Talking with the enemy: Syria and Iran
[The follow-up second part of yesterday’s post on Vietnamization and Iraqization is coming soon. It was postponed for this one.]
Assassinations are a dime a dozen in the Middle East. Lebanon, in particular, has seen quite a spate of them within the last two years.
And now it’s Industry Minister Pierre Gemayal’s turn. His death is a whodunit worthy of Agatha Christie, most especially And Then There Were None:
Anti-Syrian Parliamentary leader Saad Hariri interrupted a press conference to accuse the Syrian regime of “trying to kill every free person” in Lebanon.
“The cycle (of killings) has resumed,” he said.
The usual suspects? Syria. With Iran perhaps somewhere in the mix. With the resignation of Shiite Cabinet ministers about a week ago in a bid for power and control by Hezbollah (see this), the idea is to topple the fragile “Cedar Revolution” government.
It’s the old Mideast dilemma: how can a democratic government stay in power, when murderous thugs who will stop at nothing to undermine that government see it (and all non-thug governments) as inherently weak? Beats me. But that’s what realpolitik was all about; the propping up of a thug who was “our thug,” but a thug nevertheless, because thuggery was seen as necessary to fight even worse thuggery.
One of the few silver linings in the dark Lebanese cloud is this: “Lebanese Murder May Weaken Push in US to Engage Syria in Iraq.”
Was there ever really such a push, and how strong was it? I can’t bring myself to believe that the Administration was ever that insane. Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, seems to agree with me. He says that deeper U.S. engagement with Syria on Iraq “was unlikely and is now even more unlikely.” Sounds reasonable to me.
James Baker may think otherwise. But how did his Iraq Study Group suddenly get elevated to superstar status? It will be making recommendations, it’s true. But we don’t even know what those recommendations are yet, although Baker himself is on record as advocating (as a general principle, at least) talking with the enemy.
But all rumors of the recommendations the Iraq Study Group will make seem to be just that at the moment–unsourced rumor, reverberating in the echo chamber that is the MSM. And, even if the MSM turns out to be correct, and the ISG does end up making a recommendation to talk to Syria and Iran re Iraqi “stabilization,” no one need act on those recommendations.
Mary Madigan thinks such talk would be like trying to negotiate with the Mob. I like the analogy, except that the mob had far more honor and far less power than these guys in Syria and Iran. Tony Blankly, in an article in RealClearPolitics, writes what appears to me basic common sense on the matter:
Iran has been our persistent enemy for 27 years — Syria longer. They may well be glad to give us cover while we retreat, but that would merely be an exercise in slightly delayed gratification, not self-denial, let alone benignity.
What’s up with this belief in the power of talk? Yes, sometimes, if there’s something in it for them, one can talk with the enemy and convince them to cooperate in an endeavor that gives them some sort of secondary gain. Or, it can work if we couple it with a big enough threat; but our threats are getting a bit hollow these days.
I read this editorial, and especially the quoted paragraph that follows, over and over, trying to parse some sort of sense from its Alice-in-Wonderland reasoning. I failed; perhaps you can enlighten me:
There is little doubt that Iran and Syria, especially the former, can play a crucial role in bringing peace to Iraq. Teheran’s influence on Iraq’s Shia political alliance and their numerous militias is hardly a secret. Iran has skilfully used its friends in Iraq to send the message to Washington that it could add to its woes, if the US pressured it on the question of nuclear programme.
Let’s see; I could paraphrase it something like this:
There is little doubt that the fox can play a crucial role in bringing peace to the henhouse. The fox’s raids on the chickens are hardly a secret. The fox has skillfully sent a message to the chicken farmers that it could add to their woes, if the chicken farmers tried to shoot it.
Even for therapists–and therapists believe in talk–there’s a time when talk is not appropriate–in dealing with relationships in which there are massive differentials of power, and ones that involve violence, for example. That’s when the law steps in.
There’s an almost unbelievably ridiculous and misplaced faith in talk across the land, a faith not-above-board players such as Syria and Iran do not share. They view our devotion to talk and to pacts and truths as a wonderful opportunity to exploit the naivete and weakness of the West. And they are right.
Munich was a wonderful talkfest, as well. And the ever-eloquent Churchill had something to say about it, too:
…[T]he terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: “Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting”. And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
Churchill didn’t want a world war; he wanted to prevent one by taking a stand at the right time for the right thing. But he knew that trusting the words of an enemy such as Hitler was no way to go about avoiding one; au contraire.
[ADDENDUM: Victor Davis Hanson agrees.]
Neo–Having watched the Oh, so delightful denizens at our State Department formulate the mush they call policy for several decades now, I think they do,indeed, believe the crap they are pushing about talking to Syria. As I’ve said before, State has its own foreign policy which it pushes, while it usually drags its heels on implementing the foreign policy of whoever occupies the White House. It has also been observed by many that State is hardly even-handed in its approach to Middle Eastern Affairs; there are many who are favor Muslim states, few who favor Israel. Many State types, and there is a definite type, believe that talk and negotiations–no matter how futile or disadvantageous to the U.S.–are preferable to any type of conflict and seem to believe that there is no evil states or people in the world but only friends who we do not yet sufficiently understand. They believe themselves to be the only true experts in foreign affairs, far more aristocratic, far better educated and far better equipped than anyone else to understand the complex matters involved in diplomacy that others are just not equipped to perceive. I believe they see it as one of their roles to keep the grubby fingers of the low-rent bumblers in the rest of the government off the wheel.
“Wisdom comes with Age”. I believe that is he rationale for the Baker Folks.
Two comments: First, a Groucho Marx like continuation of the above quote: “And so does senility.”
These are the people who gave you the warped end of Gulf War I. To complete a nice symmetrical argument, it would be like accepting a Munich Agreement from Those Wonderful Folks who gave you the Versailles Treaty.
Baker et al. are too old to have to live with the consequences of their recommendations. Us younger people ae the ones that will inherit the Second World War in a couple of years.
Use them as fig leaves, not as anyone to be taken seriously. They have no stake in the future.
To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.
Winston Churchill.
To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.
The poor man had a wicked hangover when he said that.
“There’s an almost unbelievably ridiculous and misplaced faith in talk across the land, a faith not-above-board players such as Syria and Iran do not share. They view our devotion to talk and to pacts and truths as a wonderful opportunity to exploit the naivete and weakness of the West. And they are right.”
I’d love to see what evidence you have for this claim.
“It’s the old Mideast dilemma: how can a democratic government stay in power, when murderous thugs who will stop at nothing to undermine that government see it (and all non-thug governments) as inherently weak? Beats me. But that’s what realpolitik was all about; the propping up of a thug who was “our thug,” but a thug nevertheless, because thuggery was seen as necessary to fight even worse thuggery.”
True to an extent – but we’d be dishonest if we didn’t acknowledge the influence that U.S and Israeli policies in Lebanon – 4 Israeli invasions of Lebanon over 30 years with tactic and military support from the U.S – and the mighty U.S veto abolishing the unanimous condemnation and will of the international community, the UN Charter and, as neo-neocon has refered to, the Law.
Lebanon is a special case because of it’s ethnic/religous diveristy and the role of Israel and the U.S in supporting the pro Christian denominations in Lebanon – hard to argue this is the best thing for the country when these same countries have been willing to completely destroy the place, and confiscate territory at the drop of a dime.
Often these ‘democratic’ governments are weak because they aren’t viewed as legimitimate – the old sock puppet of the U.S. problem.
“Even for therapists–and therapists believe in talk–there’s a time when talk is not appropriate–in dealing with relationships in which there are massive differentials of power, and ones that involve violence, for example. That’s when the law steps in.”
I find this type of thinking ridiculous, I must say. Why should Iran and Syria be cooperative in what was an illegal invasion, occupation of a neighbouring country – again, unanimously condemned – and when they’ve been repeatedly threatened with regime change after the same was done in Iraq without any valid pretext? Why should they talk? The burden is on the United States to talk – or go for total war. Which after the failure of Iraq, and the real reasons for the war(oil)would be the hight of stupidity.
But then, some would say.
I’m facinated to hear Neo, what you think the possible outcome of no dialouge with these countries will be – if you want war do you think you can be succesful? And if you don’t – what do you think can be accomplished by it?
Seriously…
justaguy–even though you are a banned troll, I kept your comment up because I wanted to comment on it. Churchill is reported to have said that at a White House luncheon in 1954, but it was unrecorded and only reported in the NY Times. There are various accounts that dispute the words (you can do a search yourself if interested).
At any rate, it’s not important what he may or may not have said on that occasion. The point is that, in speeches and in deeds (including the speech I’ve quoted in the body of the post, after Munich) Churchill stated his actual thoughts with clarity. And there is no doubt that he thought to jaw jaw was by no means always preferable to war war.
There’s an almost unbelievably ridiculous and misplaced faith in talk across the land, a faith not-above-board players such as Syria and Iran do not share. They view our devotion to talk and to pacts and truths as a wonderful opportunity to exploit the naivete and weakness of the West. And they are right.
That is a downright weird statement considering the Middle East diplomacy hitting the news this past week.
The same publisher of the editorial you quote, Khaleej Times Online, published another editorial today that folks here should check out.
A. Nony Moose:
IF yu truly believe in talk, talk, talk, I have a great buy on a bridge of historical significance in New York City, going across to Brooklyn.
Have you ever heard of the term filibuster? That’s what this is: talk to avoid the necessity if taking action. Especially actions that involve more-or-less irreversible decisions.
Like going to war.
The Big Boys make these decisions all the time.
College faculties discuss the softness of the toilet paper in the faculty men’s room…I actually heard this at an Ivy College.
As far as a talking shop goes, we got one already thank you on New York/Manhattan’s East Side. Right next to the East River, traditionally the place the sewage and garbage floats out to sea.
Appropriate, don’t you think?
Neo,
there is no certainty that had Churchill been PM at the time of Munich he would not have done the same thing as Chamberlain. Churchill was ina no lose position as an outsider.
Britain was in no position to fight the war at the time and had they done so, the end result may well have been different.
You seem to be so certain of politician’s motives that I’m sure you’ve never been close to them. Churchill was no saint, got little respect from the US leadership at the time and alienated many of the Commonwealth allies during the war, notably Australia.
He was also a virulent antisemite and an admirer of Mussolini’s and Hitler’s economic policies.
Well, what I am getting here is that some people feel we shouldn’t talk to Syria or Iran. OK, the alternative is that we can take care of Iraq all by ourselves for the next however many years. Problem is, the US is not prepared for that.
One could say that talking to Syria and Iran would produce no results, and would simply be stalling. Possible. But what harm comes from talking? The US is in no position to do anything to either country at the present time, outside of dropping some bombs on them.
Wars can’t be won with diplomacy alone, only lost.
Wars can’t be won with diplomacy alone, only lost.
Tatterdemalian | 11.22.06 – 10:11 pm | #
The US is not at war with Iran or Syria. Nor has it any reason to be unless you wish to kill for the sake of killing. Both were willing partners in the hunt for Al Qaeda but were shunned by a petulant belicose Bush admin in a deliberate strategy of alienation and provocation.
Israel could end its state of war with Syria tomorrow by leaving Syrian and Lebanese territory.
Iranian democracy would be more likely to flourish with normalisation of relations with the west. Threats only force an opposite reaction.
Pakistan presents a far greater threat than Iran or Syria, yet Bush mollycoddles them and contributes to the nuclear arms race with India who are no picture perfect democrats either and prone to fascism.
Go figure.
justtheguy: The US is not at war with Iran or Syria. Nor has it any reason to be unless you wish to kill for the sake of killing.
The US is at war with Islamist terrorists (fascist and theocratic varieties), and with the states that support or shelter them. That includes Iran and Syria. We wish, or should wish, to kill for the sake of killing killers.
Stevo: But what harm comes from talking? The US is in no position to do anything to either country at the present time, outside of dropping some bombs on them.
Well, dropping some bombs on them would at least be a start. Then we could go on talking — talking while we’re bombing, i.e., because talking then would be dirt cheap, and what harm comes from talking after all?
No wonder, that folks at State Department will always prefer diplomacy above military incursions or language of ultimatums: diplomacy is their turf. And no wonder that folks in Pentagon have other position, favorable to their involvment in the case. And CIA operatives, of course, propose their solutions (covert actions, agents of influence and so on). This is responsibility of President to chose what track to follow.
“Iranian democracy would be more likely to flourish with normalisation of relations with the west. Threats only force an opposite reaction.”
No democracy can flourish under tyranny of Mullas. It will have chance to take root only after these mullas were hanged at lampposts, like Communists in Hungary in 1956. This is the most desirable outcome for US – and for Iranian people, too.
Real alternative to talks to the enemy is people diplomacy: direct address to internal opposition existing in enemy countries, with proposal of help and assistance. This is symmetrical answer to what these enemies already do, openly supporting fifth column in Western countries. It can be combined with direct help to dissidents from Syria and Iran, including their diaspora in US.
It is better for this Republic to have a reputation for grimly keeping its word than one for noble talk without the will to back it up. This leads to fewer corpses in the long run; it’s a lesson that we all will shortly relearn.
Obliguely on-topic: Yesterday Putin had a piece in Le Figaro on the subject of why Europe and Russia should welcome mutual dependence. It all sounded fair and reasonable if your taste inclines towards EU-type entities, but I was struck that he did not even bother to mention the USA. Iran, Syria, Iraq decide to have a jaw-jaw as if the USA didn’t matter.
I’m afraid the world has our number. America is just a washed up old gasbag.
I’m afraid the world has our number. America is just a washed up old gasbag.
No no no, cheer up! There are still lots of non-military ways America can reform cultures around the globe. Sure, Muslims may hate your guts but the USA can always try to win over, say, South Americans, by singling out one of their weak little countries and throwing it against the wall — in fact, I’m sure you won’t have to wait too long. In the meantime, if you authoritarians are really hurting for a fix, you can always rent Rambo. Or just kick your dog.
There’s definitely some very disturbing parallels between the pre-war appeasement period of WW2 and the current international scene.
For one thing a violent wave of anti-Semitism is spreading around the globe that tries to pass itself off as “anti-Zionism.” That’s the political excuse for the racial and cultural warfare against the Jews that we are witnessing.
The blogosphere is abuzz with the priest and nun who are acting as human shields for the Palestinian terrorists. At least we won’t have the Israeli-haters trying to deny the terrorists are using human shields anymore.
If I was Iran, I would outfit four ordinary-looking freighter ships with one or two missiles each, steer them a few miles offshore and have them simultaneously launch their missiles up a couple hundred miles before detonation. One ship would launch over Israel, one over Australia, one over England and one would be for Houston. EMP, it’s inexpensive, unstoppable by conventional missile defense systems, relatively low-tech and leaves the global real estate relatively unpoisoned. The blast and radiation would kill a huge number of people directly underneath but the loss of power and transportation due to the EMP effect would turn the Texas/Louisiana area of the US into a hell hole. Many, probably most, would be trapped and die before they could walk out. Looting, murder and general lawlessness would be widespread after only a few days. All a Islamofascist state with a hankering to smite the infidel needs is enough fissile material and a few innocuous-looking freighters.
Of course the Iranians would be counting on no US reprisal. After all there would be the US nuclear subs somewhere in the vast ocean and I’m sure Iran is aware that only ONE of those submarines could blow them all away. And a few stealth bombers, perhaps most, would be out of range of the EMP. Ah, but how would anyone know it was the Iranians, eh? Sure, they might suspect, but they couldn’t PROVE it.
Ah, but how would anyone know it was the Iranians, eh? Sure, they might suspect, but they couldn’t PROVE it.
As in the thirties, there will be more and greater horrors coming our way sooner or later. After which, things will change with startling speed. Those who have repeatedly announced and shown themselves to be our enemies will be targeted for destruction, and no one will listen any longer to the few frightened — or collaborationist — souls who insist on “proof”. And things that seem too impossible or too fearsome to even contemplate now — such as a global war with the whole of a radicalized Islam — will then be all too real. All because, as before, we shrank from the tasks that might have halted the fascists before it became too late.
The idiocy of “realists” proposal in talking to Tehran is that talking to Tehran would be like casting the wolf as the grandmother. In Iraq, Iran is part of the problem, and cannot become part of the solution.
The syrians and iranians, like all ME folks are shrewd, and canny. Iran and Syria may not have as much pull as Baker thinks they do. The Iranians and their death squads have not gone unnoticed by many Iraqis, insurgents and non-insurgents. But they know that Baker does not know that they know. In other words they will get what they need from him, and then surprise, they can’t deliver anything, because the Iraqi insurgencies has taken a life of its own. Having the syrians and the Iranians milk the the Iraq war in many ways is more disatrous than what we’re facing right now
Possibilities of war in the Middle East
By Amir Taheri, Special to Gulf news
Three war clouds hang over the Middle East. The first represents the possibility of American or Israeli military action against Iran’s nuclear installations. The second represents the threat of a fresh civil war in Lebanon. The third points to the growing threat of military clash between Israel and Syria.
While all three clouds are thickening to become more threatening, the third appears the most likely to break into actual thunder and storm. The issue formed a key part of the talks between President George W. Bush and visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Washington recently.
The reason why the most imminent war in the region might involve Israel and Syria rather than Iran and the United States is that the putative adversaries are basing their rival strategies on the Tennessee turkey-shoot rules. Under that rule the hunter of wild turkeys always starts by bringing down the laggard in the targeted flight of birds, then proceeding to shoot the others one by one until the leading bird is hit…
http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/region/10084227.html
Our weakness motivates Iran
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/791561.html
Or just kick your dog.
Well I did once bite my dog on the throat when we were first getting acquainted. It’s so important to convey your meaning on a level understandable to the individual you’re talking to. In that spirit, a-non, I’m rubber, you’re glue…..
Sally wrote:
“All because, as before, we shrank from the tasks that might have halted the fascists before it became too late.”
Umm, Sally – unfortunately, you are you fascists.
In the world of neoconservative double-speak(or turnspeak or whatever it is) Iran is an imperial nation, Syria is a terrorist state, Israel is a free democratic country and the U.S is a benign giant just trying to spread democracy and ‘buy’ oil.
If it does turn out as you say – nobody will be under any illusions as to how it started and who is to blame.
And I wouldn’t bet on America emerging from that conflict unscathed.
But for me I’d rather hope that these differences can be worked out by cooler heads – at the very least, given a realistic chance.
Once again, breaking my own rule (for the moment) about conversing with a troll:
justaguy (8:43 PM): Learn a bit about Churchill and his views at the time it happened–and even before it happened–on Chamberlain and appeasement. He was a voice crying in the wilderness for a long time beforehand (although barely anyone seemed to be listening). The quote from him in the link I provided was part of a speech to Paliament denouncing Chamberlain’s jaw jaw with Hitler.
There’s an almost unbelievably ridiculous and misplaced faith in talk across the land, a faith not-above-board players such as Syria and Iran do not share. They view our devotion to talk and to pacts and truths as a wonderful opportunity to exploit the naivete and weakness of the West. And they are right.
You’d have to be dumb to give up such a clear advantage over your opponent.
If you can get what you want, and can get it without cost, because your enemy makes it easy for you, why not take him up on the offer, eh?
The thing about the “talk”, seems to me simply a way to avoid the larger problem. To forestall it, to pass the buck around. They only need peace in their time, when it is someone’s elses time, then they can say that it wasn’t their fault, it is now the guy in office’s fault.
The Democrats certainly prefer blaming other people rather than taking introspection to a beneficial conclusion. Arabs too are akin to that psychologically.
There’s two basic systems from which talk is pursued. The position of strength and the position of weakness. If you are weak, then you talk, because you can’t do things by yourself. This includes parleys with the enemy or talks with your potential allies to band together. If you are strong, then what exactly do you talk for? Well, you could talk in order to finish a war that is already over. If Japan can be talked into surrendering, no more people need die. Your position of strength means only that you will win, it does not mean that you will win without further lives wasted. So someone in a strong position may prefer talking because they value resources that might be lost otherwise, but this is not due to the fear of losing.
The US is in the peculiar circumstance of having people that want to talk, not because they are strong and able to win or weak and looking at defeat, but rather in a position where they HAVE the power but are not willing to USE that power.
So it is some freak of nature hybrid that combines the weak and strong positions into one messed up psyche profile.
The US and Bush talks and talks, but it is not from a position of strength, it is not from a belief that we will win, that talking is just to save people the pain of the end game. No, Bush talks because he believes that he doesn’t need victory to convince Arabs to stop fighting, he doesn’t need unconditional surrender to convince Arabs that jihad is the wrong path. Well, since when did someone convince you that jihad was the wrong path, any path was the wrong path, by talking? Where’s the proof, wouldn’t you want to see proof before taking on the path people seek to talk you into?
And yet, Bush doesn’t talk because he believes he will lose, America isn’t getting cities destroyed daily on our homeland. We’re not in a position from which the end game will spell defeat for us. But we’re also not in a position from which the end game will automatically spell victory for us. So most people with
justtheguy: How do you account for the very many Jews who not only are not zionists but quite a few are very opposed to zionism.
Not all anti-zionism is anti-semitism — but much current anti-semitism is masquerading as anti-zionism. Since that point is a little subtle for you, guy, I’d suggest just looking in a mirror for an example of the latter.
Many of these people believe that the current brutal policies are destroying Israel.
Well, many people believe the earth is flat or was created a few thousand years ago — either fantasy has more substance than the assertion that Israel’s current policies are “brutal” rather than restrained.
It is very easy to play the antisemitism card as an intellectually lazy means of justifying racism toward muslims and arabs. It is indicative of a racial supremecism not unlike that practised by the Nazis in the 30s.
It is very easy to play the racism card as an intellectually lazy means of justifying antisemitism toward jews. It is indicative of a racial supremecism [sic] not unlike that practised by the Nazis in the 30s.
conned: is there any point … at which you neo-cons might consider a policy other than bombing, shooting etc.
Yeah — the point at which our enemies and the enemies of our allies start to consider a policy other than bombing, shooting, etc.
(For those new here — connie is an old troll who’s asked the same dumb questions a few hundred times, and been answered the same way. I think he actually forgets, though, so it’s just a kindness to repeat the point.)
xxxxSo most people with common sense back when common sense was common, weren’t talking at this freakish hybrid stage. This hybrid stage would normally be called war, the period between peace and talking. And in war, you fight, not talk. But the politicians have somehow gene spliced two incompatible animals into one thing, and called it diplomacy. They believe themselves to be Gods, yet without the wisdom and knowledge.
Bush, Congress, and the US politicians don’t treat Iran or Syria as an enemy. They don’t. In fact, we treat our friends worse than our enemies. Vietnam for example. We dumped the US allies over broad, and now we are doing free trade with the country that defeated the US. Now this is not consistent with common sense. Since when did sane people reward their enemies and punish their allies?
Baker told Bush senior not to aid the Shia because the Shia were in league with Iran. Now he wants to talk to Iran. Does this sound like the worst sort of inconsistent and illogical realpolitek to you? Realpolitek without the blood and iron, that is, which is even worse than realpolitek with blood and iron.
Baker wants to deal with our enemies on speaking terms, and he wants to shut out those who could have been our allies if we provided them aid. There’s a reason why Bush senior got sacked after 4 years.
I share snow’s distaste and disgust with the State Depos. Would help America a lot to purge that agency, 50%. It is easy. Do what Clinton did with the military to get the military to cut out. Defund State. No pensions, and bureacrats will transfer over to someplace else.
And there is no doubt that he thought to jaw jaw was by no means always preferable to war war.
neo-neocon | Homepage | 11.22.06 – 6:56 pm | #
it is an existential argument, Neo. Just believes that ultimate justice will always come from the talk, the deal, the compromise, the kickback that is called trading favors with the devil. If jaw jaw leads to more war war, then jaw jaw cannot be god god right? But to Just, talk talk is the ultimate just just, all time for just time in all time.
Besides all propagandists know that the shorter the quote, the easier it is for propagandists to manipulate.
Ymarsakar: Have u read this?
http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2319&cid=1&sid=27
“As I said, unless you appreciate the context, and the fact that Britain was ill equipped at the time to wage a war, then you can take whatever you’ll want to see from the quotes.”
At the time of the Treaty of Munich, Britain could have unilateraly defeated Hitler’s army with the same ease the US defeated Saddam’s, and for much the same reason: they were designed more for suppressing internal threats than resisting external invasions.
We’re finding out today what would have happened if we had stopped Hitler before the Holocaust, and it’s pretty sad.
justa: are you always so snarky and demeaning toward people with a differing view?
No, guy, I’m not. Differing points of view I run into all the time. I can accept a fair bit of even stupidity and ignorance, in fact. But the particular combination of stupidity, ignorance, and duplicitous, self-righteous nastiness you so frequently display isn’t worth anything more than curt dismissal. Don’t feel too bad, though — you’re not alone. See below:
Anony: Umm, Sally – unfortunately, you are you fascists.
Umm, Anony – unfortunately (but only for you), you are you [sic] garden gnomes. Ya see, if the various posturing lefties here had an intellectual maturity a little higher than grade school, they might start to realize that “fascist”, like “racist”, isn’t just a cheap and easy synonym for “bad person”, or “someone whose views I don’t like” — they actually refer to something meaningful. Oh, but then they might actually have to look in that mirror, and wonder….
Naw, better just stick with the program — as in this bit of nuanced analysis:
… the bombing and shooting is mainly on your side, not to mention the stealing, lying and killing ….
Pretty clear, at least, whose side anony’s on.
Which begs the question – how do you differeniate between anti-zionist and anti-semitic views?
Interesting, in a pointed sort of way, that you don’t seem to know the answer. Modern day bigots seem to think that if they cloak their bigotry in the guise of a mere political difference, they can pursue their nasty ends undetected. But what always gives them away is the wild and hate-filled ravings they can’t help but revert to — e.g., Israeli’s aren’t just wrong, they’re nazis, fascists, racists, etc., who love to shoot children, destroy homes, kill for the sake of killing, blah, blah, blah. Anytime you see garbage like that, you can be pretty confident the one(s) spewing it are just the old, familiar jew-haters, the anti-semites.
This again, by the way, isn’t addressed to the actual bigots who asked this question, duplicitously, but just to those who might honestly be confused.
Hitler/Munich analogies abound because it was the one war in modern memory that everyone agrees with.
However, Savanarola-like or Cassandra-like posts in the blogosphere is not what is needed now, for those who think the analogy is apt, and who believe, by extention, that we have to defeat Syria, Iran, and anyone else in addition to Saddam’s Iraq.
What is needed is an analytical and rhetorical tour de force that can serve as a seedbed to persuading the people of the US that we have to go to war all out, and that includes at minimum increasing the size of the Army and Marines probably by a factor of at min 2, and possibly more.
I myself would support such a force increase, although I don’t see the Hitler analogies.
Which begs the question – how do you differentiate between anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic views?
I would say that trying to insure that Israel is annihilated is kind of anti-Semitic. Not merely defeated, mind you, say as in the last feckless trip into Lebanon, but literally wiped off the face of the earth. And it could happen; I’m not yet ready to think of it as inevitable but it is one of the possibilities I fear. Another possibility is that Israel will at some point in the future be goaded into all-out war. The amount of carnage a truly desperate Israel could deal out is not pleasant to contemplate but the power of anti-war factions within Israel itself could well prove strong enough to prevent it.
The bloody nose given Israel in the last Lebanon incursion will never satisfy those who are excited by this current world-wide pathological wave of Jew-hate. They long for an end to Israel; there is nothing Israel could ever do, no policy change or concession made that would ever satisfy these jokers, Israel is foolish to even try. But Israel PHONES AHEAD BEFORE STRIKING.
The current brand of anti-Semite fervor blithely demands of the Jews of Israel behavior demanded of no other nation. I forget just when I realized that the Israelis gave such warnings, the ME was off my personal radar until after 9/11, but this mostly unreported fact strikes me as a gauge of the sad state of affairs in that area of the ME.
Israel is not really permitted to defend itself. If you have to phone ahead before you shoot you’ll never win ANY war. When Israel tries, even half-heartedly, to defend itself the Jew-haters label it as “illegal” and accuses Israel of “war crimes.” The Israeli victories in Israel’s beginning would never have been possible under the present restrictions.
They say the anti-Semites are clever propagandists but then you don’t really HAVE to be clever when you have the eager cooperation of two thirds of Western intelligentsia, four fifths of Western academe and nine tenths of the MSM. These are folks that sympathize with the terrorists that war against Israel and assist in the terrorist cause, sometimes unwittingly.
The ubiquitous anti-Semitic propaganda claims the minds of many and they must rationalize their hatred with the thought that the genocidal war they participate in is merely anti-Zionism. The use of terror-sympathizing stringers, doctored and staged photographs, staged “atrocities,” slanted coverage, hyperbole, distortions and outright lies, ALL are allowed and perpetuated by the Jew-haters.
justtheguy: Ahh but Sally, I have not done any of those things … — meaning, I guess, displayed “a duplicitous, self-righteous nastiness”. It is your brand of racial supremecist….
And we don’t need to go any further. Apart from the ignorant spelling, this is not just false, it’s deliberately false — meaning it’s a lie. And a morally smug lie at that, meaning that it displays, yes, “duplicitous, self-righteous nastiness”. That, plus his homepage, which is a systematic distortion of the Middle East so as to demonize Israel and Israelis and sanctify Palestinian butchers, makes our latest troll here just another bigot, however deluded or self-pitying.
For the crime of failing to remain victims, the left has declared Israel guilty of oppression. They have already handed down their sentence – genocide of all who are pro-Israel – and now await an entity with the power to carry it out.
Good luck to them on that. Israel was created not so the world wouldn’t seek to annihilate their people, but so they couldn’t.
justa: I challenge you to fault a single statistic on there.
Oooohh, “statistics”!! justa’s clearly never heard about the three kinds of lies, has he? Speaking of lies, his reading comprehension is as much impaired as his attachment to truth, since the lie I was referring to was his claim that I’m a “racial supremecist {sic]”. But never mind, guy — since you’re a stats collector, here’s one you can add: Number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorists (just since Sep 2000): 1126; number of Palestinians killed by Israeli terrorists: 0 (Source).
Even without his carefully selected “statistics”, though, justtheguy’s got some pretty hard-to-answer arguments:
“You’re a cheap polemicist, Sally.”
“Grackle, Stuff and nonsense.”
“Pathetic and childish neo.”
“ROFLMAO”? Ha! ROTLMAOLLIO!!
Sally wrote:
“Interesting, in a pointed sort of way, that you don’t seem to know the answer. Modern day bigots seem to think that if they cloak their bigotry in the guise of a mere political difference, they can pursue their nasty ends undetected. But what always gives them away is the wild and hate-filled ravings they can’t help but revert to — e.g., Israeli’s aren’t just wrong, they’re nazis, fascists, racists, etc., who love to shoot children, destroy homes, kill for the sake of killing, blah, blah, blah. Anytime you see garbage like that, you can be pretty confident the one(s) spewing it are just the old, familiar jew-haters, the anti-semites.”
So you think it’s in the rhetoric that accompanies criticism of Israeli policies. Fair enough.
By extension, you then could be accussed of bigotry yourself towards Muslims and Arabs.
Or am I wrong?
” Ya see, if the various posturing lefties here had an intellectual maturity a little higher than grade school, they might start to realize that “fascist”, like “racist”, isn’t just a cheap and easy synonym for “bad person”, or “someone whose views I don’t like” — they actually refer to something meaningful.”
They certainly do. Apparently you’ve no idea what however. And yes, that’s unfortunate too(for you).
“Pretty clear, at least, whose side anony’s on.”
I try not to be on any side – certainly not on the side of ignorance and lies.
“I would say that trying to insure that Israel is annihilated is kind of anti-Semitic. Not merely defeated, mind you, say as in the last feckless trip into Lebanon, but literally wiped off the face of the earth.”
I would agree with that – but I’ve yet to see anybody on this blog and never in mainstream opinion have I heard this. In fact, even Ahmadinejad didn’t claim that – another glowing example of the liberal media at work.
“The current brand of anti-Semite fervor blithely demands of the Jews of Israel behavior demanded of no other nation. I forget just when I realized that the Israelis gave such warnings, the ME was off my personal radar until after 9/11, but this mostly unreported fact strikes me as a gauge of the sad state of affairs in that area of the ME.”
No it was reported – it’s just that for most people it isn’t evidence of anything other than the IDF’s ability to gather intelligence(who gave them the numbers?) There is concrete evidence that Israel destroyed half of Lebanon, did nothing to weaken Hezbollah, but killed alot of civlians and left hundreds of thousands without homes, food water and electricity.
“Israel is not really permitted to defend itself.”
No – it’s just that most times it’s not defending itself – or if it is, it is against retaliation for crimes it carry’s out thanks to full support from the U.S – including illegal occupation, extradicual murder, assassination, torture, aggression, etc etc. The victims of Israeli crimes however, are certainly not allowed to protect themselves- in fact we call it ‘terrorism’.
“The use of terror-sympathizing stringers, doctored and staged photographs, staged “atrocities,” slanted coverage, hyperbole, distortions and outright lies, ALL are allowed and perpetuated by the Jew-haters.”
Perhaps – but these events probably make up about 2% or less of the actual atrocities that Israel does carry out, and the facts that are not reported in the apparently anti-Israel American media LOL!!!.
“Number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorists (just since Sep 2000): 1126; number of Palestinians killed by Israeli terrorists: 0 (Source).”
I had to laugh when I read that – even more when I saw your source.
In fact there have been terrorist attacks carried out by jewish settlers (illegal in the occuppied territories), including outright murder, poisoning and killing Palestinian live stock, buring down their houses, crops etc.
And of course the number of Palestinian civilians purposely killed by the IDF(targeting civilians is called terrorism) is about 4 times the number of Israeli civilians killed.
But hey – it’s always an accident. And they’re always sorry.
Right?
Tell me something – is the inability to tell the truth a dominant feature of Israeli culture?
Would I be a bigot if I forwarded that claim?
One of the many who like to make repeated posts, but who lack the simple intelligence required to give themselves a distinguishable identity – aka “Anonymous”:
By extension, you then could be accussed of bigotry yourself towards Muslims and Arabs.
Or am I wrong?
Yes, you’re wrong, and here’s why: there’s a difference between bigoted rhetoric, which is merely a symptom of an irrational hatred and contempt (and which is itself contemptible), and real substance, which accurately names, describes, and judges its object. As I said above, words like “fascist” and “racist” are not mere schoolyard taunts, though they’re used as such by the enervated contemporary left — they have a real meaning. It’s a meaning that applies directly, for example, to parties and movements that have modeled themselves on the “national socialist” movements of fascist Europe, or to religious leaders that speak of Jews as monkeys or pigs. It’s a meaning that applies, only a little less directly, to cultures that stone women, hang young girls, and murder homosexuals, cultures that exult in a sick, eroticized embrace of death, and cheer at the slaughter of innocents. It’s a meaning that applies, in other words, however sadly, to a great deal of the contemporary Arab and Muslim world. What it does not apply to is the one culture in that benighted region that has actually embraced democracy, upheld the rule of law, defended a free press and the rights of the individual, even as it’s had to defend its very existence against a sustained onslaught from the increasingly frenzied zealots that surround it — namely Israel.
By the way — I take your “Fair enough” statement as a tacit admission of your anti-semitic problem. I hope you’ll seek some professional counseling for it, and really, reading this blog is at least a start — so congratulations.
One other small point — “Anonymous” on the Internet doesn’t really help in the way a sheet used to.
By extension, you then could be accused of bigotry yourself towards Muslims and Arabs.
The only thing I demand of Muslims and Arabs is that they stop supporting terrorism. Unfortunately it seems that most of them cheer terrorism and assist it whenever they can.
In fact, even Ahmadinejad didn’t claim that[to wipe Israel off the map] – another glowing example of the liberal media at work.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remark on Wednesday that Israel should be “wiped off the map” sparked international condemnation, including a rebuke from the U.N. Security Council.
But the uproar has caused confusion in Iran, where such rhetoric has been commonplace since the 1979 Islamic revolution. Anti-Israeli diatribes are painted as murals along most highways and are heard regularly at Friday prayers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9823624/
Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told a group of students at an anti-Israel event on Wednesday that Israel ”must be wiped off the map” and that attacks by Palestinians would destroy it, the ISNA news agency reported.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10A17F83A5B0C748EDDA90994DD404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fF%2fFathi%2c%20Nazila
The problem with apologizing for terror-using regimes like Iran and sympathizing with terrorism is that the Truth keeps rearing its sometimes ugly head.
Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad’s phrases in Persian as a statement that “Israel must be wiped off the map”[4][5][6], an English idiom which means to cause a place to stop existing[7].
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[8]
According to Cole, “Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian” and “He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.”[1]
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:
[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[9]
On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. “Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned,” Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. “How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime,” he said.
Wiki.
“And of course the number of Palestinian civilians purposely killed by the IDF(targeting civilians is called terrorism) is about 4 times the number of Israeli civilians killed.”
I think the word “civilian” does not mean what you think it means.
Not really a surprise, though; neither does “terrorist.”
According to Cole, “Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian” and “He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.”[1]
“I had to laugh when I read that – even more when I saw your source.”
It’s quite a predictable laugh to read grackle and Sally scramble to differentiate between their own bigotry and anti-semitism that they see in every criticism of Israel – Sally, being one of a few here that felt that acknowleging that there is an Israel lobby in the U.S was ‘anti-semitic’.
Thats why I asked the question – just for a laugh.
And you didn’t let me down sport….
What’s wrong with the source Sally?
Is he a rabid anti-semite too LOL.???
So what does it mean Tatter – or is it a secret?
Actually Sally, do you speak farsi?
And if you don’t then how do you know what he actually said?
There was a story about 4 months ago that first appeared in Canada’s National Post(a right wing paper)that claimed jews in Iran were being forced to were yellow arm bands to indentify them as jews(harkening back to the days of 1939 Germany).
The only problem was they were totally false.
It didn’t stop the story from makings it’s way round western right wing papers(and blogs etc). In fact some continued to insist the story was true even after most had apologized and retracted the story.
So we have a situation were certain groups will stoop to a very low level indeed to portray Iran as the new Germany and Ahamedinjed as the new ‘Hitler’.
Even though Iran has never attacked Israel or even any of it’s neighbours in thousands of years.
But evidently we’re suppossed to believe they are the aggressors, even while Israel and the U.S have attacked, infiltrated, Iran and it’s neighbors.
It’s funny that….
… do you speak Farsi?
And if you don’t then how do you know what he actually said?
As for me I’ll go with the original translation in the NYT by Nazila Fathi, who DOES speak Farsi:
Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told a group of students at an anti-Israel event on Wednesday that Israel ”must be wiped off the map” and that attacks by Palestinians would destroy it, … .
Grackle: This is what Mahmood, the schizoid, said in Persian NOT Farsi:
Israel bayad az safheyeh roozegar mahve shavad.
Which literally translates to:
Israel must be erased or concealed from the pages of the ages. To me it’s more vindicative and hateful. And this is nothing new in Iran. Iranians hear it everyday from every medium possible. Everywher you go in Iran there are hughe murals referring to the same thing “Reconquering Jeurasalem to it’s rightful owners” or the Day of “Quods” is specifically marked for this vision.
If Iran had the economic and military power that we do, they wouldn’t have hesitated for a minute to destroy us.
justa: Your comic book blatherings are childish fantasies.
Oh yeah? Well your childish fantasies are comic book blatherings. Oh, and by the way — all your base are belong to us!
justa and anonny have long since past the point of self-parody, haven’t they? But they’re still at least mildly entertaining. Like true obsessive-compulsives, they’re repetitive to a mind-numbing degree, but they hang in there, sweaty, snarling, doing their best for the thugs and petty despots they’ve chosen to defend. Like publicist flak-catchers for the mob. But by now, they’re pretty much reduced to the “I know you are (a facist/racist/ fill-in-the-blank) but what am I” level of clever retort.
justa: You Israel firsters are traitors to America.
Heyy, justa’s pretending he’s a patriot now!
Sorry, justa, you can wave that flag for all you’re worth — which isn’t a lot, admittedly — but it isn’t fooling anyone. You’ve chosen your side, whether you care to admit it openly or not, and made your bed — now you’re going to have to lie in it. Good luck with that.
To Anon’s link, no I hadn’t read that. But I did find it interesting after having just read it.
Have we not realized the lunacy in using a fascist Iraq against a fascist Iran, or vice versa? Are we unaware that regimes we oppose house populations that love us, whereas the tyrannies we coddle house peoples that kill us?
At best, it is a temporary option to have evil kill evil. Churchill and FDR did it with the Soviets and the Nazis, but it was a temporary solution. It could ONLY be a temporary solution. You will have to deal with the leftovers sooner or later, and we did deal with them in the Cold War.
Bush Senior still reads the New York Times. His generation is too old by Vietnam standards and too young by his son’s standards. When you are not up to the times, that is a critical problem in a war. It doesn’t matter who likes you in war, it only matters how much willpower you have. FDR was a rather cold man and had lots of personality and judgement problems. But his willpower was sheer indomitable, and that is all that mattered, for that war anyways.
Here’s an eloquent expression of the left-wing position re. this community’s favourite topic:
Howard Zinn on The Uses of History and the War on Terrorism
That’s a video of an hour-long talk.
It’s a primer for anybody who’d appreciate developing a more informed opinion of the left’s POV.
Civilians do not fire cluster bombs into other countries from the roofs of their houses.
Civilians do not launch coordinated cross-border raids into other countries.
Any definition of “civilian” that includes any of the people the IDF has killed, would necessarily include the IDF itself as “civilians.”
Okay, you have 4 days to do whatever you want. You can:
a) endlessly and pointlessly debate the absolute rightness of your position, and hte absolute wrongness of your opponent’s position, in the comments section of a blog, or
b) anything else.
Instead of turning Neo’s blog-comments into a re-enactment of Usenet wars, why doesn’t everyone just post a thoughtful, balanced essay on their position on their own web pages? I promise I will read them all.
Not to mention Israel possessing an illegal nuclear weapons arsenal and the ability to deliver warheads to any city in the middle east and constantly threatening to do so.
Iran, is an aggressor though for pursuing its legal right to nuclear power.
Propaganda analysis:
The premise of the above statement is false. Israel IS NOT constantly threatening nuclear retaliation on anyone. Israel, for instance, has never that I have ever read threatened to “wipe” any nation “off the map.” The real issue is not what Israel might do but what IRAN is VERY LIKELY to do with it’s WMD. It’s obvious that as soon as the Iranians think they can safely get away with it that Iran will give a little bit of it to terrorists for use against the US.
The unstated assumption of the above statement, which is false, is that Israel is a threat on the same order as Iran. Hapless and evidently decadent, Israel can’t even make effective war on the terrorists lobbing rockets daily from Lebanon into Israel. So there is no such danger from Israel; Israel phones in their bombing runs, fer Heaven’s sake!
The pro-terrorist contingent likes to ignore danger from Islamofascist states and inflate the danger from Israel, who is no danger at all to the West. And there is nothing “illegal” about Israeli weaponry, despite the consternation of her enemies.
Of course Iran as every right to have “nuclear power,” and Iran would already have nuclear power if Iran had accepted a couple of different offers to have other nations build the nuclear power plant for them. But the Iranians turned down the free nuclear power plants – the free fissile material to be provided for the free reactors would have been unsuitable for nuclear weaponry, you see. Such is the shadowy face of obfuscation, hyperbole and falsehood.
 
Steve, You’re absolutely right about the necessity to bring back the draft.
I hope that Barbara and Jenna Bush will enlist the armed forces, and set a good example for the nation. The nation needs some good role models right now.
God bless.
The absolute wrongness of some people’s positions are already undebatable.
There is a real problem to define anti-Semitism in rigorous terms, just as it is virtually impossible to define what is pornography. One American judge reportedly said about it: “I know it when I see it”. In both cases reason is the same. Anti-Semitism is not a system of beliefs, nor it is some political or philosophic position. It is mental disorder of neurotic brand, rooted in inferiority complex: psychological need to feel oneself being better person than somebody else. Everything what anti-Semite is to say should not be accepted at face value. They are simply symptoms of his illness, and they can be admirably diverse. So we have to recognize this illness by emotive charge, intonation, lack of logic, obsessive ritualistic behavior and repetitive introducing the theme of Israel in every discussion without any necessity. In different times anti-Semites depicted object of their irrational hatred differently, and always this was a caricature, distorted and simplified picture, so deeply fixated in their imagination that it was impossible to challenge it by reality. And now this object of hate for Western anti-Semites is State of Israel, and favorite disguise is so-called anti-Zionism. They “criticize” its policy, but never propose any real, not-suicide alternative.
anti semitism is the medium sized monkey taking the abuse he took from the big monkey, out on the small baby sized monkey and laughing about it.
A Modest Proposal!
Everyone that posts anonymously should have some sort of geographic designator.
In my case, “Good Ole Charlie (SE Penna)” would do it…and so it shall be done.
Anonymous…so where are you located? Also, justa, etc…
I now sign myself…
Everyone that posts anonymously should have some sort of geographic designator.
And hence not be anonymous. Good Ole Charlie, you’ve made a similar appeal before.
People who comment anonymously should try to steer clear of attacking individuals. I sometimes fall short of the mark, but that’s the ideal.
In defense of anonymous commenting, it removes ego from the dialogue. Some of the regular personas are so carapaced I’m sure they can’t move. The worst just add noise, shouting “I’m inflexible!” over and over and over and over and over and over …
A well-known Zen story tells of a learned visitor to a monastery. He comes ostensibly to inquire about Zen but ends up lecturing the master on Buddhist theory and doctrine. The master listens politely and pours tea. Like his guest, he goes on and one, still pouring after the bowl is full and tea is running over the lip and across the tabletop. Thus he makes the point that the visitor’s mind is too full to learn anything new.
— from “The Sage Commander” an essay in the 2002 Shambhala edition of The Art of War, p.96.
Someone who is connected said it was not Syria but Israel…who had most to gain
The absolute wrongness of some people’s positions are already undebatable.
Ymarsakar
Well put…
People with discipline know that removing the ego is the process of ignoring fear for the self. It is not listening to your fear for yourself and doing actions based upon that fear.
So if people post as Anon because they fear egos, this is not discipline or wisdom.
“I had to laugh when I read that – even more when I saw your source.”
Sally | 11.24.06 – 10:38 am | #
I had to laugh at you laughing at an emeritus middle eastern scholar, Juan Cole. A man who has mostly been right while the neocons have been totally wrong.
Neo has referred to the innane Victor Hansen. That is laughable. How many times can these pundits be proved wrong before you’ll see through their idiocy?
inane VDH, hehe. Oh, so rich. If I could bottle up the ranting rage, I think I could slaughter an entire Middle East country with it.
I had to laugh at you laughing at an emeritus middle eastern scholar, Juan Cole.
“That is laughable.” Juan Cole is a lickspittle apologist for lunatic butchers, as everyone knows who isn’t the same.
Keep on giggling though, justa — you’re making quite an argument. Just not for the cause you’re hoping for.
Y, if your ultraright Israel first neocon pundits were ever right about anything, then you could laugh.
They haven’t, but given your tenuous grip on reality, you probably haven’t noticed.
“That is laughable.” Juan Cole is a lickspittle apologist for lunatic butchers, as everyone knows who isn’t the same. Sally
When Professor Cole is as wrong as often as your neocon nutter pundits I’ll accept criticism of him. Greeted with flowers and sweets, greeted as liberators, 25 to 30,000 troops will be enough, Iraqi oil will pay the costs etc etc etc Ring any bells?
Calling anyone with a different view an apologist is childish in the extreme.
Neo, I don’t read just’s comments, but when are you psychologists and therapists going to come up with an internet service that solves psycho problems with the ease of using a search engine?]
I think happy net-citizens are a must in the 21st century. Kumbaya, Operation Kumbaya people.
“Civilians do not fire cluster bombs into other countries from the roofs of their houses.” Tatterddalmatian.
No, very true. Western style democracies, who just want to live in peace with their neighbours, with the rule of law paramount, don’t drop hundreds of thousands of them after an agreed ceasefire either.
Israel and the US do though, but only on brown people.
“Western style democracies, who just want to live in peace with their neighbours, with the rule of law paramount, don’t drop hundreds of thousands of them after an agreed ceasefire either.”
Sure they do. But only after the other side violates the ceasefire.
Oddly, even though the Armistice had been signed, the time set, and all knew the war to be over, the fighting continued until the appointed hour.
“Israel violates all its ceasefires with monotonous regularity.”
Maybe in your world, where the AP headline “Cease fire holds despite continuing Qassam attacks” makes sense.
To the rest of us, though, it just goes to show how totally nuts you are. In a sane world, the headline would be, “Cease fire broken by Palestinian rocket attack.”
Rewriting history isn’t as easy as deleting your own comments when you get your head handed to you, Justaguy.
You’re only winning the Republicans more votes with every silly “Everything you remember is wrong, because I say so!” tantrum you throw.
It is what keeps me commenting.
Neo, Neo, Neo. How much do you get paid for your therapist job, in the past, anyways?
In aggregate, it certainly would not be enough to help out justa, for cert.
Honestly, what I think keeps justa commenting is because he knows that people like you Tatter, Sally, Ariel, and Co actually read his posts. Attention grab, you know. Why else does he spend time here? He is certainly not a masochist. Something positive must be getting to him.
“he knows that people like you Tatter, Sally, Ariel, and Co actually read his posts.”
Ymar, you’re right. I don’t understand why when someone has been asked to leave, why they don’t, it’s a rudeness that they would not commit in the real world, but feel free to do on someone’s blog, as if they own it or have some inherent right to the blog. Really boils down to the fact that we feed some need in them, as you wrote.
Pingback:Model Agency Sheffield