbat rules. Although its fascinating the way the orthodox invent ways 'around' those rules when it suits them.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:38:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Most of Israel's paranoia comes from Suicide bombers.

Shabbat rules are very logical. Only idiots and ignorant jack asses would think them crazy.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:53:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Very well put Rh,

Fundamentalism of any kind is destructive, an I imagine the inflamatory language that comes from the mouths of these people is no less offensive or destructive than those comming from Islami extremists, upon which the media places so much significance.

This is proabky what drives the perpetuation of he paranoia among some Jews. Paranoia is a poweful force and as long as this is fuelled, the notion of Jewish only state maintains it's acceptance.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:02:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Since you have no knowledge of the belief's of the Jewish orthodox, it must be another guess that you treat as a fact.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:29:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Of course it's my opinon only.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:31:00 am  
Blogger RHRoss said...

ibrahamav

I've been in Israel. I know which parts of the hotel you can get milk and which can't, which lifts work on Shabat and which don't. Sorry, the shabat rules are stupid and most secular Israelis agree.

The really unpleasant bit is where orthodox Jews attack the cars of secular Israelis who choose to drive on the shabat.

The same orthodox Jews who will use a hospital, with its lifts and electrical equipment on shabat if they are seriously ill; who will use a car to get to said hospital or to an important business meeting on shabat if they have to; who will fly on shabat if they have to; who will use one telephone if they have to....

The idiocy of it is the ways that are found around the rules... rules that were dreamt up in more primitive times and which have no place in a modern world.

Rules which the fundamentalists seek to impose on everyone.... would if they could.

Interesting too that the same orthodox who won't use a car on Shabat will carry a Kalishnakov...now there's priorities for you.

Fundamentalism of any kind is not only destructive it is irrational and silly.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:41:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Not wishing to abide by such rules is why so many Israelis are secular.

And what is the purpose of carrying a Kalishnakov on sabbath.

And the fact that some Jews may voice an opinion as to their feeling about such laws does not in anyway affect the validity of such law.

Unless you're a racist like AL and feel that being Jewish gives you some special right do to some racial superiority.

And the small number of Jews attacking cars driving on Shabbot is rather samll and only in certain areas.

They certainly aren't killing anyone over it as Fundimental Islamists are apt to do.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:02:00 am  
Blogger David said...

Addamo:

Once again your apparently limited powers of comprehension fail you. It's not that AL doesn't believe in the war in Iraq. He surely believes in it, but its just that he is supporting the enemy side.

You accuse me of being a chicken hawk. Au contraire. It is AL, who from the safety of Sydney berates the media for not reporting accurately on Iraq. And it is AL, who until recently was barracking for the abu Musam al-Zarqawi, et al, expressing the fervent hope that the Coalition be defeated. That means dead GIs, British squaddies and diggers.

So it is AL who is talking-the-talk and not walking-the-walk on two issues. If he had the courage of his conviction on either, he'd be out there in Iraq, either reporting on the situation, or playing an active role in the fight against the Australian, British and American troops he so heartily despises.

Got it?

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 8:21:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

David,

“He surely believes in it, but its just that he is supporting the enemy side.”

AL opposed the war, unles you have evidence he was ever in favor of it? In other words, he did not believe in it’s premise, it’s justification or it’s execution (pun intended)

"You accuse me of being a chicken hawk. Au contraire. “

Why aren’t you therefore enlisted with the armed forces oh brave one?

“It is AL, who from the safety of Sydney berates the media for not reporting accurately on Iraq.”

In case you hadn;t noticed, that;s exactly what you are doign no? AL mention a guy called Dahr Jamail, an unembeded reporter who has spent a great deal of time in Iraq. Jamail himself pointed out that nearly all the MSM reporting from Iraq is dovne via proxies, who are essentially Iraqi's on the ground who are paid to convey what is going on. They do this for one very good reason Davd. Westerners are at great risk. Even Rober Fisk and Patrick Cockburn state that every time they go back, it becomes an order of magnitude more dangerous.

Anyway, the MASM papers take the news they want to report and censor what they don’t want to report. Jamail mentioned how a friend of his who up the job (a big deal n a country with massive unemployment) because he his reports were not being properly reproduced in the media.

So before you bark up AL’s case, perhaps you should set your sights on bigger fish.

“And it is AL, who until recently was barracking for the abu Musam al-Zarqawi, et al, expressing the fervent hope that the Coalition be defeated. That means dead GIs, British squaddies and diggers.”

That is a lie and you know it. Never has AL barracked for Zarqawi you idiot. In fact, you might want to ask the Commander in chief himself why he didn’t bother taking Zarqawi out on the two occasions he had the chance, instead of leaving him there to make his case for war hold water in front of the UN.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trey-ellis/who-will-finally-explain-_b_7585.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

Heaven forbid shoudl you ever question our beloved leaders for sending these poor fellows off to a war that was unnecessary, illegal and based on lies. Like all chickenhwaks and war appologists, you insist that coalition troops are dying purely becasue of people like AL.

Has it ever occured to you that if AL and oteh war critics were to fall silent, killing woudl continue. However if ytou were to bring the troops back, it is guaranteed that the kiling of coalition troops would stop.

I knwo, it's a radical idea. Let it sink in oevr a few days.

How many times will you allow the Bush’s and the Blair’s and the Howard’s to change the story and pretend that each time they have always told the truth? Remember when they said we'd be greeted as liberators? Remember when we were told that the terrorists were all deadenders?

”So it is AL who is talking-the-talk and not walking-the-walk on two issues. If he had the courage of his conviction on either, he'd be out there in Iraq, either reporting on the situation, or playing an active role in the fight against the Australian, British and American troops he so heartily despises.

You really do believe this crap about demoracy and freedom and liberating Iraqi’s don’t you? You’re and even bigger idiot than I thought. You’re spending far too much time on your Playstation

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 8:49:00 am  
Blogger violet said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:13:00 am  
Blogger Stev said...

I have to ask - these people who keep talking about the 'coming holocaust' - where do you see this holocaust 'coming' from?

The US is the sole superpower and the Jewish lobby has so much pull over US policy that it's impossible to imagine any persecution of the Jewish community coming from there. Even if you count China as a challenge to US domination - as far as I understand it, the Chinese don't really care about Jewish people. To the Chinese, Jews are no different from the rest of the western world. If the Chinese are going to persecute, it's going to be all of us, not just Jews.

From Islamic nations? Come on. You really think Iran's gonna overthrow the US and become a superpower and begin a new holocaust? I mean, granted Iran is powerful enough that if the US attempted to invade it would be messy - but does anyone truly believe that Iran could (even if it wanted to) expand and create an empire big enough to persecute Jews?

The holocaust was a terrible thing. There is no argument there. And another one should certainly be avoided at any cost. But I'm truly struggling to see how this new holocaust could come to pass. Perhaps that's just my limited knowledge of world politics. Perhaps one of the people here who believe a second holocaust is coming could explain it to me.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:14:00 am  
Blogger RHRoss said...

stev
I shall be fascinated to see what answers you get, if any.

You are right, there is no real threat to Israel except in terms of clipping its wings and making it behave properly. There can't be.

If there is a 'holocaust' it will be one that Israel brings upon itself by bombing the Iranians and releasing nuclear material to poison the air and water of the region; or being bombed in return by Iran ... but none of these things are going to destroy either Iran or Israel.

The only 'holocaust' in the Middle East at the moment is the one Israel is perpetrating against the Palestinians.

Although fundamentalist christians do believe in armageddon and the destruction of things; the end of days as they call it.

Interestingly they have provided a great deal of support for Israel's continued colonisation but ironically they believe that when the 'time' comes, everyone but true christians will die, including the Jews. The good guys get lifted into something approximating a Muslim heaven with beautiful virgins and banquets and the like.... all very crazy and more than a bit sad.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:41:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Gentlemen, I have been asking our good friends this very question about the coming holocaust and evidence thereof. Alas, my repeated pleas for enlightenment have been ignored.

Indeed similarly with the so called Islamo-Facist takeover of the west. Melanie, bless her, is the only person who has given any justification for her conclusion - the clampdown on Sharia law in Europe is evidence of Sharia taking hold. Hmmm, by that reasoning, Bush's shredding of individual freedoms, liberties and privacy are a sign that both are undergoing some kind of renaissance in the US - not.

My only conclusion is that those who control what these people digest, information wise, are leading them to believe this is happening. Sounds strange I know, but then again, most American's still think Bin Landen attacked them because of their freedoms. I mena serions folks....

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:00:00 am  
Blogger RHRoss said...

addamo
quite right. One of the problems in the West, the free world, hmmmm, is the media monopolies that censor information, for various reasons.

Information is available on numerous websites but the average person does not bother with this. Most people in fact rely on the television for news which is even more of a worry for the US than Australia. News has become infotainment and little real news gets through.

We also live in a time of fear which politicians use to get into power and to stay in power and corporations use to sell things and the media uses to sell things.

Fear has in fact become an ephemeral companion and people do not want to ask too many questions, look too closely or think about it too much in case it becomes so real they are forced to do something .... take responsibility.

Most people simply do not care that Palestinians, Chechens, Zimbabweans, Tibetans and the rest suffer as they do. They do not care that some 100,000 Iraqis are dead thanks to cowardly US airpower and, on the military count of 7 wounded for 1 dead, probably close to a million Iraqis are maimed or injured.

In a world where 'greed is good' people care only about themselves, their hip-pocket, and their comforts.

Such a position not only lacks integrity, it is dangerous. But we human beings are slow learners at the best of times.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:07:00 am  
Blogger violet said...

Rhoss,

If there is a 'holocaust' it will be one that Israel brings upon itself...

This is a discraceful thing to say. Absolutely discraceful. It's just plain irresponsible. Scratch a little of your veneer and this is what we find?

If you really were a student of history, as you appear to consider yourself, with all your sweeping grandious statements about another people's country, then you would never claim genocide is something a nation of people ask for, or deserve.

According to you, Israel deserves any forthcoming genocide. Very nice of you Rhoss. WOW, the real Rhoss emerges.

Shame on you.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:34:00 am  
Blogger violet said...

And the saddest thing of all is that here --- uninformed racist people like you are a product of the hate peddled here on this blog by Antony. He must be very proud of you. It's sick.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:37:00 am  
Blogger Stev said...

Violet, you have twisted rhross's words to the nth degree.

To say that Israel brings a holocaust upon itself is not the same as saying Israel deserves a holocaust. To bring something upon yourself is to cause it through your actions. To 'deserve' something is to pass judgement and determine punishment or retribution for actions. The difference is quite vast.

And by the same token, to say 'holocaust' - and particularly to include the apostrophes - is not the same as genocide. The word holocaust can simply mean 'great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire'.

You have extended rhross's statement to mean genocide, and though only he can speak to his intentions, I do not believe that is what he was referring to.

If he was, then yes, I think that is an inexcusable statement, no nation or group of people deserves genocide - but you have made a couple of large leaps in logic in assuming that was his intention.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:47:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Violet,

That is typical of the hysterical outrage that comes when a mirror is held to Zionists who think that the Jewsih victims of WWII have somehow patented the term holocaust.

RH was pointing ot quite clearly that Israel and the US are the ones sporting he nukes and threatenign to use them That's not racist. That's observation of fact.

Do you not agree that using nukes in a atrike against a non nuclear country that poses no nuclear threat is outrageous and criminal in the extreme? Woudl such an extreme act of vilence not incite a relation of similar proportions?

Cause and effect my dear. Nothing more. iran are in no positino to threaten Israel. If a large scale latercation eventuates it will be because Israel or the US decide to create it.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:56:00 am  
Blogger RHRoss said...

violet,
have you taken your medication today? If not you should.

The fact that you could arrive at the conclusions that you have is a sign of great delusion.

To remind you. The topic of holocaust was something others brought up. I took it to mean the greatest destruction since holocaust has come to mean in the Jewish lexicon, the worst thing that can happen .... the greatest destruction. Other people tend to use the same word in a similar way but it has particular impact for Jews. Understandably.

Do I think a 'holocaust' of any kind will happen? I don't know. As I said, great destruction, if it comes to Israel, will come because of its own actions.

Do Israelis deserve this? No-one deserves death and destruction.

Does this mean that when death and destruction come we are completely innocent? Not if you hold the views that I do and which I respect most other people do not hold, that we all contribute to what happens to us .... that we 'create' in a sense, our world, both at a micro and macro world.

I guess I don't believe in innocent victims anywhere. I believe we all play a part in what happens to us and only when we take responsibility for what happens to us can we have any hope of changing ourselves, our present and our futures.

Holocausts, whether Jewish, Armenian, Rwandan or Cambodian happen for many and varied reasons. They do not happen in a vacuum. They happen because of historical relationships and because of current circumstances.

They are always to be condemned, but, if we are to have a world without them we must understand how and why they happened.

Not only must we understand why Israelis are treating Palestinians as they are, but we also need to understand why Germans treated Jews as they did.

If one were to take it even further, and even less people believe this, but I do .... I believe that everything which happens to us is a lesson. That our experiences are created by us at a soul level and that our task is to learn to live and love our way through it without hatred, without violence .... and hopefully with a sense of humour.

In many ways this is a ridiculous world and it should not be taken too seriously.

Outrage is always a greater sign of the inward rage that makes people feel helpless, small and frightened.

We can strive for justice and honour in the world without being constantly outraged. A radical thought I know but it is possible.

By the way, jokes about medication aside, I do respect the fact that you care deeply about this issue. You just don't do your case any service by rabid, foaming responses.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:25:00 pm  
Blogger RHRoss said...

addamo,
thanks for the support. I am a she not a he.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:25:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

rhoss & addamo

You suffer from the disease of relativism. -- everything should be interpreted as a result of its context or culture.

Rubbish rubbish rubbish

And the fact that l use words like "discraceful" and "irresponsible" to defend Jews makes me "rabid and foaming"

and...

have you taken your medication today? If not you should.

and from you addamo...

" hysterical outrage "

I'm sorry but you guys are hysterical. Listen to yourselves. Your own vocabulary surpassed mine in descriptive outrage. According to your standards, you two must need a biopsy not medication.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:22:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

mike jericho

Thanks for the link to your blog. I will look at it with interest.

The problem with the Left is that it has aligned itself with the anti-war movement and hence with the fundamentalist Islamic agenda. Caring about the abuse of women in the Middle East is contrary to their agenda. Although they claim to care deeply for "victims", their political agenda is more important to them than abused women.

This is why they call anyone who dares to discuss it a "racist". They are in denial and want to forget it. Honour killing, religiously santioned rape and murder -- they pretend happens in the East as well as the West. It helps them sleep at night. Ignorance is bliss. This is why, when you point out their hypocrisy they get so ANGRY.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:36:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

Violet,

You really should watch it with those leaps of logic, keep jumping like that and you never know where you will land.

Simply because one opposes the war in Iraq in no way means they are aligned with the fundamentalist Islamic agenda. Surely you can see the leap it takes to tie those two statements together. You seem to be saying that if I oppose the war I also believe that all women should wear the full Islamic dress out of respect to Allah. Can I not have a political view on the war without meaning I support the extreme views of fundamentalist Islam?

Think of it this way: I oppose ALL war. So if a fundamentalist Islamic nation invaded, for example, a Judeo-Christian nation like the US, I would be opposed to that war too - because I am opposed to all war. Simply because I oppose this hypothetical war, doesn't mean I align myself with the US agenda. I hope this explains suitably how one can be anti-war and not pro-'fundamentalist Islam'

I also think it's incredibly dangerous to think in such broad strokes as 'The Left' and 'The Right'. 'The Left', as you describe it, is incapable of aligning itself with anything because it is not a body. It is not aware, nor is it guided by a leadership. It cannot decide who to support and who not to support, it is simply a construct used to describe a political and social leaning.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:52:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Oh Vilet,

You really have got yourself into a bunch of knots haven’t you?

There you are, creating a straw man that you kick down, and link that bit of fluff with an insult to the stronger argument that you have to ignore because you have no answer.

You keep coming back to these false bullet points irrespective of where they have anything to do with the topic or otherwise. Irrespective of how many times it’s explained to you, you continue to channel your inner Michelle Malkin and just repeat tgh esame lies and make the same hollow and baseless assertions.

“The problem with the Left is that it has aligned itself with the anti-war movement and hence with the fundamentalist Islamic agenda.”

Lie number 1.

“Caring about the abuse of women in the Middle East is contrary to their agenda.”

Lie number 2.

“Although they claim to care deeply for "victims", their political agenda is more important to them than abused women.”

Lie number 3.

Relativism is BS because elementary moral principles are what matter. Yet, relativism is the pillar that you and your fellow Zionists build your entire arguments upon, pulling out the holocaust card at every opportunity when Israel's actions and conduct are called into question. Either that or the impeding holocaust that you have never bothered to explain.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:35:00 pm  
Blogger John Faber said...

Violet, your comments make little sense. Rhross' post made perfect sense, though of course it used some emotionally charged language. The big problem here, and not just yourself [but in this case particularly so], is that terms like 'anti-semitism', 'racism', 'hate' etc become meaningless through the frequency with which they're used.

Whether you agree with somebody or not, accusing them using these terms [or responding to their accusations using these terms] devalues your argument. I suggest sticking to a more restrained style.

It's much harder to argue with you that way

j

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:37:00 pm  
Blogger smiths said...

the highs and lows of reading these posts are exhilerating,
just dont know wether to laugh or cry

Abner, Melanie and Violet, I insist you become frequenters of my blog. In this way I can siphon away a portion of your brilliance and take credit for it.

honestly i was in stitches reading that,

obviously my understanding of the term 'brilliance' has been distorted by my atheist, anti-semitic, suicide bomber supporting, relativistic socialism

well maybe i should deconstruct myself and start again

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:55:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:58:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

I just love it when you guys get yourselves all worked up in a "goddam frenzy".

The fact that everytime I express this point of view the lot of you get angry and dismayed and feel such a strong need to defend yourselves speaks volumes and volumes.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:02:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Very funyn note to end on Smiths. Thanks for the comic relief.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:09:00 pm  
Blogger smiths said...

but what i want to know is what 'elementary moral principles' do you refer to addamo,
i recently asked violet the same sort of question with no answer forthcoming
violet,
i am intrigued by your continued attacks on postmodernism and relativism,
what self evident truths or proofs would you offer to justify your own beliefs or vehement opposition to these philosophical arguements


i'd love a genuinely good answer from anyone

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:13:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

Of course we feel the need to defend ourselves Violet - you are accusing people who would generally consider themselves compassionate (I believe most liberal types do - I know I think this way of myself) of sanctioning the abuse of women in the Middle East. And you do so by vastly oversimplifying the debate. It might surprise you to learn that few things in life, if any, are black and white.

Although, quite frankly, I don't think any of my posts would qualify as 'angry' or 'dismayed' and certainly not 'a frenzy'.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:25:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Elementary moral principles for me, means what Rh was alluding to. That you must take reponsibilty for what happens to you as well as what you do. Sometimes this means confronting what we would rather not.

Words like retavism and equivalence have been used to create some blurred demarcation line between freedom fighters and terrosists.

It's a fraud. Vilence is violence and becasue we do it without meanign to kill innocents does not absolve us of reposnsibility just becaseu we consider our intentiones pure.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:30:00 pm  
Blogger Clumsy Birds said...

Addamo_01,

Why aren’t you therefore enlisted with the armed forces oh brave one?

Poor logic. Did you support Timor? Why weren’t you with the ADF? When the UN finally gets off its swollen lazy arse, will you be in the army they send to stop genocide in the Sudan? The ADF is made up of voluntary forces- and even though Antony wants that to change- that’s the way it’s going to stay for the foreseeable future. Your doing what the American left does, claiming you love the troops (don’t get in a frenzy yet, no doubt you do), and you want to see ‘our young boys’ come home. There not little boys, they’re men and women doing a great job that they are trained for (and NOT war criminals who ‘deserve’ to be defeated, Antony). If any non-military ‘chicken-hawks’ went over to Iraq to help, they’d just getting in the way.

Here Addamo_01, you might be interested in this guys blog:

http://americancitizensoldier.blogspot.com/

Rhoss,

The only 'holocaust' in the Middle East at the moment is the one Israel is perpetrating against the Palestinians.

Is it a magical reverse Holocaust, the more Palestinians the evil Israelis kill, rape, and steal from, the quicker their numbers grow? Amazing stuff… I’m going to look in my wardrobe now, to see if I can find my way to Narnia.

Grow up, mate.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:34:00 pm  
Blogger smiths said...

are the people in iraq who attack american troops terrorists, insurgents, freedom fighters or maybe soldiers?

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:34:00 pm  
Blogger smiths said...

and remember guys, even though holocaust is a very old word, originally referring to destruction by fire it now belongs to the jews and the israeli state,
any use of it by another group or in a different context will not be tolerated

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:38:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Stewie,

"Poor logic. Did you support Timor? Why weren’t you with the ADF?"

I agree. That was my point entirely. David was the one who raised this reasining by suggesting that Ant should get his arse over to Iraq becase he dared to imply that the news comming out of Iraq was limited.

As for your link, yes I am aware of similar blogs. It's a pitty the US military is shutting down most blogs and onyl allowing authorised blogs. Perhaps they donlt want toomuch good news getting out in one go, or could it be because this report has come validity?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/army_breaking_point;_ylt=Aouh5axe8UtTOItm1sa19aus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 4:02:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

smiths

are the people in iraq who attack american troops terrorists, insurgents, freedom fighters or maybe soldiers?

You do not appear to understand the difference between armed civilians and soldiers. Are any of you aware that there is a difference? That terrorists are not recognised as soldiers? I assume you know that there are rules on a battlefield? And that there are Geneva Conventions defining legitimate warfare?

stev

Of course we feel the need to defend ourselves Violet - you are accusing people who would generally consider themselves compassionate

So, now you know how the Jews feel -- being continually accused of cruelty, being attacked by bombers and armed civilians and being told to get out of the country created for them in 1948. It's no wonder many are defensive. It's no wonder they feel "a little " paranoid. I wonder how you'd feel.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 4:46:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

So you attack people the way you think the Jews shouldn't be attacked - and that helps your cause how exactly? Doesn't it just make you as bad as the people that you're claiming are in the wrong?

Also, you wonder how I'd feel, but didn't you just say I now know how they feel? Your opening and closing lines seem to be in direct contradiction.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 4:58:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

Just on that first point too - I strongly believe that in the history of the humanity treating someone the way you've been treated so they know how bad it is has never yielded positive results. Mistreatment is usual some kind of violence, be it physical or psychological. It's cliche, but it's true - violence really does beget more violence.

It may just be my Christian upbringing, but I truly believe it is better (both from a moral viewpoint, and more successful) to treat someone as you would like to be treated.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:07:00 pm  
Blogger smiths said...

violet,

ever heard of david and goliath?, of course you have,

america attacked iraq without provocation or just cause which makes it an aggressor,
it has the largest military capacity in history which makes it goliath,

the iraqi people engage in assymetric warfare because it is the only choice they have,
like david did, which makes them soldiers,

if nazi germany(the universal villain) had invaded england the 'people' would have formed cells of 'resistance' and stepped out of alleys and shot nazi soldiers in the back of the head and dissappeared like the french did,
this method if successful in ending the occupation would have made the 'people' freedom fighters and heroes of the oppressed nation state.

since you detest relativism, you ought to stick to concrete definitions and apply them to all without regard to race or nationality, like this one from the british government
"Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause."

quite clearly it applies to the actions of both the israeli state and the palestinian non-state,
both guilty of terrorism,
or would like to shift the defintion in a more relative kind of way?

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:08:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

smiths

You have a typical Leftist ideological interpretation of warfare. Because humans have almost always engaged in physical combat against each other we have the Geneva Conventions and we have rules of warfare. We have rules for the battlefield that are designed and agreed upon for proper behaviour whilst in battle.

I was asking you if you understood this concept?

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:21:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

violet

You are wasting your time. My experience with anti-semites like smiths is that they are totally ignorant of international law, despite raving on about it so much.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:13:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Violet,

Have you been in a cave somewhere the last 3 years or did oyu miss the bit about Gonzales regarding he Geneva conventions as quaint? In other words, superfluosu, unecessary and outdated.

What message do you think the soldiers are getting?

Instead, geniuses like Cheney and the other neocon nitwits are trying to take comfort in the fact that their policies are a costly failure.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:11:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

They are getting the message that there is too much addamo in the world. And you are supplying most of it.

The soldiers in the field don't give a shit about what Gonzales wrote.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:15:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

...and even less about the Geneva conventions and human rights apprently.

Friday, January 27, 2006 1:37:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Again, knowledge based on guesses and addamo.

Friday, January 27, 2006 8:25:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home