I want to spotlight this question that appeared in the comments section of my earlier thread on politics and friendship [some spelling corrections made here]:
…if this is the state of your personal relationships, is the blog a chance to say all those things you can’t with them, a place to find ideological fellowship, or both or neither? Do [your friends] know about the blog? Just curious.
I began this blog mainly because I was spending so much time reading and commenting on other blogs that I figured I might as well start one of my own. At the time, I was writing quite a few emails to Andrew Sullivan, and a great many of them were being published on his blog (this was back when he was still featuring a couple of emails a day). It was fun to think that, because of the enormous volume of Sullivan’s traffic, many people were probably reading my words.
But at the beginning, I never thought this blog would generate much traffic. I started out very slowly and tentatively here around the time of the build-up to the 2004 election, not ever thinking I’d be using it as much more than a dump for a few of the emails I’d sent to Andrew, or some of my longer comments on other blogs.
But I did have an idea; that’s why I gave the blog the name I did. As I said, I really wasn’t thinking that I’d ever have much traffic. But I was thinking that I wanted to make this a place to discuss the changes I’d undergone post-9/11, and to make it a place where people who’d had similar experiences would feel especially welcome. I knew I’d be discussing change in general, and it’s interesting to me that so many of my posts have indeed continued to deal with that topic in one form or other.
And yes, since I began the blog in the intense period of the buildup to the 2004 Presidential election, it was at least partly an effort to channel the energy I had to speak about these things away from friends and family, most of whom had made it clear that they wanted to take such topics off the table. I was only too happy to oblige, because the experience with them had been so unproductive and unpleasant.
So the answer to the first question from the commenter is “both.” Primarily, however, this blog has been a way to say things I just feel I need to say, and to make them available for others read them. In that I think I resemble most bloggers: we like to get our thoughts out there in written form.
As for the second question, whether my friends know about the blog, the answer is also “yes.” I’ve given all those who are close to me–and many who are less close, but still friends–the URL. I’ve invited them to read it, with the caveat that they probably would disagree with my viewpoints. But of course, most of them already know that.
I’ve never sent them links to any political posts of mine, however, unless they’ve specifically requested that–and very few have. To send such things to them at this point would constitute a sort of mild harassment. Now politics only comes up if they choose to bring it up.
There are two family members who read my blog regularly. It is probably no coincidence that those are the two closest to me, and that they also happen to be the two who have come (at least partially, and to different degrees) over to the dark side along with me. There’s one good friend who remains staunchly liberal who reads here regularly and thoughtfully. But most of you probably won’t be surprised to learn that the rest of my friends virtually never come here, although I do send them links to some of my lighter, nonpolitical, pieces from time to time, if I think they’d enjoy that.
Of course, there are many possible explanations for my friends’ general lack of interest in reading my blog. I was drawn to blogs the moment I first found them, back in 2002. Something about them just resonated with me–I liked the personal voice, the lively give and take, the sense of a Greek chorus (sometimes humorous) commenting on the news that had heretofore been intoned mostly by the likes of Cronkite and Rather.
But since the majority of people don’t read blogs–left or right–most of my friends fall squarely into that category. Therefore the fact that they never read my blog isn’t all that strange. But I still like to think that, if the tables were reversed, and I was the non-blog-reader and my friends the bloggers, I would have enough curiosity to go to their blogs and read from time to time.
But nothing I write here is a secret, not only in the sense that a blog is in the public domain, but also in the sense that I’ve given the information out to friends. What they do with it is their business.
I’ve found a lack of general interest on both sides in reading much of what the other side has to say. Since I’m the Tiresias of bloggers (metaphorically, that is!), I’ve spent quite a bit of time reading on both sides now. I think that’s especially true of other “changers.” And I still do quite a bit of reading of the NY Times and the Boston Globe, as well as my old favorite, the New Yorker, as well as a smattering of articles decidedly to the left of those publications.
But back when I was a liberal Democrat, I hardly ever recall reading periodicals on the right. One reason was that I thought I already was reading media that presented both sides fairly (the above MSM publications). I think that’s a common perception still, among liberals.
There’s also a perception that there’s no need to read the other side because it’s all garbage any way. And no doubt there are many on the right who feel that way about the other side, as well. But I think it’s a bit harder for those on the right to avoid reading views from the liberal side, since it’s so well represented in the MSM. And it always strikes me as strange that liberals, who pride themselves on openminded reflection and inclusion, as well as respect for different “truths,” should so often be doctrinaire about shutting out the voices on the right from their own consciousness. If liberal stereotypes about the right are to believed, that’s exactly the sort of behavior one would expect from the narrow-minded right, isn’t it?
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Glad I came back. I can see how nasty that person truly is. I wonder what he meant by my ill-health be short lived? Could that be read more than one way…
Anyway for the rest of you, especially the Americans who will or may know the difference, I am a classical liberal which does not equal a liberal democrat, in any modern sense.
Ymarsk (easier to write):
I had no illusions, but my job for near two decades was to make disagreeable people agreeable. I think the internet has given a life to people that would otherwise be walked away from at parties or other social events as too boorish to tolerate. I would surely kick someone out of my house if they claimed that they could do as they pleased in my house and continually insulted me to boot. Churlish lout.
“On a Gaza Beach” I did manipulate him to get him to explode. It was child’s play. Two comments and the head ruptures.
Neo’s right to block the trolls and they are just that, trolls. I had hopes.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Rep. Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives
December 9, 2004
Fact Sheet
Halliburton’s Iraq Contracts Now Worth over $10 Billion
The value of Halliburton’s Iraq contracts has crossed the $10 billion threshold. Halliburton has now received $8.3 billion in Iraq work under its LOGCAP troop support contract and $2.5 billion under its no-bid Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO) contract, a total of $10.8 billion.
The mounting value of the contracts has been accompanied by a growing list of concerns about Halliburton’s performance. Over the last year, government auditors have issued at least nine reports criticizing Halliburton’s Iraq work, and there are multiple criminal investigations into overcharging and kickbacks involving Halliburton’s contracts. Former Halliburton employees have testified before Congress about egregious instances of over billing. Despite these concerns, the Bush Administration continues to reject the recommendations of its auditors that 15% of Halliburton’s LOGCAP reimbursements be withheld until the company can provide better substantiation for its charges.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&ddlC=6
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Boy you just can’t give ground on much can you? I wasn’t defending Malkin, I was disagreeing with your interpretation. There is a difference, subtle but there.
So you are saying it isn’t racist? I wonder if I was to put up a web site dedicated to the Haditha story as espoused by the victims relatives and then put photos of American kids with guns or at NRA rallies, or kids in KKK garb or cowboy costumes with guns, that would be OK too?
Maybe we could add a few pics of American neoNazis and have those twins’ mp3 embedded in the page. That of course would be perfectly fair by your reasoning.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
I told you people before, not to get scammed by Confud’s seemingly reasonable conduct. So, at least people had forward warning. You can do as you like, of course, but this is not unexpected after all given what I said before.
The reason is simple. There are specific things that you cannot talk about to Confud, or else he will blow up on you and engage his prejudices in overdrive.
If you were just talking about yourself, and not Confud’s support columns like Palestinians and racism, then Confud can talk to you like a normal person. But the moment you get out of line, he comes down like a load of bricks on you.
Once you have a person’s psychology nailed down, not only are they predictable but they are completely open to annihilation attacks.
What the heck are annihilation attacks? These attacks are designed as such to destroy a person from the inside out. You start with their key beliefs, destroy them, and their entire edifice will implode on itself. But you can’t do this with just words, words has never convinced the true believer, the fanatic, or the religious zealot. You need something more. Something that is so psychologically traumatic, that either the target reenergizes his conscience and changes, or the target goes into a coma.
It is sad to say,but the people who like America the most are the ones who live the crappiest of lives under the regimes that are anti-American. They see the truth and can never deny it. You can’t make someone living in peace and prosperity, protected by the American Navy, to like America. Obviousness is not enough, psychological trauma must be necessary for those who have integrated so much anti-American philosophy or socialist beliefs. Or in Confud’s case, pro-Palestinian jihad beliefs.
There comes a point when your beliefs become your identity. And therefore once someone understands your beliefs (such as love for your child), then that person can destroy you by destroying your beliefs. Or making use of your beliefs to destroy you. Either way, the end goal is accomplished.
I’m sorry I’ve wasted valuable time with you. If my family is at threat because of your beliefs, then a curse on your family is in order I believe.
Confud feels betrayed by Ariel’s words. Which I thought was quite overly cautious in making things clear and inoffensive.
Why then does Confud feel betrayed? Because Confud thought Ariel was a reasonable person, that he could talk to. And a reasonable person would never disagree with Confud on the things that he has believed in in his heart, now would they? So when that reasonable person believes in something that Confud considers taboo, Confud believes he has been betrayed.
Confud is correct, but Confud should realize that his own beliefs and integrity betrayed him, not the beliefs and integrity of Ariel.
Such is psychology, useful but not a godlike cure.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Ariel.
the US may be more ‘multicultural’ than some others.
That doesn’t make Ymar or Sally not racist scum.
Your argument is, sadly, a pathetic demonstration of neocon ultranationalist hypocrisy and rhetoric.
I’m sorry I’ve wasted valuable time with you. If my family is at threat because of your beliefs, then a curse on your family is in order I believe. You are no better than OBL or the idiots blowing up people in Iraq (oh. wait you are blowing up people in Iraq).
No salutations.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Ariel.
you have to choose. Are you going to lie down with these chickenhawks or be a patriot.
If you beleive in liberal democracy you are obliged to question the centers of power. You seem to have layed down and decayed.
So, you aren’t a liberal democrat you are a pathetic parody of your own rhetoric.
I hope your ill health is short lived.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Well, this is probably a dead thread. But I have my last 2 cents.
Confudeforeigner,
Boy you just can’t give ground on much can you? I wasn’t defending Malkin, I was disagreeing with your interpretation. There is a difference, subtle but there. Quick test: two pictures, one an Aborigine being beating into submission by a white Aussie, the other a white Aussie being beaten into submission by another white. The racist will blame the Aborigine, the race-baiter will see White Racism, the rest of us will wonder what the guy said/did to make the other so angry, or just think the beater is a violent jerk. I’m in the third group, which are you? Only you can know.
Oh, that little voice you hear in the very still hours of the night, that whisper “you might have misjudged, you might be wrong…” it’s not a psychotic episode, it’s your conscience.:>)
I never brought up Nasser’s folly of Pan-Arabism. Only you did. I was thinking only of the regimes that have used this as the reason for “we will drive them into the sea”. I believe the original reason was “Islamic land cannot be given up”. Thus my cynicism about the Arab regimes and the Palestinian Arabs, I don’t believe they give a crap about them either. One pretext is as good as another. The Arabs (locally, not regimes) tried the same thing in the 1920’s and failed then. Something you forget, or omit, is that the Israeli’s were not always backed by the US (think Mirage), but that another superpower was backing the Arabs in the 50’s and 60’s. It must be humiliating to be beaten by Jews over and over again.
The Mandate must be followed. All sides must agree to the existence of the other, yes the palestinian arabs should have a homeland and Israel should continue to exist. If the two sides could work together that region could be one of the most prosperous in the world. Instead of a hell hole for all concerned. I really don’t want Arab kids being shot, or Jewish kids shredded by bombs.
You dismiss history, but that is the context. To ignore it is, well, you know. Don’t read yesterday’s paper if you dismiss history.
Saddam financed suicide-bombers by monetary gifts to the families. Recent Iraqi documents that show Saddam did not have WMDs, but acted like it, also revealed closer ties to terrorist groups than you would agree with. Saddam would also train to fight terrorists while supporting it elsewhere, knowing his regime would be unacceptable at some point. If you missed it, he started acting more Muslim for show the last years of his regime. Like some of our past presidents who were really marginal as Christians but put on a good show. It is more complex than you let on, which surprises the hell out of me given some of your insight. We all filter through premises, preconceptions, and prejudices. Most often they serve us, sometimes they fail us.
Brad had commented earlier that your understanding of racism might be, uh, less than sophisticated. Your “we have less, rednecks, were so urbanized” so we are less racist is naive at best. Racism comes in many forms. You can call this arrogant, but Americans have been fighting this issue since before 1791 and we may just have a more sophisticated view of racism than the rest of you. It would take a hell of a lot of reading on your part just to scratch the surface of the American experience on this issue. It is height of arrogance of the rest of the world to think they know more, or have more than a superficial understanding of my country. We are so much more nuanced than you guys ever give us credit. I may of course misunderstand what you meant.
So, being a “redneck” kid that shucked corn, candled eggs, culled potatoes, raised calves, goats, chickens, had a stupid mule that would step on his feet so I’d keep brushing him, helped pick, crate and load my uncle’s strawberry crop, had a father and stepmother that picked cotton (no they weren’t black), I just can’t understand why my best friend in 2nd grade was a Sioux, or the kids I played baseball with all the time were all Latino (we called them Mexicans back then), or why I had a crush on a black girl in my Sophmore year, or even why my highschool girlfriend was Jewish. Now, I just can’t figure out why the last three sleepovers at my house were two Hindu kids (vegetarians are hard to feed) and a black kid. Being a “redneck” kid, I’m still trying to figure out why I live in a neighborhood with a black neighbor, the gay couple across the street, the newly arrived Ukranians, and the Russians whose lovely little daughter plays with my daughters, or why I talked all the time to my Assyrian grocer and his wife. Being a “redneck” kid, I still can’t figure out why I have 2000 books (last count) in my home, or how the hell I aced a senior level history course on the Soviet Union without reading the 15 assigned books (I’d read them in the military, no wonder it was hard getting the next security clearance with those books in my locker), or got a degree in engineering. I’m still hoping my wife’s nephew will marry his black girlfriend, the fool doesn’t know what he has. But you know those American rednecks, we have so many of them. I really hate labels.
Tell your Muslim friends Americans fought in Bosnia to save muslims, we died in Somolia (stupid cut-and-run) and, maybe, just maybe, Iraq will again have that functioning democracy it had from 1921 until 1958 (59?).
Tell them that democracy is compatible with Islam, but they know that, and their enemies are the muslims that say it isn’t.
Personally, I still have reservations about Islam. But then my aunt was 1st generation Armenian-American, so I heard a lot of stories as a young boy…
Have a safe trip. Stay on the board (I prefer motorcycles). Hug your kids both ways.
To everyone else, I apologize for this long rant.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
douglas said…
Sorry, missed the tagline. But why the little bit at the end? Why doesn’t Israel just BUY hellfires? Oh, wait, I think they do…
Douglas, you know, I reckon that that is the dumbest question I’ve ever been asked. It is not only a dumb question but the tone of it makes you sound like you are thinking that you are scoring a goal, whereas, it is a spectacular own goal.
The implication was overt and clear. What a donkey you are.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Q, Why doesn’t Israel become a state of the USA?
A: Because thay’d only have two senators.
Boom boom.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Douglas said…
To the original question of why the ambulance is no longer sacred in the territories, not the rhetorical question of why the blind defense…
2:33 AM, June 07, 2006
Look, I am suspicious of that sort of evidence no matter what side it comes from. There are too many blanks in it to speculate.
I’m sorry but it is no ‘proof’ at all.
The Geneva Conventions are quite specific either way, and who knows horse from cart.
Certainly, allegations and reports of IDF targeting of ambulances started long before the IDF started claiming the current story and it is suspicious that the IDF has offered no evidence let alone proof.
Why is it that you can argue with Israelis about these things but not Americans?
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Douglas, a serious answer.
My defence of the Palestinian PEOPLE (remember that word) is neither blind nor without reservation and knowledge of the sins committed in their name and by (some) of them.
Your tax dollars are paying for their oppessors’ sins (both Arab and Israeli, but mostly Israeli) and you are doing it ‘unconditionally’. Think about that. That is ammoral unquestioned support no matter what.
I urge you to read widely of the facts regarding Israel’s short bloody history Douglas. And read it with some empathy for the human beings involved.
Personally, I don’t think you can or will.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
To the original question of why the ambulance is no longer sacred in the territories, not the rhetorical question of why the blind defense…
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Sorry, missed the tagline. But why the little bit at the end? Why doesn’t Israel just BUY hellfires? Oh, wait, I think they do…
None the less, it is still non-sequitur. You still seem to miss the point that if the Israelis did something wrong, it changes nothing about palestinian sins- or does it? What then do you say about Haditha?
Why always the blind defense of the palestinians?
How about a real answer this time?
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Ymar, you’re the classic headless chickenhawk. Get over there and fight boy.
What, no balls?
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
I agree with Confud, when he said that he sait back while 6 million people are being screwed right now in addition to watching them.I would go further and say that Confud is paying for the slaughter of 25 more million people in Iraq, with his paid for propaganda.
I don’t think you can count Reuters among the organs of the United States government.
Don’t be so sure Doug, you never know when “we” might have the Zionists use their tentacles to infiltrate Al Reuters as a double blind.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Why wouldn’t they? Saddam was ruthless with islamists and jihadis. That is one of the great ironies of all this warmongering. You’ve been had.
“Why do you lay these troubles on an already troubled mind?” Can you not see? Your uncle is wearied by your malcontent, your warmongering.”
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Why would Iraq be doing anti-terrorism training of this nature?
Why wouldn’t they? Saddam was ruthless with islamists and jihadis. That is one of the great ironies of all this warmongering. You’ve been had.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Unsourced? It clearly says “Amnesty International” but I would imagine they aren’t credible to you.
As for the ambulance story, I played rugby with one of the Fijians that was there AND I’ve seen the video.
I’ve worked on a project to fund some of the refugees from Israeli aggression and expansionism in South Lebanon and Syria.
Did you know that your own troops have been attacked by the IDF?
Dismiss it as will be your wish.
I doubt that you’ll want to read this, but I’ll put it up anyway.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/anomalous/138519847/
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
“The hypocrisy is astounding given the context of the creation of Israel. Utterly mind numbingly astounding.”
I don’t think that’s really a response to Ariel, was it meant to be?
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
“the video of itself proves nothing. It could have come from anyone with an axe to grind.”
Curiously then, It came from a Reuters cameraman, probably appalled at the sanctity of the ambulance being violated. I don’t think you can count Reuters among the organs of the United States government. As for it ‘proving nothing’, I beg to differ. At a minimum, it proves that palestinian militants have no regard for the sanctity of the ambulance, and thereby endanger many other people on both sides.
“If you care to cast your mind back to before the Iraq invasion, we were shown a video which according to ‘US sources’ ie probably Rove’s White House Iraq Group ‘proved beyond doubt’ that Iraq was training terrorists in hostage taking on aircraft.
The only problem was, that it was Iraqi training video of antiterrorism troop training at their purpose built facility. (I can’t remember the name of the place. Om something)”
Why would Iraq be doing anti-terrorism training of this nature?
It’s also classic non-sequitur. There’s also a hugh difference between a Reuters news camera 20 feet from the action and a satellite or drone reconnasiance aircraft video…but again, non-sequitur.
“It is incumbent on the IDF to answer the UN and Red Cross’s demand for evidence, not to play propaganda games via youtube. If they have evidence the Red Cross would like to see it. Unless you think the Red Cross is part of the great arab conspiracy.”
You keep mentioning the UN and Red Cross/Crescent’s call for evidence- You fail to mention that it was about specific allegations of a UN ambulance being used to transport weapons, which was based on thin drone video evidence. The UN maintains that they do not support the militants with transport via ambulance, and so, for now, I’ll take them at their word, but that was not the issue. If militants force drivers to take them, it still violates and negates the sanctity of the ambulance. Why you cannot concede this point is beyond me. Is your entire world view so brittle?
As for your unsourced cut and paste of the ambulance attack, If it is as you portray it, it’s criminal. It is also non-sequitur to this discussion. Please try to engage us in a way that seeks clarity, not obfuscation, because ultimately, that will be seen as a dishonest position in itself.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Sorry, that should read …can’t be more complicated tthan….
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
No the sick puppy reference was purely in response to your defending that rabid little Shitzu, Malkin.
The injustice of the Palestinian tragedy is the weeping sore that is surely the rallying call for all Muslim extremists. You are effectively talking about 6 million refugees under constant military threat in perpetuity.
The injustice is blatant, palpable and demonstrably barbaric. The hypocrisy is astounding given the context of the creation of Israel. Utterly mind numbingly astounding.
And no will to fix it. None. In fact you are paying for it lock, stock and barrell. Blaming other arabs (or more correctly their regimes) for it doesn’t help the Palestinians and they actually didn’t create the mess in the first place. The whole pan Arab nonsense is just that. Nonsense.
The extremists using it are just as scathing of their own regimes and are actually fighting them as well.
That is where it gets too complicated for the little dears in here because it it can’t be any simpler than us vs them. And the current ‘them’ is muslims.
And at the end of the day, whatever the history, there are 6 million people being screwed right now and we’re sitting back watching them (and in your case paying) get it.
They don’t have any oil though, so………….
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Ymarsakar said…
Standard Aussie fair is calling people psychopaths and racist fantasists.
It might have something to do with all those sharks swimming around.
10:28 PM, June 05, 2006
Ymarsakar said…
I would add that New Zealanders too, but I think they might be a tad miffed if I compared them to Australians.
10:29 PM, June 05, 2006
And so it begins. Well done Yfronts for confirming my belief in you.
Yawn.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
The rich don’t need any tax cuts, all their assets are in foreign banks that can’t be taxed. You can’t cut taxes on the rich when they don’t pay much of their current ones.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
confud said… The muslims are coming! The muslims are coming!
How terrifying for you. There there it’ll be alright. GWB and Halliburton and Bechtel will save you. And you’ll get a tax cut if you’re rich enough, for your trouble.
Tax cuts? Hurrah! Hurrah!
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
I would add that New Zealanders too, but I think they might be a tad miffed if I compared them to Australians.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Standard Aussie fair is calling people psychopaths and racist fantasists.
It might have something to do with all those sharks swimming around.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
I see you all are still fighting it out. Haven’t had timeto really analyze all the arguments so I think I will stay out. However,
Confudeforeigner,
The Khmer Rouge were linked originally. They were an offshoot in 1959 of the Indochinese Communist Party, est. 1931 under the auspices of the Stalinists. There may have been some name changes after 59 , Khmer Rouge is the name the French gave them. The Vietnamese aided them, militarily and supples, in their fight to topple the Cambodian government, until the Khmer Rouge won in 1975. Went sour after that, Cambodians had some old grudges against the Vietnamese, could be because the Vietnamese thought they were destined to rule all of Indochina or whatever other old issues. The Cambodians claimed territory claimed by the Vietnamese, in 1979 the Vietnamese squashed their creation. Friends and buddies, then enemies. The Communists always ate their own. See the term “Revisionist” as coined by Lenin. Lot of old Bolsheviks died by that label.
As for Jenin, at least you didn’t throw out the “500″ were massacred which was a disgusting propaganda ploy immediately after. I’ve read accounts and assessments on both sides of the issue. All supposedly independent. One thing I don’t care for is how “guerillas” use civilian populations as shields. All sides may have blame here. The Israelis do need to clean up their act, but the Arabs need to accept them also. Arab anti-semitism (hate that stupid phrase, anti-judaism perhaps?) started well before the formation of Israel.
Read the history of this region starting about 1890-1900. The British did their usual botch up. The Hashemites had a greater claim to Arabia than the Sauds, they shouldn’t be ruling Jordan. The League of Nations Mandate should have been recognized, honored, and accomplished by all sides before the end of the 20s. I will not address the moral issue of all this simply because by not doing this an even greater moral issue was created. And their fellow Arabs have used the Palestinian Arabs as pawns just as much as the British used the Arabs. The Ottomans should have picked a better side in WWI.
I know its callous. But how many injustices do you wish to fight? The Armenians, Ukranians, Assyrians, Kurds, Sanids, Hottentots, I can make a damn long list, and with few exceptions (the Sanids), they too owe others. Which date and which map should we select? Should the Islamic Arabs give up the Christian areas they invaded? I know a few Assyrian Christians that would like that. I don’t doubt there are a few Copts that would cheer too. But we would hurt a lot of people if we did that wouldn’t we?
I am cynical regarding all of this, obviously. Does any of this make me a “farking sick puppy”? That phrase is creative, or is it standard Aussie fare? :>)
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Attack on ambulance carrying civilians, 13 April 1996
On 13 Apri l 1996 at about 1.40 pm an IDF helicopter rocketed a vehicle carrying 13 civilians fleeing the village of al-Mansuri, killing two women and four young girls. The attack happened near the Fijian Battalion UN checkpoint 1-23 south of Tyre. The vehicle was a grey Volvo station wagon with a blue flooding light and a siren. A clear red crescent was painted on the hood, and the word ambulance was written in Arabic on the hood and on both sides of the car. Also written were the words al-waqf al-islami-fil-Mansuri, Islamic Endowment in al-Mansuri.
Video footage taken by reporters at the scene shows the vehicle approaching the checkpoint at a moderate speed, with its blue flashing light and siren on, and the car packed with women and children. Other vehicles crowded with civilians, including a pick-up truck and a tractor, were travelling in convoy with the Volvo. Eye-witnesses saw two IDF helicopters (most probably Apache attack helicopters) hovering low over the area of the checkpoint. As soon as the vehicle passed the checkpoint heading north, a missile fired by one of the helicopters (most probably a laser-guided Hellfire air-to-surface missile), hit the back of the car or exploded just behind it ripping through its back door. The vehicle then crashed into a house just off the road. According to Abbas Ali Jiha, the driver:
…the ambulance was hit in the back and swung off the street. I ran from the car carrying two of my children, Mahdi [who survived] and Mariam [who died], and told the journalists that there were dead and wounded in the car.
Inside the car two women, Muna Habib Shuwayh, 28, the wife of Abbas Jiha, and Nawkha Ahmad al-Uqla, 50 (a neighbour of Abbas Jiha) were killed. Also killed were four girls: Zeinab, 10, Hanan, 5, and Mariam, 2½ months, (all daughters of Abbas Jiha) and Hudu Fadi Khalid, 11 (Nawkha al-Uqlas grand-daughter). Five other children in the car Abbas Jiha and his cousin Ali Ammar survived.
UN soldiers and other eye-witnesses who were at the scene immediately after the car was hit said that there were no weapons or any other type of military equipment in the car, only clothes and some food supplies. The video footage of the dead and wounded in the car moments after the attack supports these statements. Amnesty International has no evidence to indicate that the driver or anyone else in the car had any connection with Hizbullah. Abbas Jiha, an agricultural worker who had emigrated to Germany but returned to al-Mansuri some 15 months before Operation Grapes of Wrath, told Amnesty International that he was not a member of Hizbullah and that he was not involved in any military activity. He maintained that after the beginning of the Israeli operation he volunteered to drive the vehicle for emergency purposes such as bringing medical and food supplies to al-Mansuri, which was under sporadic bombardment. On 13 April, the day of the attack, he decided to use the vehicle to evacuate his family from the village after hearing of the IDF warnings issued on SLA radio that al-Mansuri and other villages would be attacked.
The kashafat al-risalah al-islamiyya, the Islamic Scouts charity organisation, affiliated to Amal, runs a network of ambulances and medical services in southern Lebanon and assists privately-operated ambulances by providing medical supplies and training volunteer first aiders. The vehicle itself was owned by the village community. In normal times it was parked near the mayors house who also held the keys. When Operation Grapes of Wrath began, the Islamic Scouts operation centre in Tyre took control of the al-Mansuri ambulance by supplying it with one of their regular drivers and fuel and despatching it for various humanitarian purposes. On the day of the attack the vehicle had travelled twice between Tyre and al-Mansuri. In its last trip to al-Mansuri on 13 April, Abbas Jiha drove the car to the village to evacuate his family.
Abbas Jihas two surviving sons Mahdi and Ali carrying photos of their mother Muna and sister Zeinab who were killed in the attack on the ambulance on 13 April 1996. Under international law, medical transport vehicles marked with designated symbols (including the Red Cross and Red Crescent) are protected against attack unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy (Article 13, Protocol 1). The circumstances surrounding the attack and IDF statements clearly suggest that the IDF wanted to hit this particular vehicle — it was not a mistake. IDF officials told Amnesty International delegates that at the time the vehicle was attacked it was being used by a Hizbullah terrorist, and that it was a rescue vehicle and not a properly marked ambulance. Public statements made by the IDF shortly after the attack refer to “a vehicle belonging to a Hizbullah terrorist”, and continue: “If other individuals were hit during the attack, they had been used by the Hizbullah as a cover for the Hizbullah activities … to the best of our knowledge the terrorist was hit.”
The IDF has produced no evidence to show that the vehicle they hit, or any other similar vehicle for that matter, had at any time been used by Hizbullah for military purposes. Independent observers interviewed by Amnesty International did suggest that Hizbullah may have misused ambulances, but did not provide specific examples to corroborate such suspicions. In any case, this vehicle was certainly engaged in legitimate humanitarian activities at the time it was hit and was travelling in a convoy of civilian vehicles away from, and not into, the area that the IDF had warned civilians to evacuate. Moreover, the Israeli helicopter crew must, at the time of the attack, have seen the ambulance markings on the vehicle. In attacking the vehicle, the IDF showed a blatant disregard for civilian lives and violated international law.
–Amnesty International
And, the hellfire missile was proved to have been issued to US Marines and dissapeared from their inventory.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Nyo said…
My impression is that the West is being envaded by a new world order under Islam and that radicalism will increase amongst their young whilst discrimination and injustice increase and the west appeases more and more. Noone likes being bullied. And there has been a hardening since 9/11. I can feel a distinct chill toward suicide bombers where there wasn’t before.
1:51 PM, June 05, 2006
The muslims are coming! The muslims are coming!
How terrifying for you. There there it’ll be alright. GWB and Halliburton and Bechtel will save you. And you’ll get a tax cut if you’re rich enough, for your trouble.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Sorry, …..who’s ever etc
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Douglas,
the video of itself proves nothing. It could have come from anyone with an axe to grind.
If you care to cast your mind back to before the Iraq invasion, we were shown a video which according to ‘US sources’ ie probably Rove’s White House Iraq Group ‘proved beyond doubt’ that Iraq was training terrorists in hostage taking on aircraft.
The only problem was, that it was Iraqi training video of antiterrorism troop training at their purpose built facility. (I can’t remember the name of the place. Om something)
It is incumbent on the IDF to answer the UN and Red Cross’s demand for evidence, not to play propaganda games via youtube. If they have evidence the Red Cross would like to see it. Unless you think the Red Cross is part of the great arab conspiracy.
Anyone whose ever had anything to do with the middle east knows that arabs and the Palestinians in particular are absolutely appalling at PR and enunciating their viewpoint to the west.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Actually Ymar your answer was arrogant, dismissive and off topic. Your blog at the time showed you up as a fantasist, with not much in the way of life experiences and advocating genocide.
Didn’t you state that virtually the entire world’s population was jealous of US money and power? An arrogant ignorant chauvanist fantasy.
Keep it up though, my wife is getting some good stuff out of your psychobabble. Her diagnosis thus far is that you are a psychotic episode waiting to happen, but more likely to harm yourself than others.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
I’m certainly struggling to comprehend the neocon phenomenon. i’ve never had much time for extremism.
I’m warning people not to fall for it. I’ve encapsulated Confud’s first foray into this blog, here, which is all that is necessary for me. No need have I for more evidence of people arguing in bad faith.
Confud’s first foray onto this site, proof positive of bad intentions
Ariel My first post regarding Malkin, whom I neither support nor attack, was simply that I viewed it differently. … I threw race-baiter at you to see how you like it, because if you throw the term “racist” out trivially, you are a race-baiter.
In propaganda wars, in wars of psychology in which the aim is to destroy the very self-identity of the enemy then anything is game, anything can be used. Confud obviously sees specific people here as enemies, and yet others treat him as a fellow traveler among the path of war. Backstabs happen for a reason, and that reason is perhaps not so conveniently known.
At 9:24 PM, June 04, 2006, stumbley said…
Gloves off.
Does that mean we are going nuclear? Come on, where’s the nuclear MIRVs that were promised!!??
Have you noticed that you can’t seem to post anything without saying something nasty about someone. Is this what your filled with? Man, I hope you don’t do this around your children.
The psychological explanation is simple Ariel. People who aren’t confident in their personal beliefs will try to make other people comfortable with their respective beliefs, in order to bring company to misery.
Everything Confud says about respect and other reasonable things are just stuff he deceives people with, including himself. The evidence, in the link, supports my conclusion. There is no need to go past that initial first hand behavior of Confud on this site. Since it was before the insults, before the arguments, before the tempers, and before the hurling of accussations. That was, until Confud started it of course.
I don’t think Confud has inspected his own behavior with a microscope, so I don’t expect him to deny or affirm the evidence of his own conduct. But that doesn’t mean everyone will behave in the same way.
Confud’s story is reasonable on its face. He came here with curiosity in mind, was attacked as a Leftist and supporter of terroists, and therefore lashed out in justified and righteous anger.
The other, true, story is that Confud came here saying he was curious and asking questions, but when he didn’t like the answers and got to be insulting, I answered back in a calm manner that was neither hostile nor particularly argumentative. To which, Confud finally replied with contempt, patronizing behavior, and more insults. Psychologically speaking, extremism angers Confud and Confud will take out his anger on any extremists he sees, because he treats people who disagree with him differently than those who agree with him. Others, like me, treat people based upon how they behave towards others and towards me personally, not based upon what their ideology or beliefs are.
People like Ariel can get Confud to feel guilt, thereby forcing Confud to look inwards and examine his own behavior in order to correct it, but this is only temporary. So long as Ariel avoids the “extremist” positions or advocating those positions in front of Confud, and stays to the safe topics of her own personal behavior and what she expects from polite people, Confud is forced to remove his prejudiced view of extremists.
Passive-aggressive was always an interesting phenomenon, because it was so irrational.
I have no urge to attack people personally because their ideas were different from mine. People may recall steve, which I disagreed wholly concerning many matters of the Iraq War. Steve, (not steve j) however, always kept his calm and his discipline, and did not resort to childish name calling or showing of contempt. I was interested in understanding his position and the reasons for his behavior, thus the reason why I asked probing questions and was aggressive in challenging his positions because otherwise they seemingly did not make much sense to me.
Confud came here asking questions in seemingly good faith, I answered with respect and politeness representing my view of things, but this olive branch was knocked down and stomped in the mud by Confud when he didn’t like the answers. Such is the behavior of mercurial and undisciplined beings. No more need be said.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Confud said…
My impression is that they do feel threatened by what they see as a new world order under Bush and that radicalism will increase amongst the young whilst discrimination and injustice increases. Noone likes being bullied. And there has been a hardening since Iraq. I can feel a distinct chill toward westerners where there wasn’t before.
My impression is that the West is being envaded by a new world order under Islam and that radicalism will increase amongst their young whilst discrimination and injustice increase and the west appeases more and more. Noone likes being bullied. And there has been a hardening since 9/11. I can feel a distinct chill toward suicide bombers where there wasn’t before.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Confude, This might be a particularly instructive point to discuss, because you have rather pointed opinions about the palestinian issue.
You said- “I assume when you talk about terrorists and ambulances that you are referring to the old Israeli chestnut. The UN and the Red Cross have invited the IDF on numerous occasions to provide evidence. To this day they have declined.”
The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs might beg to differ. But I won’t bother with the link, as I’m certain you wouldn’t trust an Israeli Gov’t link. Fair enough.
Then there is this: “Reuters has provided video of healthy armed men entering ambulance with UN markings for transport. UNRWA initially denied that its ambulances carry militants but later reported that the driver was forced to comply with threats from armed men”
Video available here
Now I’m willing to grant that the UN or the UN ambulance driver were unaware of this/forced at gunpoint to do this, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the terrorists hold no regard what so ever for the sanctity supposedly given ambulances,as is apparent in the video. They don’t even hesitate, which lends credence to the idea that it’s a regular occurance. Once they do violate that sanctity, it is GONE. Their actions hurt many people, but to blame Israel because they are forced to treat ambulances as any other vehicle is absurd, is it not?
Thie issue is akin to blaming the US for deaths of ‘innocents’ in Iraq when terrorists are killed, and others are killed with them. Who is to blame, the US for shooting at a house where a terrorist is shooting at them from, or the terrorist for deliberately fighting from a location where there are innocents? I blame the terrorist.
You?
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Ariel, you’ve got quite the touch. Confude made civil- I confess, I’d lost hope.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
I’ve worked all over the world. These days I do short stints writing reports for various organizations. I don’t talk religion with anyone because I can’t abide it.
What strikes me most about muslim communities generally is that they are much the same in their aspirations as anyone else. If anything they value education for their kids more so than most western countries (outside of Northern Europe).
My impression is that they do feel threatened by what they see as a new world order under Bush and that radicalism will increase amongst the young whilst discrimination and injustice increases. Noone likes being bullied. And there has been a hardening since Iraq. I can feel a distinct chill toward westerners where there wasn’t before.
Hard to know where to put the marker of history I agree. When the British and the French carved up the middle East after the Great War? Possibly.
The Israeli/Palestinian mess has always drawn anger and now Iraq is seen as another great western hypocrisy.
Thanks for the well wishes, I’m not off right away though. It’s only half business too. Half is surfing.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
“I had muslim friends in college”. Must have had the cursor in the wrong place while editing.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
I’m sure about the irony and yanks, but see I’ve never considered myself a “yank”, they are people from New England on the eastern seaboard.
I’m from the desert, and before my health failed, I would spend time in it no matter the temperature. Would drive back from sales calls for hours on end at 114 F, on seldom traveled roads with the windows down, no ac, in its stark beauty. “All our lives should be thus fair and distinct. All our lives seek a suitable background.” The Aleutians gave me a similar feeling. But that is neither here nor there.
I believe this has been a long time brewing. Starting long before the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots, or the League of Nations mandate. It’s easy to say “root causes” but hard to identify them and even harder to deal with them. Is it religious, economic, political structures? Colonialism? Cultural? All of that seems to be very “Eurocentric” interpretations. Do religious fanatics need a reason or a root cause as we would see it? Since whatever they believe is the unassailable, irrefutable truth, anything we do can give them a reason. Again I refer to Hoffer’s “True Believer”.
Since you work in the Islamic world, you’ll develop a bias (that is meant in a neutral way) based on who you deal with and your experiences, and your prejudices going in. I’ve talked to others who have spent years in Islamic countries and found them horrible. muslim friends in college, Iranian Shia, and did find them prickly and medieval in their attitudes about women. They were secular, or at least they didn’t follow the dietary laws regarding hops.
If you haven’t seen it, watch Kurosawa’s “Rashamon”. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
And remember, this is Neo-neocon’s home, the rest of us are just guests at her pleasure, and the rules of hospitality cut both ways.
God, I can be preachy. See, self-deprecation.
Good luck in your business trip.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
recognizing the irony in life does
Couldn’t let this one go past. There is a standing joke about yanks and irony all over the english speaking world.
It isn’t complimentary though.
I’m damn angry about all this. I really am. And it makes me angry when I hear the chickenhawks belittling the impact on the rest of the world.
My kids will never get to visit half the places I’ve been because many of those places are just too dangerous and getting worse.
Instead of working on root causes we’ve thrown petrol on the fire of radical islam.
I believe history will show the Iraq adventure to be the greatest con of all time. I really do.
Anyways the little kiddies on here will have to find another hate figure soon enough. I’m off to a hotbed of islam shortly. Work to do.
BTW Aussies may take the p… out of you constantly, to get respect you have to give it back. Once you do, you’ll find us quite nice really.
We are very antiauthoritarian though. Must be the Irish in us.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
And I come from farmers, who said their mind but also said it with respect. The old “don’t say nothing if can’t say nothing nice”. You can’t hear the other guy and he won’t hear you if you are both throwing insults.
I realize how some of these people react
regarding the war. That was kind of Neo-neocon’s point, and our left here are really nasty about this, and you will lose a friend if you disagree. So there is a sensitivity and an overreaction. Know too, that many of these people have been coming here for quite awhile, and so believe it to be their place. And would view you, rightly or wrongly, as the poorly mannered guest.
I do not use the term “troll” unless someone really works hard at it. I don’t believe that you have done that. But you have been snarky, as they say.
No, digs do not play well with us. Self-deprecation does, recognizing the irony in life does, many other forms, but not that. Of course, nothing applies to all of us here, just as in Australia.
Regarding extremism, there’s an old joke about the American Communist who was asked what he thought of left-wing extremists. Said he’s never met any, all the extremists are on the right.
The old John Birchers here, who saw a communist in every pot, left me with only one thing of worth. The spectrum is anarchist on one end and totalitarian on the other. The rest of us fall in between. We can come to agreements and compromise, anarchists and totalitarians can’t and won’t. Read Hoffer’s “True Believer”.
Personally, I’m a classic liberal of the American type. Which is why I can like John F. Kennedy and R. Reagan at the same time.
If it were possible, I would love to believe that before my children die, there will be no more dictatorships, no more theocracies, no juntas, nor oligarchies. Just modern secular democracies that will bicker but never go to war. It’ll never happen…
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
OK I don’t mind admitting that I have taken an abrasive tone on here. I’m not whinging about abuse or the insults but from an early stage here I got utterly tired of the deliberate misrepresentation of positions that either I’d taken or had nothing to do with.
If I say as an example I am opposed to the invasion of Iraq, automatically the sillier posters on here take that as being a Saddam supporter and you have to go through the whole gamut of childish unproductive inanity to get past that to the point where you started from. By then the other side has dropped its bundle and huffed off in a sulk because they can’t conceive any argument that isn’t black v white, us v them etc.
I find that tiring. It’s easier to scratch the surface at the start, sort out the lightweights and chaff from those of more substance.
It is a bit of perverse fun to take the pi.. out of the wasps, the nyos and the yfronts of this board though
Further, if you know anything about Australians you’ll know that we are a pretty straightforward people who enjoy a bit of hurly burly and having a few digs. It is an integral part of our humour. It often doesn’t play well with you yanks but c’est la vie.
I’m certainly struggling to comprehend the neocon phenomenon. i’ve never had much time for extremism.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Confudeforeigner,
my apologies for not catching your “sorry” at the end of your post. It’s accepted, although I’m not quite sure for what you were apologizing. Too tired, and too late, to go back through all the posts. Time to move on.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
The journalist wasn’t lazy in my case. She, her photographer, and the newspaper purposely misrepresented in order to go after a government agency in the arena of public opinion. Through lies and distortions.
Have you noticed that you can’t seem to post anything without saying something nasty about someone. Is this what your filled with? Man, I hope you don’t do this around your children.
Like I said, its not your beliefs, its how you express yourself.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Ariel said….
I read the “Australian” everyday, but having been the direct recepient of a lying, deceitful journalist’s bulls*** article, I take it all as inherently distorted to some degree.
Good policy. As do I. Most of my working life I’ve been involved in things that required reading between the lines, so to speak. I’ve also been slagged by a lazy journalist. It was a profitable exercise in the end though for me.
The Australian is a Murdoch rag, so I wouldn’t take too much notice anyway. It is interesting to compare it to the ultra rightist garbage that uncle deeppockets puts out in the USA though. He knows his market.
Personall I’d string the bas…. up.
Having just reread the thread, I have mixed you and Jen up, so…….sorry.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
stumbley said…
Gloves off.
Confud, you are a pathetic, contemptible waste of skin. ‘Nuff said. I’m sure you’ll love this one, but from now on, I will not respond to your comments, thereby saving everybody else on this blog the pain of reading your responses to mine.
9:24 PM, June 04, 2006
As much as I loathed Queen…..
…….and another one bites the dust.
Thanks for playing.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
anonymess said…
The following is a collection of “best of” comments made by confudeforeigner over the past couple of days.
Hey, there’s some good stuff there. Maybe I missed my calling.
anonymess said
The context matters little;
Yep, I fully believe that it matters little to you.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Gloves off.
Confud, you are a pathetic, contemptible waste of skin. ‘Nuff said. I’m sure you’ll love this one, but from now on, I will not respond to your comments, thereby saving everybody else on this blog the pain of reading your responses to mine.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Ariel said…
“You are one farking sick puppy.” Simply because I didn’t agree with your interpretation. You start the personal abuse and then blame others when they take offense. Read the posts in order. I have watched you over many posts, you have a tendency to start the personal attacks, then cry foul at the retaliation. Amazing.
Not crying foul at all. I’ll give as good as I get and that isn’t any macho nonsense at all.
I may have mixed you and Jen up and if so I’ll apologize for that and that only.
I’ll stand by the sick puppy statement. You are justifying tenuous racial stereotyping for questionable partisan advantage in attempting to mitigate a mass murder.
At least 52 people died in Jenin and war crimes were committed and documented by independent sources. Collective punishment is a violation of international law. Having your sponsor veto UN resolutions doesn’t make it not a crime. What’s your point?
The Kmer Rouge and the Vietnamese? They fought a war against each other. Still think they were linked?
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Hey I missed that. Condeforeigner, what the hell would you know about the Constitution? I couldn’t graduate elementary school without writing the first 10 Amendments nearly verbatim, and answering various questions. It actually takes a damn long time to understand all the nuances in interpretation. Which is why we argue about it all the time. “Living document”, “original intent”, etc.
In itself the document is simple, the interpretation is a problem.
Write us an essay, without googling, on the impact of the ICC on the structure of federalism, separation of functions of branches, and its possible abuses.
Just yanking your chain. Don’t worry about it.
Like I said, good luck to you.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Sally v2.0 this is starting to look like an obsession!!
You know you’ve achieved something when you get your own personal stalker.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Anonymess,
Thank you. That was my point.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
The following is a collection of “best of” comments made by confudeforeigner over the past couple of days. The context matters little; the comments reflect arrogance and disrespect for people, regardless of the context. Confude, who once told me to “get a life,” seems to live here and have an endless amount of time to spend trolling for victims…Conboy, maybe it’s time to go outside, get some air and visit with some of your mates.
Wow, it is only the 2nd day of June (where I am) and we have our first candidate for hypocrite of the month award. Always good to get in early nyo. Well done.
It wasn’t my intention to mislead, I just quoted the whole post. So, sorry for that.
Ooooh, I’d forgotten about that. It was from before Silly went off in a huff. Heehee, thanks for reminding me spyboy.
Excellent retort. I can see I’m dealing with a master baiter here.
Still waiting for Ryan to come back and explain his little hissy fit.
I was being a bit silly when I filled out the profile but so fecking what?
Ah yes the withering insect. He did ooooo-aaaa *black ops* or some such masculine thing you know.
I just wonder whether he did his training at Annaheim or Orlando.
I haven’t made any excuses, so I guess I won’t be taking your “predictions” with much expectation of success. Try again. Preferably with criticism that means something.
Get a life. Get some perspective. If making a few blithe and flippant remarks on a www profile is such a big deal to you, then war, politics and US hegemony are possibly a bit beyond you. I’ve ‘admitted’ that it was silly, I said in an oblique way that I would change it, and I’ll probably change it agaain at some stage. SO FECKING WHAT?
Spot the silliness of your ‘outrage’? I’ve actually never denied being a troll in my recollection. I’ve been called far worse and have shed nary a tear.
Oh dear. This is just getting sillier and sillier.
A prophet? I think not.
Blind? *cough*
Changing sex at will? *cough, snort, snigger*
I hate all those trite little internet acronyms but in this case ROFLMAO.
Oh boohoo Alex. Two (or more) things. It wasn’t the first profile so……..I haven’t tried to cover anything up. I don’t care. Here’s a clue, I typed it [his original profile which said he was interested in “baiting stupid neocons,” and which he deleted when it was discovered] and I said on here that I was going to change it. Ta da!
Jeeeezus wept, it isn’t like I was lying about WMD in Iraq, nonexistent terrorist links and greed for oil, is it?
I actually don’t give a flying one, mate, whether you’ll argue with me or not. The fact is, when I first came here I wasn’t trolling but I was abused anyway.
Anonymouse heehee
Get a sense of humour you puffed up numbskull and cultural imperialist.
Oh, and BTW little Ms Prim I tried to register as “Confusedforeigner” but it was already taken. Doh!!
I won’t mention your unconditional support and enormous US taxpayer funding of Israeli oppression of Palestinian muslims and christians because it seems to excite the kiddies here.
Another instructive comment to the new kids here. The sort of uscentric arrogance and ignorance of the world that makes the neocons so endearing.
Perhaps stumbley, those people you asked were so enraged by your arrogance and ignorance that they were unable to express a counter response. Alternatively, maybe your arrogance and ignorance precluded you from recognising a cogent response and dismissal of your question for its inherent inanity.
If you require explanation just ask, but first get an atlas and look up Bali, Madrid, London, Bandah Aceh, Jakarta………maybe that is too many for you.
Eh?
History repeats and now the neocons are perverting history to suit.
Ymar, that is bs and dishonest bs at that
Your original statement was a flat out straightforward lie.
I’d be willing to have a stab at where Yfronts’ family tree led.
Methinks you’ve had a few too many wild mushrooms of late, spykid.
Good onya Uberstormtrooper Wasp. Your a credit to the constitution. Back to the Disney Channel for you.
If you can’t see this as racial stereotyping You are one farking sick puppy.
I see comrade wasp has become a pigeon fancier again
Do chickenhawks fancy pigeons?
Seems clear that you have no substantive argument against that so….you will almost certainly dismiss me as a troll next and go off in a huff.
Thanks for playing.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
“You are one farking sick puppy.” Simply because I didn’t agree with your interpretation. You start the personal abuse and then blame others when they take offense. Read the posts in order. I have watched you over many posts, you have a tendency to start the personal attacks, then cry foul at the retaliation. Amazing.
Your charity had to do with how you read my post. I promise you, that had the situations been reversed I would have asked for clarification. I would not have name called. However you immediately questioned my character and sanity. See above. That is your self-righteousness in play
My first post regarding Malkin, whom I neither support nor attack, was simply that I viewed it differently. Knowing that children had been used by many different, unrelated groups in different times and different circumstances, I didn’t see it as racist, I will never see it as racist, for the reasons I have given. And because I do my damnedest not to throw out the term racist lightly. I am sickened by its trivial usage. I am sickened by people who use it trivially. It is too nasty a term, too damaging, to use trivially. I threw race-baiter at you to see how you like it, because if you throw the term “racist” out trivially, you are a race-baiter.
I did not question your sanity at any time nor I did a question your character in conjunction with the Geneva Convention. Where do you get these things? How can you so misread what is written? Do you make scarecrows for a living? I questioned your character with regard to how you treat people. You lack charity. Period.
I questioned you portrayal of the Aussie military, and by extention Australians, of being so perfect. No country, no military, no people have a perfect record in anything. Which is why I put out the little bit regarding “White Only” Australia. Poke, poke.
Interestingly, you classify me as part of this “ilk” because I agree with somethings they write? Or because I am here writing too? Isn’t that a bit presumptious? You too quickly label people when they disagree with you. I haven’t labeled your beliefs, only your actions.
Regarding the moral high ground, there is none. I don’t assume it, in any meaning of the word assume, except in private affairs and only very carefully. I do not use the term “racist”, nor “fascist”, nor “sexist”, nor any of the other terms used to brand, dismiss, and villify. And I do not trust people who use them too quickly and too easily. I live in self-doubt, because it allows me to learn and change.
The “we don’t take s*** quietly” is just macho bulls*** to justify being nasty and rude while you pat yourself on the back. Its called redneck here. Perhaps your “urban” is our “redneck”?
By the way, were you embarrassed when Jenin didn’t turn out to be the massacre it was portrayed to be? Still don’t know the link between the Khmer Rouge and the Indochinese Communist Party? Justing poking along.
As far as messenger goes, the problem with citations from any of us is that they are cherry-picked. Facts such as the START treaty date are irrefutable. Interpretations of facts are not and the conclusions are not, which is why historians can be at odds regarding any event.
As to my country, I owe allegiance to the Constitution. I took the oath. I just get a kick out of foreigners who are self-appointed “America” experts. I read the “Australian” everyday, but having been the direct recepient of a lying, deceitful journalist’s bulls*** article, I take it all as inherently distorted to some degree.
Stop the insults, don’t start them, and be more charitable when you interpret the writing of others. It’s easier to have a dialog that way. No one is going to agree on everything. Or you can be a macho, obnoxious boor who blames everybody else for what he starts.
It is your choice. Good luck to you.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
nope. You’ve finally got it right.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
poor government and intransigence
They’ve never been allowed a ‘government in any real sense.
Intransigence? What, not accepting a series of Bantustans and slums with no effective control of their own destinies, no chance of compensation or right of return to, the lands that were stolen from them, under constant Israeli military oppression and reliant on funding and infrastructure (even water) from their very oppressors who are financed and armed to the teeth by the world’s only superpower unconditionally.
Geeeeeez, these people just don’t know what’s good for ‘em. Do they Stumbley?
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
confudeforeigner MIGHT have said:
“Stumbley, the plight of much of the Palestinian population is desperate and an Arab disgrace.
Whether Israeli racism (past and/or present) is a contributing factor is open to debate but, given the actual problems, is probably a secondary at best cause.
They do have a jihadist terrorist element here, with prett much all of the power. The Middle East is the most radicalized population on earth, don’t forget.
The biggest problems facing Palestinians in my view revolve around corruption, poor government and intransigence and the only solution most of us involved can see won’t be easily sold to the international community. We will, if it ever comes to pass, be accused of paternalism, racism and worse by many that don’t have a full grasp of the facts.
If you know the problems and have a solution that is both practical and palatable to the international community, we’d love to hear it. Truly.
Hamas’ guy in Ramallah has been a setback to the Palestinian cause in most people’s view. And mine.”
Does that work?
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Your guys were described as no nonsense and brutal when dealing with the Vietcong.
I have no doubt that the description is correct. One national trait is that we fight hard, play hard, work hard and don’t put up with s… quietly.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Well Ariel, you are welcome to criticise Australia as a state as much as you like, but stick to the facts. I don’t claim it as any sort of perfection. Never have. A nation is just an arbitary legal delineation anyway that encompasses all the differing peoples and viewpoints within it. I’m not going to get into racial or national stereotyping as you are.
It appears to be you who takes criticism of your country personally. And, as usual the more hard evidence you are given that you don’t have the moral high ground that your ilk claim, the sooner the personal abuse starts.
You can shoot the messenger all you like, the message won’t change.
Exactly what name calling should I be apologising for? Seems to me that you are sneeringly questioning my sanity and character for referring to the Geneva Conventions.
Seems clear that you have no substantive argument against that so….you will almost certainly dismiss me as a troll next and go off in a huff.
Thanks for playing.
BTW I’m well aware that Iran used young teenage boys in the war against Iraq/US/Saudi Arabia.
Iran ia another country, a different race and an entirely different set of circumstances.
Michelle Malkin is racially stereotyping for cheap propaganda purposes. Keep defending her if yu wish.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Vietcong employed child combatants. It would not be wrong to shoot a child pointing a gun at you in that circumstance. It would be haunting but not wrong. I do realize you will either twist this, or rise up in self-righteous anger. You were also incapable of understanding that I did not accuse Aussies of war crimes.
I will add lack of humility to another of your flaws, that you see no evidence of child combatants in Iraq means nothing more than that. The Shia in Iran had no compunction in using child combatants. It is quite possible that Iraqi insurgents may do the same.
As far as military goes, I spent four years beginning at the end of the Vietnam War.Your guys were described as no nonsense and brutal when dealing with the Vietcong. But military organizations always have something to say about the other. I take it with a grain of salt.
I am sure that Aussies are perfect at all times, strictly adhere to all treaties, and say their prayers at night. Were you the one that wrote about those redneck Aussies?
As far as a race-baiter, it still fits. I didn’t see racism in it nor did I view by race, a race-baiter always does. I still defer to Sydney Hook.
By the way, up until 1972, my family could not migrate to your country. We weren’t lily-white enough for “White Only” Australia. How can you bear your racist past? Even our Native Americans fare better than your Abos. Is it the guilt that makes you see race in everything?
You could have apologized for the name calling, but it is difficult for you isn’t it? Better to stay the course, eh?
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1208
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140852003
The fact is that too little money is being spent and of the money, (largely) US private contractors are creaming off most.
Again, where is the planning, the oversight and the will?
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_plan_111804,00.html
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Jen….
go here.
http://www.genevaconventions.org/
The level of killing in Iraq is clear irrefutable proof that basic security has broken down. The Conventions are perfectly clear that it is incumbent on the occupying power to ensure this basic provision along with adequate infrastructure services.
There is clear evidence that the medical system in Iraq is failing. The occupying power is legally bound to ensure this is not the case.
There is clear evidence that US troops are hindering the provision of medical services in operational areas i.e. arresting hospital staff and holding ambulances.
I assume when you talk about terrorists and ambulances that you are referring to the old Israeli chestnut. The UN and the Red Cross have invited the IDF on numerous occasions to provide evidence. To this day they have declined.
Either way it is a war crime to fire on a properly marked ambulance, period.
You invade, you are responsible. GWB’s clique of chickenhawks failed dismally to plan for the occupation.
Join the dots.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
“I guess failure is defined as anything short of utopia.”
You nailed it. You see, it always gives them something to be self-righteous about. And they can never be wrong, because you can never do enough.
I am not saying this of anyone who has posted comments here, because, other than one poster’s penchant for nastiness, insults and name-calling, there is not enough written to typify any of you. And one can argue, legitimately that we may not have done enough. The hallmark of the “never do enough” crowd is the moving baseline.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Ariel…….
“And the same thing went on in Vietnam when Aussies shot children.”
Please explain.
I know our troops executed a few Americans but I’ve never heard any allegations of war crimes against Australian troops in Vietnam.
Our troops tend to stay away from US troops because it is safer and their rules of engagement are more strictly defined legally. We are bound by the Geneva Conventions unequivocally and are signatories to the War Crimes Convention. US troops do have a reputation of being undisciplined and gung ho.
I’ve seen no evidence that suggests that Iraqi children have been combatants. I will reaffirm that I believe the article is racist. The use of those pictures in that context should be condemned by any right thinking person. I’m sorry if you don’t fall into that category.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Wasp, thanks for the link! That was a very informative read. Clearly (as anyone not blinded by their agenda would expect,) people have been thinking pretty hard about the difficulties of defeating an insurgency without alienating the local population. I’m sure many of these ideas are regularly being put into effect.
Actually, one of the best things about this article is that it provides the first clearly articulated reason I have read for going into an occupation in Iraq with so few troops.
And thanks Nyo!
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Since the U.S. is actively engaged in trying to provide or assist the government in providing all these things, I guess failure is defined as anything short of utopia.
Jen, I only hope you know just exactly how precisely you nailed it!
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Condeforeigner,
In the US we would call you a race-baiter. I was pointing out that the use of children was nothing new and that I know it in context of war. And the same thing went on in Vietnam when Aussies shot children. With regard to soldiers, in a war without uniforms, it is hard to tell who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. Would lead to a level of paranoia wouldn’t it?
Nothing justifies purposely killing non-combatants. Nothing justifies using children as combatants either. Silly you for failing to understand all sides.
More pointedly, you need to quit the immediate insults and name-calling when you don’t think things through enough and have no clue who I am, or understand what I am writing. Perhaps asking for clarification, rather than immediate name calling, would show more humanity on your part. Humanity begins on the personal level, and you have some major work to do. You seem to relish making enemies. That is a serious flaw.
Also you lack charity, which is necessary for human discourse. I assumed that you would understand the points above regarding the use of children in war, both that it is wrong, that it is done, and leaves the soldier in a moral predicament. Thus I didn’t go fully into it.
I reserve judgement on Haditha until the dust clears, just as I did on Jenin, although I am sure you immediately acted as judge, jury, and executioner of the Israelis. In human conflict, both sides lie, the question is who is lying less at any one time. The bigot, the prejudiced, the hate-monger, doesn’t care about the truth. Perhaps you should examine your own motives before throwing epithets.
You are right, we do live on other planets, your’s is called “self-righteous”. But then no one’s perfect, except for you?
If the Marines did what they are accused of, they will be punished. And will deserve it.
At the same time, have you read the CNN reporter’s shock regarding these Marines, whom she knew? Perhaps it will give you more perspective.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Ymarsakar and Jen, while I wait for my flight and I still have wireless access, here’s a reference to Wendt’s article on contemporary COIN operations based on the Basilan experience. It’s a non classified version of the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School’s publication and doesn’t have the references and bibliography of the original but it does have his notes. In particular the reference to Kaplan who has written on this elsewhere.
It takes a little while for work such as this to be shaken down into doctrine but if you read it carefully you can see that some of the lessons learned have been put into practice.
Also, notice how the model seamlessly integrates intelligence operations. This is somewhat newly discovered, “old doctrine”.
Strategic counterinsurgency modeling
Wretchard at Belmont Club has a good post referencing this.
Kilo Six Actual Sends
“Always Out Front”
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
I find confud’s posts generally meaningless hatemongering, but this last truly brings us to a new level of preposterousness. When asked what the U.S. did that was illegal, he responds with a lengthy list of our failures to provide security, medical care and general services to Iraq.
Since the U.S. is actively engaged in trying to provide or assist the government in providing all these things, I guess failure is defined as anything short of utopia.
If there is still criminal behavior, we have failed to provide security. If any wounds are untreated, our medical facilites have failed. If the electricity cuts out, our provision of services has failed.
Lets just leave aside for the moment any consideration of whether or not the U.S. is even legally obligated to, for instance, completely take over and replace the entire Iraqi medical establishment. Even if we assume that actually is our responsibility, if that is your definition of failure, confud, what on earth constitutes success?
My town is responsible to protect my security, and to that end establishes a police force, court system, jails, etc. And yet, I may be robbed. So, I guess if I am I should sue my town for illegally failing to provide security, huh confud?
In fact, by this measure, forget Iraq, the U.S. itself is a failed state. France is a failed state. Britain is a failed state. What isn’t a failed state?
The U.N. of course is also a failure and therefore engaged in illegal activities. In fact, UN security forces have been found to rape civilians, therefore, I think we can safely say, by confud’s criteria, that the UN itself is an illegal organization and should desist sending forces anywhere.
Also, the Red Cross/Crescent often sets up medical facilities in war-torn countries, I think it may even have a legal mandate to do so, yet often these services are inadequate. They fail too. Let’s call them illegal.
Then there is the accusation that the U.S. has fired on ambulences. Of course, ambulences have been used by terrorists as car bombs, even blowing up hospitals with them. So if we fire at any we have acted illegally, and if we fail to stop their use as car bombs, we have also illegally failed to supply security.
Nice little pickle we’re in, isn’t it?
So confud, get us out of it. What should the U.S. do? Obviously we can’t pull out of Iraq, because by your definition that would only be compounding all our failures. Should we send in more troops? Completely take over the country and control every aspect of every individual’s life so as to prevent anything bad from ever happening?
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
As to the question of what country, Confud was from, I originally suspected he was from an Anglo Saxon country. Whether that be Australia, Britain, or Canada. His mannerism and idioms directed me to believe British origin. He denied that he was European. But the Brits actually don’t think they are part of the European continent either.
So the best bet is now Australia. Some other commentator here reminded me of New Zealand, which was too small for me to include in the initial list. But it is an alternative possibility to Australia.
Confud is most likely in Australia or New Zealand, or has spent a prodigous amount of time in either of those two countries. His use of British mannerism and “mate” strongly support the thesis that he lives in Australia. Because AUstralia was colonized by the Brits.
********
I say again, it is not about whether people agree or disagree with me on any “fundamentals” as Wasp terms. I don’t treat people differently based upon whether they agree with me or not. I treat people based upon how they treat me.
Mutual respect, lack of contempt, a refusal to allow personal prejudices to be projected onto the other person as their problem and not your problem. These things are the important facets.
Nobody likes to be patronized, ridiculed, or made to seem inferior. Regardless of whether this is your blood family, your elder, or your closest friend. Regardless of whether you agree with them politically or philosophically.
What fool believes everything is all right so long as everyone agrees on a common fundamental belief? It is more likely that people don’t agree, that the cracks and flaws are hidden by agreement. I don’t like to be in an echo chamber
*************
Poland refused this in order to retain its independence [2] and was backed by a March 30 guarantee from Britain and France. The goal of British foreign policy between 1919 and 1939 had been to prevent another world war by a mixture of “carrot and stick”, a strategy of appeasement. The “stick” in this case was the Polish-British Common Defense Pact, intended to discourage German aggression. At the same time, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and his Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax hoped to offer Hitler a “carrot” in the form of another deal similar to the Munich Agreement, which would see the Free City of Danzig and the Polish Corridor returned to Germany in exchange for a promise to leave the rest of Poland alone.
ok then neo cons what is wrong with this guy?….
Every American knows General Clark, advisor to Clinton for Kosovo and a former NATo commander as well as a Democrat Presidential nominee.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
I see comrade wasp has become a pigeon fancier again
Do chickenhawks fancy pigeons?
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
now this is depressing, from that malkin woman.
KING 5: How do you feel about the villagers involved? Um, you know, do you have emotion as you think about them or not really?
Crossan: No. Because half of them were bad guys. You just never know, so. It really didn’t cross my mind.
KING 5: There are reports of, you know, little children being killed and women being killed.
Crossan: Little kids I can see being bad and even some of the women, but just over there, you just can’t tell who the bad guy was…
if half were bad guys what were the other half? Also the ‘bad guy’ language. I bet it is not that straightforward. The line between guilty fighters and innocent civilians is probably blurred as they are all from the same communities and families.
Sl0re. What you say about the media is true, but there is still an underlying reality we need to understand. The media are helpful and unhelpful at the same time. They are also a weeapon used and manipulated by all sides.
I would defend the BBC as it is subject to more criticsm and controlk of the nature of its output. I find it much too accepting of the world view of powerful groups but am heartened by the checks that exist on it. This is hardly true for Fox, which in the context of european media comes across as a very right wing barely serious news channel, as there is little checking on the balance of its output other than the demands of the market.
I see comrade wasp has become a pigeon fancier again
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
sl0re said….
Ah, a few points… We are not to question the motives of those who critise the US for alleged law breaking. It’s a simple matter of fact and law true? So in return I ask you to do the same. What laws did the US actually break? IMO your on very weak ground here. You may disagree with a policy, but that does not make it illegal (my point here). Not that I don’t have problems with how we have handled everything. But having a problem with it does not make it illegal.
I have no problem being questioned about my statements.
Having had a fair bit of experience of ‘law’, nothing is simple. However I will list a few examples of what I believe are clear breaches of the Geneva Conventions.
The use of phosphorous ‘bombs’ (particularly) on civilian targets. This IS a chemical weapon by any decent person’s definition.
I won’t go into du weapons as a chemical weapon.
The failure of the US to provide adequate security to the civilian population.
The failure of the US to provide security to the instruments of government vital for the governance of the country past the cessation of hostitlties.
The failure by the US to provide security for the safeguard of institutions and suchlike of cultural and historical significance i.e. arguably the most important museums on earth
The failure of the US to provide adequate medical care to both combatants and, more importantly, to civilian casualties.
The failure of the US to provide adequate infrastructure for the civilian population. i.e water, electricity supply, sewerage.
The failure of the US to provide casualty figures to the Red Cross.
Shutting down infrastructure to whole towns/cities in combat zones.
The storming of hospitals and the arrest of medical staff in ‘operational zones’.
The shooting at ambulances.
Illegal imprisonment without trial, kidnappings and extrajudicial killings.
Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, rendering, want me to go on?
And I haven’t started on the Israelis. You guys are chicken shit compared to them, sadly.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Ariel said…
…something quite nauseating.
I’m sorry Ariel, but if you can attempt to justify showing photos of small Palestinian children dressing up (like kids dress up as superman) as relevent on a website complicit in justifying the murder of women children and non combatants IN IRAQ, then you and I are on different planets.
If you can’t see this as racial stereotyping You are one farking sick puppy.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
stumbley said…
confudeforeigner:
As an Aussie, I wouldn’t bandy about the “sick racist scum” epithet too much…how are those abos doing lateley, eh?
1:29 AM, June 04, 2006
Stumbley, the plight of much of the Australian aboriginal population is desperate and a national disgrace.
Whether racism (past and/or present) is a contributing factor is open to debate but, given the actual problems, is probably a secondary at best cause.
We do have a redneck racist element here, just like you, but they have far less power than yours. Australia is the most urbanised population on earth don’t forget.
The biggest problem facing Aboriginal Australians in my view revolve around alcohol, drug and substance abuse and the only solution most of us involved can see won’t be easily sold to the international community. We will, if it ever comes to pass, be accused of paternalism, racism and worse by many that don’t have a full grasp of the facts.
If you know the problems and have a solution that is both practical and palatable to the international community, we’d love to hear it. Truly.
GWB’s guy in Canberra has been a setback to the Aboriginal cause in most people’s view. And mine.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Anyway, these links are being cut off. You may need to use tiny url or something
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/(
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
“The hypocrisy of GWB calling himself a free trader is sickening.”
I agree he is not 100% (he is a politician… who needs to get elected via some pandering), but relative to others he is. Agricultural supports are largely a result of our congress BTW…
“I don’t know how you can say O’Riley isn’t a conservative.”
O’Riley in not a conservative…. Not buying the left wing narrative is not in itself enough to be a US conservative.
“At the time of the Iraq invasion, surveys showed that nearly half of the US public believed Saddam was responsible for 11/9. Tell me there is no manipulation involved.”
People, in many places, believe many things that are not facts. Probably, most often, without manipulation (because they want to believe it…). Conservatives watch Fox. They wanted to believe there was a connection.. People who don’t like Blair and watch the BBC probably think Saddam did not try to buy Uranium from Niger… true or not (probably not).. Liberals who watch CNN believe many things are facts that are not and which may not be CNNs fault… what can you do? Anyway, I can’t prove the negative, it is up to you to present a stronger case there is a connection. Myself, I don’t buy it.
“BTW Germany INVADED France. No equivalence there.”
I don’t accept that. An unpopular dictatorship that rules through totalitarian means is a form of occupation via domestic elites. In my mind, both ‘governments’ were illegitimate and removing them cost civilian lives. It is a sound analogy.
“Most of my comments on here have been pointing out the moral high ground isn’t the US preserve. I don’t see how you’ll ever get it back after Iraq, Gitmo and all the others that will come out.”
I didn’t’t say you were referring to Haditha with my comment about propagandists and bias. Seeing Iraq as all negative and Gitmo as a large crime is a bias none the less. If Iraq does end well, I’m sure all the other negatives will come out…. Certain groups will spend their lives trying to prove themselves ‘right after all’ by finding them. Even if the overall outcome is a positive…
“If the US and Israel can so blithely break it over and over again, how can your neocons have the gall to claim any moral high ground. The solutions to the world’s ills have to be based on the principle of justice surely?”
Ah, a few points… We are not to question the motives of those who critise the US for alleged law breaking. It’s a simple matter of fact and law true? So in return I ask you to do the same. What laws did the US actually break? IMO your on very weak ground here. You may disagree with a policy, but that does not make it illegal (my point here). Not that I don’t have problems with how we have handled everything. But having a problem with it does not make it illegal.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Showing that people are teaching their children to kill is racist? Many cultures and societies have used children for that purpose. Hitler at the end was throwing children at the Red army. Khomeini used them against Iraq, I forget what they called them, but they had trained in the neighborhood of 40,000 children and young adults to overwhelm Iraqis by sheer numbers, going in without weapons.
Don’t expand the definition of racism until its meaningless. “Nazi” and ‘fascism” have been so abused. Find a book by Sydney Hook, he termed such usage “epithets of abuse”, the only purpose is to stigmatize and silence. See Lenin’s term “revisionist” or Hitler’s “jewish science”.
That some European countries seek to silence is truly sad. What country are you from again?
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
confudeforeigner:
As an Aussie, I wouldn’t bandy about the “sick racist scum” epithet too much…how are those abos doing lateley, eh?
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Good onya Uberstormtrooper Wasp. Your a credit to the constitution. Back to the Disney Channel for you.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
confudeforeigner, May a thousand dreams of Michelle Malkin infest thy dreams. No sugar plum fairies for you.
Ymarsakar, you and I are in fundamental agreement on “What is to be Done”, (No apologies to Comrade Lenin) It’s just that reading your comments make me reach for the Red Pencil of Doom.
neoneoconned and bmc, ESAD.(That’s internet talk for Eat Soup and Despair) No offense, guys, don’t take it personally, I just think you’re both oxygen thieves. I’ve scraped better trolls than you entities off my shoes. Although, it may have been dog…
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Really Brad? Well perhaps you need to explain it so that I know where i’m going wrong.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
conf,
You do not understand the concept of racism, and you use the epithet too lightly.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Anyways, back to the subject, “politics and friends” or “how the lefties are mean to us”.
Here’s a noted neocon with an interesting take on Haditha.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005300.htm
When you have people like this on your side, isn’t it understandable that your friends may be a bit feiry about your beliefs?
There are liberal democracies where you could be jailed for this sort of promotion of racial hatred and the more I see of the ultraright in the US, the more sympathetic I am to laws of that kind.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Sorry if I’ve got it wrong but Reagan and Gorbachev did sign a nuclear arms reduction treaty. IIRC it was either signed in, or the final face to face negotiations were held in Reykjavik.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Sorry, the mind was ahead of the fingers, obviously it was Bush and Yeltsin that signed the treaty.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
The START I treaty wasn’t signed until July, 1991, by Yeltsin and Gorbachev. No one was upset that Gorbachev and Reagan shook hands over signing the START treaty because it didn’t happen.
And yes the vast amount of political and economic pressure Reagan put on the Soviets hastened the end of the Soviet Union. Reagan followed the advice of Sovietologists who believed the USSR was at a tipping point. Their war in Afghanistan had drained an already weak economic structure. As well as Russian morale.
June 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Here’s a critique of O’Riley’s ‘work’.
htt