“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Wednesday, January 08, 2014

How has 60 years of US interventionism made your life better?



Iraq, Libya, Syria, and the Long Shadow of American Interventionism

Head strong, dead wrong
Ed Krayewski | January 7, 2014

You’d be forgiven if, while looking at recent headlines about Iraq, you thought it was the aughts again. Fallujah, the site of some of the most intense fighting during the U.S. war in Iraq, is again at the center of political violence in that country. Over the weekend, the city fell to Al Qaeda-linked fighters who declared an independent Islamist state there. Iraq’s prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, in power since 2006, has urged residents in Fallujah to fight back. Neighboring Iran, meanwhile, has offered to help expel Al Qaeda from the city while last month Iraq turned to the United States, requesting it send drones and missiles to help battle the Al Qaeda-linked Islamists. Seventy-five Hellfire missiles reportedly arrived in Iraq on December 19, and drones were supposed to be on their way, too. The fighting in Fallujah was a culmination of a year of increasing political violence in Iraq. The United Nations reported 7,818 civilians were killed in Iraq in 2012, a casualty level not seen since the years of the Iraq War.
But while the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from the country in December 2011 marked the end of the American war there, it did not, and could not, mark the end of the influence of the war on events in Iraq. Instead, what’s happening in Iraq follows the American war, not just chronologically but consequentially. It’s the legacy of foreign policy interventionism in action, and a template from which the contours of the aftermath of subsequent American interventionism can be teased.
Iraq was last gripped with the kind of insurgency its government is facing today in 2006. Then, too, the country was on the brink of civil war. George W. Bush responded to the “thumping” in the domestic midterm elections that year, results due in part to the deteriorating situation in Iraq, by implementing a troop “surge” that saw more than 20,000 extra boots on the ground deployed in 2007. That surge, and the concurrent “Anbar Awakening” that was a Sunni backlash to Al Qaeda tactics in the country, was followed by a decline in violence in late 2007 and 2008, something for which American military leaders were quick to take credit. Irrespective of just how much American action influenced the drop in violence, that lull created the space for the U.S. and Iraq to negotiate a status of forces agreement that would see an end to American combat operations in Iraq. President Obama tried, and failed, to secure a delay of the withdrawal of troops, wanting to leave a residual force of 10,000, a position shared by most of the Republicans who vied to challenge Obama in the 2012 election.
Yet, there’s no guarantee the presence of troops after 2011 would’ve stemmed the current wave of violence. In fact, June 2011 was the bloodiest month in two years for U.S. troops in Iraq, even as civilian fatalities were then still on the decline. It underscores the complex role American troops played in the country. Even as their operations contributed to a return to stability for Iraq, their presence contributed to destabilization. Foreign occupying forces will always have that effect, no matter the purity of their intentions.
And what about those intentions? Bush first committed the United States to an invasion of Iraq over the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction (not found), framing Iraq as part of the broader threat from Al-Qaeda and terrorism. Eventually, long after he declared “mission accomplished,” Bush transformed the casus belli and goal of the war to one of spreading democracy.  Yet the two goals are far from complementary.  While Bush initially insisted there was a link between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, a Pentagon report from the Bush administration itself eventually dispelled that notion.
But 11 years after the American invasion, Al Qaeda is a presence in Iraq like it had never been before. Did the United States defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq? Increasingly, the answer looks like a no. But the American invasion of Iraq certainly helped the terrorist organization set up shop in Iraq, something unthinkable in the Hussein era, despite the Bush Administration’s misguided assertions.
At this point, the story ought to sound familiar. Iraq isn’t the only country where Al Qaeda’s been able to establish itself because of American-induced regime change. Al Qaeda was a non-presence in Qaddafi’s Libya. No more. While the New York Times reported that it found no evidence Al Qaeda was involved in the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, it did link the attack to Ansar al-Shariah, which is believed to be affiliated with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda, testified Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who headed an elite U.S security force in Libya before the Benghazi attack, now has a larger presence in Libya than the United States. The same Congressional hearing revealed that between ten and twenty thousand surface-to-air missiles were still missing after the conclusion of the Libyan civil war. The U.S.-backed intervention in Libya also pushed fighters, including Al Qaeda-linked insurgents, throughout the wider region, contributing to the instability that led to a French intervention in Mali last year.
Supporters of U.S. participation in the intervention in Libya insisted Obama’s foray was nothing like Bush’s in Iraq. On the surface, they do have several notable differences in how long they lasted, in how many U.S. troops and other military resources were committed to the fights, and in what kind of internal organized opposition to the respective repressive governments there was. Yet the effect of both interventions was broadly similar. Both had as a primary goal regime change, even though the Obama Administration insisted it wasn’t targeting Col. Qaddafi up until U.S. drones helped Libyan rebels capture him. He was then sodomized and killed. Regime change had been the official U.S. policy toward Iraq since the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998; Saddam Hussein was hanged for war crimes in Iraq in 2006. Both changes created a fragile security situation, one exploited by Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-linked forces, both in the countries themselves and in the wider region. It is hard to deny, for example, that Al Qaeda is able to exert influence on the Syrian rebellion in large part because of the sanctuary it has carved out for itself in Iraq.
The lessons of Iraq and the folly of intervention may seem self-evident, even to those lawmakers in Washington who backed the war, but the applicability of those lessons to future interventions, and not merely future interventions involving large numbers of troops in Asia and possibly someone named Bush, remains elusive for those same people. Secretary of State John Kerry, for example, insisted a U.S.-backed intervention in Syria wouldn’t look anything like the Iraq war, because there would be no troops on the ground. But aside even from questions about how Russia, an ally of the Syrian regime’s, might respond to a U.S.-led intervention, there’s little doubt intervention would have unintended consequences. Supporters of aggressive intervention in Syria, like John McCain, blame insufficient U.S. support for rebels on the growing influence of Al Qaeda. Yet it’s a lot clearer that the U.S. intervention in Iraq helped Al Qaeda maintain a presence among Syrian rebels, just as years of U.S. intervention in Somalia arguably helped push the local Islamist insurgency group there, Al Shabaab, to affiliate with Al Qaeda. Despite the lack of more U.S. support, Syrian rebels have nevertheless begun to fight against Al Qaeda-linked Islamists in their midst.

McCain has also blamed the Obama Administration for the current resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, pointing to the U.S. withdrawal as the cause. The unrepentant Iraq war apologist’s inability to acknowledge the role the U.S. invasion played in providing Al Qaeda the opportunity to get a foothold in Iraq is a dangerous blind spot; when the unintended consequences of interventionism are ignored, and even misattributed to the lack of sufficient intervention, they help set the stage for future interventions and future unintended consequences. John Kerry promises U.S. support for Iraq in its battle against Al Qaeda won’t include combat troops. It’s “their fight,” the secretary of state says. Yet the same applies to every fight the United States would intervene in. America will keep convincing itself to slay dragons around the world for as long as it lacks the patience to see other countries do it themselves. 

179 comments:

  1. January 8, 2014
    Top Saudi lets the cat out of the bag
    Thomas Lifson

    It is worthy paying close attention when a certain Saudi prince speaks his mind. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal is sometimes described as the most powerful Arab in the world, thanks to his enormous wealth, business acumen, and influence in the Saudi royal family, which runs the Kingdom as a family fiefdom. Western-educated, he has shown himself to be an effective power broker, owning a 7% stake in News Corporation and donating $20 million each to Harvard and Georgetown Universities, arousing suspicions of undue influence.

    The good prince let the world know what the real stakes are in the battle over fracking. Michael W. Chapman of CNS News reports:

    Saudi Arabia's Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, a billionaire businessman and nephew of Saudi King Abdullah, said the production of shale oil and natural gas in the United States and other countries, primarily done through fracking, is a real competitive threat to "any oil-producing country in the world," adding that Saudi Arabia must address the issue because it is a "matter of survival."

    New shale oil discoveries "are threats to any oil-producing country in the world," said Prince Alwaleed in an interview with The Globe and Mail. "It is a pivot moment for any oil-producing country that has not diversified. Ninety-two percent of Saudi Arabia's annual budget comes from oil. Definitely it is a worry and a concern."

    Those who oppose fracking, seeking to stop it on the unproven assertion that it pollutes ground water or causes need to take a deep breath here. Saudi Arabia has been funding the poison of Wahhabi Islam's spread throughout the world, building mosques, providing textbooks, and paying for imams to both gain converts and convert existing Muslims to the fundamentalist doctrines of the desert extremists: extreme subjugation of women, deep hatred of Jews, and jihad, peaceful when effective and violent whenever it appears advantageous.

    Thanks to the miracle of fracking, we have in prospect the breaking of the Muslim world's stranglehold on the world economy, making it possible for Western democracies to grow a spine and stand up to the oil-powered theocrats who want to extinguish other religions and impose their seventh century way of life on the globe.



    Self-interest would dictate that the Saudis and other oil oligarchs would be wise to fund American anti-fracking groups, in order to remove this potential game-changer. Any group that opposes fracking should be asked to prove they have received no oil money



    ReplyDelete
  2. Make it eighty years and I'd say definitely yes.

    In the last 60 it's more of a mixed bag.

    And if you think the Soviets weren't fooling around in Iran in 1953 you are naïve.

    As for Iraq, blame Obama. He didn't want a status of forces agreement.

    If we'd had kept some troops there it wouldn't be happening.

    Gates doesn't like Obama anymore.

    ;(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And if we'd have supported the folks in Iran of the late uprising, even verbally, the mullahs might be gone.

      They were better off under the Shah, for that matter.

      Just my opinion....

      Delete
  3. The offerings of Jihad Watch for the Day -

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/

    Including -

    Pat Buchanan's anti-Semitism

    Article about a moslem dress designer in Israel who has been threatened by other arabs with death over a design which included koranic quotes

    The 12th Imam has already returned - guess who?

    PA spokesmen admits the arabs supported Germany in WWII

    Daughters doused with acid for not marrying whom daddy wanted (very graphic picture)

    And many other articles concerning moslem atrocities around the world

    ReplyDelete
  4. Max Boot is right - it's all Obama's fault

    Iraq’s Squandered Opportunity

    Max Boot | @MaxBoot
    01.07.2014 - 1:45 PM

    Veterans of the hard fighting in Fallujah in 2004 must be experiencing a sense of déjà vu. Once again masked al-Qaeda fighters are parading through the streets and proclaiming the establishment of a new Islamic emirate. And once again military forces are massing on the outskirts preparing to wage a bloody battle to liberate the city. The only difference this time is that those troops are Iraqi, not American.

    It is easy to imagine veterans of the Iraq War asking themselves what the point was of their service and sacrifice if al-Qaeda is back, as strong as ever–and arguably stronger because its reach now extends into Syria. It is an understandable question, and one that veterans of Vietnam no doubt ask themselves too. It is never pleasant to fight in a losing cause, but that does not mean that one’s service was in vain.

    Vets can still derive satisfaction from the commitment and heroism they exhibited, from the tactical results they achieved, and from the knowledge that they were fighting for a good cause. It is not their fault that the hard-won gains of their service were squandered by politicos in Baghdad and Washington.

    There was nothing inevitable about the resurgence of al-Qaeda in Iraq. If the U.S. had kept troops in Iraq after 2011 and if Prime Minister Maliki had pursued more inclusive policies toward the Sunnis, AQI would have remained defeated, in all likelihood. Unfortunately, now that AQI has grown back, stronger than ever, it will have to be fought once again, and the battles that the Iraqi army will face in Anbar are likely to be bloodier than those fought by the U.S. Marine Corps.

    It is a shame and a tragedy that President Obama and Prime Minister Maliki did not honor the sacrifices of so many troops in the past, both American and Iraqi, by doing more to build on the success of the surge. But that is not the fault of those troops, who fought magnificently to give Iraq an opportunity–now being squandered–for a better future.
    *******

    All Obama's fault, and the result is now as many here predicted when USA troops were withdrawn.

    The Iraqi government just might, maybe, get a handle on it, probably not.

    It which case Iraq may dissolve into two or three as others here had hoped.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is my sincere hope that every country in the Middle-east dissolves into two or three others, and they stay busy gassing each other and shit, as long as no US boots are on the ground and no US aid flows to those shitholes. Keep 'em busy and out of our flight schools. I'll make the popcorn.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Ms T.

      the 1/900th of the middle east that is Israel? won't "dissolve" it's already as small as it can be.

      As for the other 899/900th? let the games begin.

      As for US boots? Israel doesn't want of need US soldiers to fight for it. But what it wants? American boots not to die fighting useless wars between the sons of ishmael.

      As for US boots? they saved your people but those days are past too... Let them drown. I also will make popcorn.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    6. Ah the censor is awake...

      Delete
    7. Good on the censor. Keep it clean, no hitting below the belt.

      Delete
  5. Have to get my shots in now as will be unable to grace these pages the rest of the day -

    Perhaps this is what whackyratopath needs -



    This pill could give your brain the learning powers of a 7-year-old

    A Harvard biologist used it to "teach" a group of young men a hard-to-learn skill: Perfect pitch
    By Chris Gayomali | January 6, 2014

    This pill won't make you limitless, but it could ease learning for adults.

    This pill won't make you limitless, but it could ease learning for adults. (Facebook.com/Limitless)

    Our brain is like a sponge when it is young. Studies have shown that kids pick up up foreign languages faster than adults (though that is up for debate), and that some skills — like "perfect pitch," which allows gifted vocalists to sing notes with unerring precision — are best nurtured from a young age.

    But what if it were possible for the adult mind to revert back to a more porous state of learning?

    That's the subject of an investigation by Takao Hensch, a professor of molecular and cellular biology at Harvard, who is studying a drug that may make it dramatically easier for grown-ups to absorb new skills and information — almost as if they were seven years old or younger.

    The key ingredient here is valproic acid. Normally, it's used to treat neurological disorders like seizures and epilepsy, and various other mood disorders. But Hensch claims it may help restore plasticity in the adult brain.

    In a new experiment, Hensch used valproic acid to bestow the gift of perfect pitch to a group of adult males between the ages of 18 to 27. Here's now NPR describes it:

    Hensch gave the drug to a group of healthy, young men who had no musical training as children. They were asked to perform tasks online to train their ears, and at the end of a two-week period, tested on their ability to discriminate tone, to see if the training had more effect than it normally would at their age.

    In other words, he gave people a pill and then taught them to have perfect pitch. The findings are significant: "It's quite remarkable since there are no known reports of adults acquiring absolute pitch," he says. [NPR]

    It's a fascinating development, and one that could theoretically help adults acquire new skills and talents at a later stage in their lives. Of course, the side effects — if any — will still need to be studied closely, particularly on a cellular level. "I should caution that critical periods [of development] have evolved for a reason," says Hensch, "and it is a process that one probably would not want to tamper with carelessly."

    out

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob,

      There is a disturbing side effect, they all sing like castrati.

      "En Aranjuez con tu amor" - Fernando Lima

      Delete
  6. Lord, give me coffee
    to change the things I can change,

    and wine to accept the things that I can't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And a Harvard pill to discern the difference.

      Delete
    2. Drop out, don't turn on, study your navel.

      (unless you have an outy)

      Delete
    3. ""Turn on, tune in, drop out" is a counterculture phrase popularized by Timothy Leary in 1967. Leary spoke at the Human Be-In, a gathering of 30,000 hippies in ..."

      ---

      I got it backwards, but I still think it's possible to drop out even if you can't "Turn On"

      Delete
  7. Morsi met with Zawahiri in Pakistan.

    Some Arab spring.

    Some fucked up President we have.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Robert M. Gates

    All too often during my 4½ years as secretary of defense, when I found myself sitting yet again at that witness table at yet another congressional hearing, I was tempted to stand up, slam the briefing book shut and quit on the spot. The exit lines were on the tip of my tongue: I may be the secretary of defense, but I am also an American citizen, and there is no son of a bitch in the world who can talk to me like that. I quit. Find somebody else. It was, I am confident, a fantasy widely shared throughout the executive branch.

    Much of my frustration came from the exceptional offense I took at the consistently adversarial, even inquisition-like treatment of executive-branch officials by too many members of Congress across the political spectrum—creating a kangaroo-court environment in hearings, especially when television cameras were present. But my frustration also came from the excruciating difficulty of serving as a wartime defense secretary in today's Washington. Throughout my tenure at the Pentagon, under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, I was, in personal terms, treated better by the White House, Congress and the press for longer than almost anyone I could remember in a senior U.S. government job. So why did I feel I was constantly at war with everybody? Why was I so often so angry? Why did I so dislike being back in government and in Washington?

    It was because, despite everyone being "nice" to me, getting anything consequential done was so damnably difficult—even in the midst of two wars. I did not just have to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq and against al Qaeda; I also had to battle the bureaucratic inertia of the Pentagon, surmount internal conflicts within both administrations, avoid the partisan abyss in Congress, evade the single-minded parochial self-interest of so many members of Congress and resist the magnetic pull exercised by the White House, especially in the Obama administration, to bring everything under its control and micromanagement. Over time, the broad dysfunction of today's Washington wore me down, especially as I tried to maintain a public posture of nonpartisan calm, reason and conciliation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...He also accused Our Vice President of being wrong on everything of consequence for the last 40 years, though, so what does he know?

      You Go Joe!

      Delete
  9. Quirk: There is no point in responding to WiO beyond what I have told him already. The guy is clearly beyond redemption.

    Quirk: - I believe anyone who equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is a moron.

    Quirk: Shove Zionism up your ass.

    Quirk: Wouldn't it be more appropriate to question the estimated 25% to 30% of JEWS worldwide why they oppose Zionism?

    Quirk: My simple answer to Zionism is 'No'.

    Quirk: Zionism is a Jewish problem


    Thanks Quirk for your insightful comments.

    I guess at this point your opinions about Israel, Zionism, Jews or Judaism will join those of Deuce, Rat, Rufus and Ms T.

    Absurd and irrelevant.

    Have a nice day, try discussing the price of cereal, more of your pay grade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd rather he'd write and submit a 500 word essay on what Zionism is.

      Delete
    2. Quirk has made it clear, Zionism is a "Jewish problem"

      So the reverse is his opinion. No Israel, No Jews? No problem!!!!

      Now where have we HEARD that final solution before???????? LOL

      Delete
    3. I thought he thought it out of whole cloth.

      Delete
  10. "So the reverse is his opinion. No Israel, No Jews? No problem!!!!”

    Get over yourself, asshole. Zionists ( Jewish or Christian) embraced the folly of neoconservative foreign policy and defined foreign policy in terms of Israeli and Jewish interests — Zionism is criticised because of the disastrous & bloody consequences of the neocon nation-building wars & hate-engendering foreign entanglements and occupations. What else does your humble theocratic statist mind need to know?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're just here to tempt me back to my misogynist ways.

      I will not submit.

      I will not even indulge in the forbidden pleasures of typing the "C" word.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Jenny for your thoughts.

      We all know your opinion about Israel. You PROVE my point.

      Sorry if we will not line up without a fight next to the pits you dig for our burial.

      Thanks Jenny, really. You are the reason Zionism is needed.

      Delete
    3. Jenny you motivate Jews all over the world to embrace the Wilson, the Ruger, The Glock and the Uzi.

      Delete
    4. "Happiness is a Warm Gun"

      J. Lennon

      Delete
    5. ("Lennon's original title for this song was "Happiness Is a Warm C#nt".)

      Delete
    6. Folks like jenny, quirk, deuce, rufus and ms t liked it when jews were easy to kick in the teeth...

      The old "ghetto" jew. one that KNEW his place.

      LOL

      I aint your grand-daddy's jew....

      Delete
    7. “I aint your grand-daddy’s jew...."

      Enlighten us. What was your grand-daddy’s flaw?

      Delete
    8. Oh Jenny take some credit....

      You know the Jews that would put up with your shit.. Try that shit to my face? You'd be wiping the floor with your lips... :)

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. Jenny said,

      Zionism is criticised because of the disastrous & bloody consequences of the neocon nation-building wars & hate-engendering foreign entanglements and occupations.

      Rubbish!

      “While the Zionists try to make the rest of the World believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn't even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindler, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.
      It is a sign of their rising confidence and sense of security that at a time when one section is still playing the German, French-man, or Englishman, the other with open effrontery comes out as the Jewish race.”


      Delete
    11. .

      This is the second time you have put up the same unattributed quote. What is the point you are failing to make?

      .

      Delete
    12. QuirkWed Jan 08, 11:25:00 AM EST
      .

      This is the second time you have put up the same unattributed quote. What is the point you are failing to make?


      The answer is the same as the first. I cannot help you further.

      Delete
  11. •Netanyahu on Peace Process: "You Cannot Base Policy on Illusions" - Shlomo Cesana

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed the peace process on Monday, saying, "The Americans presented their stances and I am trying to bring reality into the plan....In our entire region, from Morocco in the west to Pakistan in the east, there is no country that is not undergoing turbulence, other than Israel, and that teaches us that you cannot base policy on illusions. Every policy based on illusions eventually bursts [when it meets] reality."

    "I will not support a binational state. A settlement freeze during negotiations is not on the agenda. The talks are not about dismantling settlements and I have no intention of evacuating any settlements in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank)." "I do not intend to give up any settlement blocs or symbols of [our heritage], for example, Hebron." He added that Israel is seeking to extend negotiations by a year. (Israel Hayom)

    *****

    Meanwhile John Kerry proposes returning 80,000 'displaced Palestinian refugees' to Israel.

    If we are in "non intervention mode" these days, perhaps we should butt out. What business is it of ours?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Check in with Aipac for further instructions.

      Delete
    2. AIPAC? Sorry you need to check in with the arab lobby for permission. After all they now are threatening another oil embargo if they don't get us to quit tracking...

      Delete
  12. The pathological über-victim deflects but cannot even retort with focus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 80,000 Jewish refugees were also given the right to move back to their homes in the arab world, of course that offer was to last for 7 days, just enough time for the arabs to slit the throats of every Jew that dared to step foot inside any nation that allowed Jews to come back to their property.

      Delete
  13. You know the Jews that would put up with your shit.. Try that shit to my face? You'd be wiping the floor with your lips... :)

    WiO's momma, and his Torah, never taught him boys don't hit girls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ms T, whatever your real gender is?

      Face the truth, whoever wears the Nazis armband? Is fair game...

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "JPMC sought, with the assistance of legal counsel, to cancel or otherwise unwind certain of the structured products" by "invoking a provision of the derivatives contract that enabled it to de-link the notes from the performance of the Madoff feeder funds if JPMC could not obtain satisfactory information about its investment." That's some amazing one-way optionality for JPMorgan there! "We'll sell you a thing that gives you upside in Madoff's funds, unless we're too confused, in which case, never mind." Clients were understandably (though wrongly!) annoyed, including one distributor of the structured notes who "expressed displeasure about JPMC's proposed action and referenced having 'Colombian friends who cause havoc . . . when they get angry. . . .'"

    ReplyDelete
  17. Is this a girl? Or is this a monster? Dalal Mughrabi?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalal_Mughrabi

    She murdered 38 Israelis including 13 kids...

    She and Jenny stand for the same points of view.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Stop hiding behind your ovaries...

    http://www.ranker.com/list/famous-female-serial-killers/reference

    ReplyDelete
  19. Replies
    1. Is Dalal Mughrabi a hero of yours?

      Delete
    2. Actually? Dalal Mughrabi is a pathetic creep. And the sad fact she is HONORED as a hero by the Palestinians.

      Delete
  20. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amazing what evil female nazis did to men women and kids in the camps.

      Delete
    2. this is truth deuce, why delete it?

      http://listverse.com/2012/10/30/10-female-concentration-camp-guards/

      Delete
    3. It's history. It's what modern day Zionism was forged from

      http://listverse.com/2012/10/30/10-female-concentration-camp-guards/

      Why hide it?

      Give an answer.

      Delete
    4. This post is not all about you you and your paranoia. Take it somewhere else.

      Delete
    5. Paranoia?

      I simply presented a link about the truth.

      In response to Ms T's torah reference.

      Delete
    6. So by your actions you will be deleting all of rat's incest, rape fantasy, child prostitution, jews are not real posts?

      Or am I to understand that only I am under the gun of your censorship?

      Delete
    7. Paranoia /ˌpærəˈnɔɪə/ (adjective: paranoid /ˈpærənɔɪd/) is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. (e.g. "Everyone is out to get me.") Paranoia is distinct from phobias, which also involve irrational fear, but usually no blame. Making false accusations and the general distrust of others also frequently accompany paranoia. For example, an incident most people would view as an accident or coincidence, a paranoid person might believe was intentional.


      So posting a list of actual female nazis is paranoia?

      Hmm...

      Just trying to understand...

      Delete
  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like deuce I have hit a nerve..

      why are you deleting LINKS to a truthful site that lists female nazis and their crimes?

      what possible reason could you have?

      Delete
    2. http://listverse.com/2012/10/30/10-female-concentration-camp-guards/

      are you scared of the truth?

      i was scolded by quirk and ash for not providing links...

      now you delete them?

      what gives?

      please provide and answer, as you do not delete rat's disgusting posts of incest and child molestation and prostitution...

      Delete
  24. Go ahead deuce, answer the question.

    why delete this: http://listverse.com/2012/10/30/10-female-concentration-camp-guards/

    when you allow Rat to post child molestiing lies?

    SPEAK.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Here is a fact. The modern Arab world occupied 899/900th of the middle east and has created 21 nation states.

    Israel is 1/900th of the middle east.

    Why should Israel make any land concessions to those who control 899/900th of the land already?

    Love to hear a straight answer.

    899/900 verses 1/900

    Just the facts...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One could use the same type of argument regarding Jerusalem but that would go against Israelis goal of possessing all of the city. It is a silly argument WiO which justifies nothing.

      Another similar argument you trot out regularly is that there is no "P" in Arabic therefore there can't be any Palestinians in Arabia. The same argument can be made regarding Jews. There is no "J" in Hebrew...

      silly stuff. All that coupled with your moral relativism and your arguments fall flat.

      Delete
    2. Ash.

      How about this?

      All of the Jewish historic sites should be given to the Jews 1st. Christians 2nd and Moslems 3rd.

      Which came 1st?

      But the land % is an issue. (which you avoided) the arab world is 899/900th of the middle east.

      Israel is 1/900th.

      Talk about that.

      or dont.

      As for the Palestinian national movement?
      There is no P in arabic.

      Try arguing the argument not changing the subject.

      Delete
    3. The argument you present is nonsense therefore not worth arguing. Similarly if I made the same proposition to you that there is no Jewish movement because there is no "J" in the Hebrew alphabet you would laugh at the absurdity of the proposition.

      As to percentage of land it is irrelevant. Nations are not created based on the proportion of land available; proportions based on arbitrarily set parameters (area of ME) are even more ludicrous and not worth taking seriously.

      Delete
    4. The national movement for an arab Palestine is a modern construct. Israel and it's people are older than almost every other national group on the planet.


      Not even a close argument

      Delete
    5. Ash: As to percentage of land it is irrelevant. Nations are not created based on the proportion of land available; proportions based on arbitrarily set parameters (area of ME) are even more ludicrous and not worth taking seriously.


      Sure it is when the arab drove out the Jews from their lands and into Israel and now argue %'s of what is a settlement of the lands of Palestine.

      Delete
  26. US interventionism goes back to at least 1916. Some would argue for the Spanish American War as the start.

    Re: Zionism

    I am not offended by those who question the politics of Zionism; there have always been many Jews who questioned the wisdom of Zionism. However, when I ask for an alternative (one that does not require the way-back machine) the response is abusive...Hmm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Typical. If you can't handle the argument, dispute the tone of the argument.

      Diversion.

      .

      Delete
    2. Allen, one of the problems I have with Zionism is what land constitutes the Israeli state. Many Zionists believe it encompasses all of the Eretz Israel. Of late, the term seems to reflect simply a homeland for Jews (with the attendant problem of non-Jews in such a homeland). While there are still many in the ME who believe Israel should not exist at all most of the negotiations accept Israel's existence but the border issue is a major problem.

      Delete
    3. QuirkWed Jan 08, 10:35:00 AM EST
      .

      Typical. If you can't handle the argument, dispute the tone of the argument.

      Diversion.


      If ignorance is bliss, you must be in Nirvana.

      To each his sufferings: all are men,
      92 Condemned alike to groan;
      93 The tender for another's pain,
      94 The unfeeling for his own.
      95 Yet ah! why should they know their fate?
      96 Since sorrow never comes too late,
      97 And happiness too swiftly flies.
      98 Thought would destroy their paradise.
      99 No more; where ignorance is bliss,
      100 'Tis folly to be wise.

      Delete
    4. .

      Sir, I do not like your tone.

      Come back when you have an argument rather than poetry.

      .

      Delete
    5. Ash,

      Hamas and Fatah do NOT believe Israel should exist. The UN and Israel demand, first foremost, the unambiguous recognition of Israel's sovereignty by its adversaries. This neither Hamas nor Fatah can do and remain alive.

      I am not going to attempt to itemize myriad reasons and advantages entailed with sovereignty. You either know or can readily ascertain these for yourself. To some extent the laws governing leasehold v freehold apply. Obviously, the conditions defining just war apply. If the Palestinians are sovereign and Israel is sovereign, firing rockets into Israel is no longer mere harassment, but an act of war, giving Israel the right to act accordingly etc. etc. etc.

      Israel has never had a problem with Arabs and Christians living within a Jewish homeland. As I recall, about 1.7 non-Jews live there now. Zionism was not hostile to a multi-ethnic-religious state so long as a homeland for Jews took priority. Zionists paid huge sums of money to purchase land from Ottoman citizens. They would have continued to do so indefinitely had two world wars and the Holocaust not utterly changed the calculus. You must understand that by 1945, 1/2 the world's Jews had been murdered. There was a natural sense of urgency to get the survivors to safety and out of an historically anti-Semitic Europe. The Zionists were so desperate that they were willing to live within a UN protectorate, if that would expedite the process. Even this the Arabs found wanting. The rest is history.

      Delete
    6. .

      September 9, 1993

      Yitzhak Rabin
      Prime Minister of Israel

      Mr. Prime Minister,

      The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era...I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself...to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations...the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators...the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

      Sincerely,Yasser Arafat.
      Chairman: The Palestine Liberation Organization.


      The sovereignty of Israel was accepted by the PLO prior to the start of Oslo 'peace process'.

      .

      Delete
    7. Qruik,

      You are going to bet your reputation on the word of Yasser Arafat?

      I would rethink that. In doing so you might want to have a look at what Hamas and Fatah have to say.

      Delete
    8. You are being disingenuous allen. It is not merely the word of Yasser Arafat but it has been accepted as the standard position from which the PLO is negotiating. So much so it appears that Bibi has upped the ante by requiring recognition not only of Israel's right to exist but for Israel to be recognized as a Jewish state - just pushing those goal posts further down the field which seems to be SOP for the Israelis leading many of us to believe they really aren't interested in a peace deal.

      Delete
  27. .

    From above.

    •Netanyahu on Peace Process: "You Cannot Base Policy on Illusions" - Shlomo Cesana

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed the peace process on Monday, saying, "The Americans presented their stances and I am trying to bring reality into the plan....In our entire region, from Morocco in the west to Pakistan in the east, there is no country that is not undergoing turbulence, other than Israel, and that teaches us that you cannot base policy on illusions. Every policy based on illusions eventually bursts [when it meets] reality."

    "I will not support a binational state. A settlement freeze during negotiations is not on the agenda. The talks are not about dismantling settlements and I have no intention of evacuating any settlements in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank)." "I do not intend to give up any settlement blocs or symbols of [our heritage], for example, Hebron." He added that Israel is seeking to extend negotiations by a year. (Israel Hayom)


    Extend the negotiations for a year?

    Hilarious.

    Bibi in 2001, speaking of the West Bank and Oslo Accords

    [Woman] Aren't you afraid of the world Bibi?

    [Natanyahu] No. Especially now, with America, I know what America is. America is a thing that can be easily moved, moved in the right direction. They [the Americans] will not bother us. Let's suppose that they [the Americans] will say something [i.e. to us Israelis]... so they say it... [so what?] Eighty per cent of the Americans support us. It's absurd! We have such [great] support there! And we say... what shall we do with this [support]?

    ---------------------------------

    [Natanyahu] What were the Oslo accords? The Oslo accords, which the Knesset signed, I was asked, before the elections: "Will you act according to them?" and I answered: "Yes, subject to reciprocity and limiting the withdrawals." But how do you limit the withdrawals? I interpret the accords in such a way that will enable me to stop this rush towards the 1967 borders. [So] how do we do it?

    [Narrator] The Oslo accords stated at the time that Israel would gradually hand over territories to the Palestinians in three different stages, unless the territories in question had settlements or military sites. This is where Netanyahu found a loophole.

    [Natanyahu] No one said what defined military sites. Defined military sites, I said, were security zones. As far as I'm concerned, the Jordan Valley is a defined military site.

    [Woman] Right [laughs]. The Beit She'an settlements. The Beit She'an Valley.

    [Natanyahu] How can you tell. How can you tell? But then the question came up of just who would define what defined military sites were. I received a letter – to me and to Arafat, at the same time ... which said that Israel, and only Israel, would be the one to define what those are, the location of those military sites and their size. Now, they did not want to give me that letter, so I did not give the Hebron agreement. I stopped the government meeting, I said: "I'm not signing." Only when the letter came, in the course of the meeting, to me and to Arafat, only then did I sign the Hebron agreement, or rather, ratify it. It had already been signed. Why does this matter? Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo accord.


    A year's extension?

    Heck, make it a 10 year extension for all the good it will do. The peace talks are kabuki. The hypocrisy palpable.

    Bibi was right about one thing, no country can base policy on illusions.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe he feels a Republican Senate and a dead duck President will make his job easier?

      Delete
  28. Why delete a perfectly good article about gender apartheid?

    Jenny is the one always talking about Israel and apartheid.

    I was just pointing out that the entire middle east, excluding Israel, practices gender apartheid in more or less severe form - Saudi Arabia very severe, Egypt not so much....

    That did not deserve to be deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  29. .

    I guess at this point your opinions about Israel, Zionism, Jews or Judaism will join those of Deuce, Rat, Rufus and Ms T.

    Absurd and irrelevant.


    I don't like your tone sir.

    I guess my only response is

    Quirk: There is no point in responding to WiO beyond what I have told him already. The guy is clearly beyond redemption.

    :)

    Quirk: - I believe anyone who equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is a moron.

    You have still failed to answer my simple question. Are the numerous Jews who through the decades and up to the present day that reject Zionism for religious, secular, or other reasons anti-Semites. A simple yes or no is all that is required.

    Learn to think and stop taking you talking points from the AIPAC bulletin board.

    .



    ReplyDelete
  30. .

    What is "Occupation"Wed Jan 08, 07:35:00 AM EST

    Quirk has made it clear, Zionism is a "Jewish problem"

    So the reverse is his opinion. No Israel, No Jews? No problem!!!!



    From one of the boys in the band.

    I find it ironic that the Jewish lobby here is frequently waxing poetic about how clever the Jews are yet find it impossible to construct a logical argument. Evidently, they are the exceptions that prove the rule.

    .
    Now where have we HEARD that final solution before???????? LOL







    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      DougWed Jan 08, 07:38:00 AM EST

      I thought he thought it out of whole cloth.



      Do you want to join in, Doug?

      .

      Delete
    2. Logical argument?

      You are incapable.

      But you are entertaining.

      Delete
    3. .

      You have still failed to answer my simple question. Are the numerous Jews who through the decades and up to the present day that reject Zionism for religious, secular, or other reasons anti-Semites. A simple yes or no is all that is required.

      .

      Delete
    4. You haven't posed a question he can answer Quirk because you don't have a ? mark.

      ar ar ar

      Delete
    5. .

      I stand accused and abashed, Ash. Mea Culpa.

      Since I expect this to question to be asked again, I will correct the mistake on the next post.

      .

      Delete
    6. ar ar ar ar knee slapping funny aar aar aar

      You lapsed Catholics are a goddamn gas, ar ar aaar

      Delete
    7. Meeting was cancelled.

      Ar ar ar I'll be able to police old Quirky all day, ar ar aaar

      Delete
    8. .

      Perhaps, you would like to answer the question, lad.

      You have still failed to answer my simple question. Are the numerous Jews who through the decades and up to the present day that reject Zionism for religious, secular, or other reasons anti-Semites? A simple yes or no is all that is required.

      Help your buddy out.

      .


      Delete
    9. .

      ...ar ar aaar...

      Are you a pirate or a loon? Either way you fit right in with the boys on your side of the argument.

      No emotion involved, just a simple observation.

      .

      Delete
    10. I'd say no, and add there aren't very many of them. Deuce did put up though a wonderful post focusing on the totally nutzy Jew whose self loathing was obvious to all at first glance. Looking into him a little further it was obvious he had serious 'issues', like rat, and even you, perhaps, and needed some help.

      Why should any serious person listen to you, Quirk. You have said many times that they're all assholes, but then again you are always in there pontificating against the Jews when the opportunity arises.

      I'd like to talk about GENDER APARTHEID. I put up a short post from Am. Thinker, who are at least brave enough to approach the issue, and Deuce took that down.

      I am beginning to think the whole lot of you have 'issues'.

      Women only in Israel have the full blown panoply of women's rights of all the countries in the mid east.

      But no, you Quirk think, o so deeply, that they are all assholes.

      Are you a loon or a mega loon. Either way you fit in with 'the boys' on your side of the argument.

      Personally I can't stand lapsed Catholics, the way I can't stand fat cigar smoking bankers.

      Lapsed Catholics and fat cigar smoking bankers have a lot in common when one thinks about it - both have this nauseatingly superior attitude that comes from thinking "Life Sucks"'

      ar ar aar

      Delete
  31. QuirkWed Jan 08, 11:27:00 AM EST
    You have still failed to answer my simple question. Are the numerous Jews who through the decades and up to the present day that reject Zionism for religious, secular, or other reasons anti-Semites. A simple yes or no is all that is required.


    Have you backed away from the 25% - 30% lie? Now to use the term "numerous"?


    ReplyDelete
  32. Hamas will never recognize Israel: Haniyeh

    "As the representative of the Palestinian people and in the name of all the world's freedom seekers, I am announcing from Azadi Square in Tehran that we will never recognize Israel," he said.

    "The resistance will continue until all Palestinian land, including al-Quds (Jerusalem), has been liberated and all the refugees have returned," Haniyeh added.



    To be clear, Arafat is still dead. Mr. Haniyeh is not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you suggesting Haniyeh is representing the PLO?

      Delete
  33. .

    Have you backed away from the 25% - 30% lie? Now to use the term "numerous"?

    Hardly a lie. I realize when your emotions get involved your reading comprehension skills decline; however, what I said was ‘it has been estimated’. I came across that estimate while googling ‘Do all Jews approve of Zionism’ or some such. If you do the same you will find it’s not easy to pin the number down numerically. The estimate I referenced was the only one I found that talked of numbers or percentages. It came from a rabbi on an ultra-conservative Jewish website. I can dig up the link if you really need it. If you have a better link, please provide it.

    However, this is really irrelevant to the central question. I can provide many articles talking about specific Jews and groups of Jews that do not approve of Zionism, both here and in Israel.

    You have posited an absolute: anti-Zionism equates to anti-Semitism.

    So the question remains,

    Are the numerous Jews who have through the decades and up to the present day who have or do reject Zionism anti-Semites? A simple yes or no answer is all that’s required.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was estimated by Allen that the number is way way less than 25-30 %.

      I can say of the Jews I have know I haven't yet met with a single one who didn't support Israel, some more than others, and suggest you get out and get to know a few yourself.

      Delete
    2. .

      Don't be stupid you nitwit.

      Supporting Israel is distinct from supporting Zionism. Try reading a little.

      .

      Delete
    3. .

      Besides even if there was one Jew that supported Israel and Jews in general but didn't favor Zionism, it would prove WiO's statement was full of shit.

      He offered us an absolute.

      And anyone who says anti-Zionism equates to anti-Semitism is 'severely challenged' (in deference to those here with delicate sensibilities).

      .

      Delete
  34. “We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it,” Abbas told reporters in Ramallah.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really do appear to be a propagandist by implying Haniyeh leads the PLO and then following up by tossing out unattributed quotes.

      Delete
    2. I did a bit or research on that quote allen and you really are full of shit and trying to push the Israeli line regardless of the truth of the matter. What was left of your respectability in my eyes has severely been tarnished.

      "He was commenting on unconfirmed reports suggesting that the PA leadership might agree to the presence of the IDF in the West Bank after the establishment of a Palestinian state.

      “We are ready to have peace on the basis of international legitimacy and the road map, which we have accepted, as well as the Arab Peace Initiative,” Abbas said. “But when a Palestinian state is established, it would have no Israeli presence in it.”"

      http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Abbas-vows-No-room-for-Israelis-in-Palestinian-state

      4 years ago in reference to IDF forces in an independent Palestine. You really are full of shit.

      Delete
    3. Ash said, You really are full of shit.

      Too bad you said that. He said what he said, context notwithstanding. Since his folks continue to shoot into Israel, I will judge him by his actions.

      Delete
    4. allen, honestly, it appears you will stoop as low as required in order to push the Israeli agenda. No intellectual analysis required, just spout bull and see if you might convince someone. Classic propaganda.

      Delete
    5. “We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it,” Abbas told reporters in Ramallah.

      I think that would be contrary to UN resolutions concerning Jerusalem as well as apartheid. You must have missed that. Or did you.

      Delete
    6. no but you are continuing with your purposeful distortion by quoting out of context. Do you honestly believe that Abbas and the PLO have a policy that will not allow the presence of a single Israeli in Jerusalem? I don't even think you are that thick. From the JPost article from 4 years ago:

      "“We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it,” Abbas told reporters in Ramallah

      He was commenting on unconfirmed reports suggesting that the PA leadership might agree to the presence of the IDF in the West Bank after the establishment of a Palestinian state.

      “We are ready to have peace on the basis of international legitimacy and the road map, which we have accepted, as well as the Arab Peace Initiative,” Abbas said. “But when a Palestinian state is established, it would have no Israeli presence in it.”"

      http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Abbas-vows-No-room-for-Israelis-in-Palestinian-state

      The article SAYS HE WAS COMMENTING ON IDF PRESENCE but you, obviously, are trying to portray it as Abbas calling for ethnic cleansing.

      Delete
  35. Do you support gender apartheid, Quirk?

    A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

    Are those that do not support gender apartheid as bad assholes as those that do?

    A explanation is needed to suffice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Do you support gender apartheid, Quirk?

      No.

      Are those that do not support gender apartheid as bad assholes as those that do?

      Possibly.

      Bob, I like you but you try my soul. Your simplistic approach to everything drives me crazy. You pick one characteristic of a society and assume it defines a society. Worse, you try to rationalize your simplicity with comparative ethics. If A is bad and B is worse it doesn't lessen the fact that A is bad.

      Go away and leave the arguing to adults.

      .


      .

      Delete
    2. I know it is hard to follow Quirk through his thicks and thins folks, but the key that unlocks the Magical Mental kingdom of Q is that he is a lapsed Catholic.

      They are 'all assholes' but the Jews, who killed Christ, they are the worst.

      Albeit that only in Israel are women truly free.

      But then Quirk is a man, so what's that to him?

      Go away Quirk, you are an embarrassment to this sacred place.......

      Delete
  36. Deuce needs to publish some rules of the road for this place.

    I did not realize until now mentioning gender apartheid was against policy.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Also a post of mine mentioning how a PA spokesman confirmed that the arabs of Palestine supported Hitler and the Germans back in the day was taken down.

    Both groups, the Germans of the time and the 'Palestinians' held that the Jews should be exterminated.

    The Germans have, at least for now, moved on, while the arabs of Palestine still hate, hate, hate, as Martha Gellhorn so well described, and long not to live with the Israelis but exterminate them

    ReplyDelete
  38. .

    The UN and Israel demand, first foremost, the unambiguous recognition of Israel's sovereignty by its adversaries.

    It was Israel that drug Arafat out of obscurity in Tunisia and installed him and the PLO as the representative of ALL the Palestinians. I can dig up Rabin's answering letter to Arafat stating that recognition. Arafat as leader of the PLO recognized Israel's sovereignty and right to exist in 1993 long before Hamas forced Fatah out of Gaza. Abbas still recognizes it.

    That mutual recognition was the basis for starting the Oslo process, the same process Bibi bragged about destroying in 2001.

    Bibi's not talking about sovereignty. He is talking about a Jewish state. Why? Think before you answer.

    You are going to bet your reputation on the word of Yasser Arafat?

    Are you nuts? My reputation? Yassar Arafat was thug and a corrupt too. The Israelis have been dragging this process out for 45 years, one excuse after another. Arafat and the PLO were selling the Palestinians down the river for most of that time merely using their position as a means of racking up walking around money, a lot of walking around money. I think both sides in this dispute are a bunch of dicks and this so-called peace process is a farce. Always has been.

    Time for a reality bite. Start admitting the truth rather than rationalizing and making excuses.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Time for you to admit the arabs of Palestine want to exterminate all the Jews. They have said that enough times one would think it would finally sink in to a lapsed Catholic mind like yours. Though it is possible to imagine that you subliminally share the desire to exterminate those damned Christ killers, and hence don't bring the Palestinians to fault.

      Delete
    2. .

      This equates to WiO's

      'you don't support Zionism so you want to send all Jews to the gas chamber'.

      Lord, you are a pathetic old man.

      .

      Delete
    3. I will stand by my statement.

      Delete
    4. .

      I never thought you wouldn't.

      .

      Delete
    5. QuirkWed Jan 08, 02:41:00 PM EST
      This equates to WiO's

      'you don't support Zionism so you want to send all Jews to the gas chamber'.
      Lord, you are a pathetic old man.



      Actually you stated "shove zionism up your ass"... Actually those people who say that? Would cheer Israel being destroyed along with the Jewish people....


      :)

      Delete
  39. One thing I have noticed about lapsed Catholics is that they so often retain the prejudices taught them in their kiddy school catechism classes. They may think of themselves as all grown up now and accepting of the fact they now affirm, that 'Life Sucks", but subliminally they still feel the Jews killed Christ, and similar non sense too. Mother Mary She So Holy is still venerated in their hearts, though their minds claim to be o so enlightened now. An odd group, lapsed Catholics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      You haven't a clue as to what was taught in kiddy school catechism classes. You know nothing of lapsed Catholics. Basically, you know very little. Yet, you continue to bring up the lapsed Catholic meme. You, like WiO when you run out of argument, you play the victim card. Ooooh them bad Catholics, they don't like us, subliminally tortured throughout their life by hatred for Jews, obviously anti-Semites.

      You are pathetic.

      .

      Delete
    2. :)

      YOU are pathetic.

      And don't give a good goddamn about women's rights.

      They are ALL assholes. So you say.

      Delete
    3. And I do know what was taught in those Catholic kiddy school catechism classes.

      I have read my James Joyce.

      Delete
    4. I remember lapsed catholic girls as a young man with fondness.

      Delete
    5. Some say it was the uniform.

      Delete
    6. In college, in my experience, it was an appetite for lots of sex.

      Sometimes with lots of guys.

      The wife had a roommate like that for one semester.

      Can't recall her "nickname" right now.

      Delete
    7. Nobody was brought up experiencing any prejudices, Bob.

      You should know that by now.

      Quirk has told you so.

      More than once.

      Delete
    8. Let him or her who was brought up in the absence of any prejudice please step forward.

      So we can get a closer look at a liar.

      Delete
    9. .

      Your point is irrelevant, Doug. The question raised by Bob wasn't was there or is there prejudice. He has stated that prejudice against Jews was instilled in little Catholics, specifically me and Deuce in our childhood, in catechism class or perhaps subliminally maybe in those movies they used to show in driver ed.

      If you want to jump on that boat, go for it.

      There was plenty of prejudice to be sure. Being Polish, I was the butt of many a polish joke. But as I recall it was a different time. You laughed it off and gave back as much as you got. We didn't whine. Things weren't quite so PC.

      You weren't accused of being anti-Semitic for arguing over policy issues.

      If you want to jump in on this argument, again I invite you to do so. Perhaps you can bring a little more rational argument to the discussion. So far, you have contributed cute little comments but I haven't seen where you have taken any specific position.

      Jump in, the water is warm.

      .

      Delete
    10. Are Poles brought up to be perpetually condescending?

      Delete
    11. My cute little comment was not about dealing with prejudice, nor anything interpersonal in that setting.

      I was referring to what I contend is a universal experience of childhood of being exposed to the expression of prejudice from one's elders.

      Sometimes directly to the subject/object of one's prejudices, more frequently in their absence, among gentlemen and women.

      Delete
    12. If you want to contend there was no antisemitism in your upbringing, I give up.

      You were either brought up exclusively among superior people than I was, or you are in denial.

      Delete
    13. (Most likely the source of your continual reliance on condescension.)

      ...course it may just be a Polish or Catholic thing.

      Delete
    14. .

      Perhaps I was brought up in a sheltered environment, Dougo. There was no anti-Semitism in my house at least it was never evident to me as a kid. I suspect my parents were too busy struggling to put food on the table, my dad a carpenter with little work in the winter trying to raise six kids and put them all through Catholic school. Likewise, I am not aware of any anti-Semitic indoctrination while going to school; but as Bob assures me it was probably all subliminal.

      Frankly, I never really remember ever coming into contact with Jews growing up. Whether that is because I didn't actually meet any (when not in the South, I was raised in primarily Polish and Italian neighborhoods around Detroit and went to Catholic schools through high school) or whether it never occurred to me to ask, I don't know.

      As for the condescension, that comes from my condition. I have been diagnosed as having a superiority complex complicated by the fact that I am superior. It's a curse but I try to live with it.

      But seriously, have you ever encountered the type of illogical garbage that is posted here? After years of this stuff it is difficult not to be condescending.

      I've had three arguments today.

      One with WiO regarding his statement that if you don't approve of the policy of Zionism you are anti-Semitic. He has still refused to answer my question on whether Jews who oppose Zionism are anti-Semitic.

      One with Allen who stated that there has been no progress on negotiations because the Palestinians refuse to recognize the sovereignty of Israel. I have shown him documents showing the Palestineans said they recognized Israeli sovereignty. He says he stands by his statement.

      One with Bob, who based on the previous two arguments accuses me of being a misogynist (yes, I am not kidding) but fails to provide any evidence.

      You say I am condescending. I say I am demanding of facts and a logical argument not some sectarian bullshit.

      Have you read give and take on these arguments today? Or is that you, like Allen, have a delicate sensibility and dislike my tone. I have offered you more than once a chance to jump in on any one of these subjects and defend your bros positions. You haven't done it.

      If you want to complain about me being condescending, I can live with that. I have been called worse here, racist, anti-Semitic, homophobe, now misogynist. Considering the sources of these charges and the arguments that they offer in evidence in the rare instances when they bother offering up any evidence, I hope I am not being too condescending when I say I can live with those too.

      .

      .

      Delete
    15. I simply find your condescension in the face of my brilliant insightful humor and biting wit unacceptable, that's all.

      Delete
    16. You refer to your parents.

      Do you also contend you never witnessed any expression of antisemitism by ANY of your elders in childhood?

      Delete
  40. subliminally they still feel the Jews killed Christ

    And a good thing, too, Bob, because if our Lord was not put to death, we would still be in our sins. Don't you know basic Christian soteriology?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think before you type, Miss T.

      You have just said that the Jews killed Christ.The Jews didn't kill Christ.

      The Romans killed "Christ" with a little encouragement, PERHAPS - we don't know for certain - from that tiny little splinter group of Jewish collaborators of the Roman occupation, the Sadducees.

      And yes I know my orthodox Christian soteriology.

      It is wrong.

      One must save oneself.

      I don't wish for anyone else to die for my sins, or suffer for my sins.

      I should do that on my own.

      I liked you much better when you were a Taoist. You made much better sense then.

      ;)

      Delete
    2. Actually I take FULL CREDIT for the killing of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

      IN FACT you OWE me big.....

      Let's use your logic. Christ is the Lord. According to your faith.

      The Father? The Son and the Holy Spirit KNEW in advance and NEEDED the blood to be spilled in order to pay the price for your salvation.

      IF was preordained by your Lord that he needed to send his son for YOUR salvation.

      And of course, Easter? Says he has risen.

      So without the Jews? You would be damed to eternal hell.

      ONLY because the Jews killed ONE OF THEIR Own, who by Christian teaching had to BE A JEW, that Ms T ascribes to, that Jesus was Lord God (who really CANT DIE AFTER ALL AND DIDNT REALLY DIE)

      So Ms T, I am waiting for your thank you for taking care of a MAJOR portion of your salvation...

      Delete
    3. Teresita RedingerMon Jan 06, 08:58:00 PM EST
      As for myself, I return good for good, and good for evil, that good may abound, and the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ might be glorified.

      Delete
  41. Seattle Seahawks play New Orleans Saints this Saturday around 2: 00 pm here.

    Looking forward to this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the Saints win, they'll play the Niners in Candlestick!

      Delete
  42. Anonobob: You have just said that the Jews killed Christ.The Jews didn't kill Christ.

    On the contrary, it is written (1 Thess. 2:14-15):

    For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men

    But thank you for playing, please drive through.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Teresita RedingerWed Jan 08, 03:13:00 PM EST
      Anonobob: You have just said that the Jews killed Christ.The Jews didn't kill Christ.

      On the contrary, it is written (1 Thess. 2:14-15):

      For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men



      Thank you. You have just explained one of the primary causes of European hatred of Jews. When Dr. Luther is added to the mix, the perfect genocidal cocktail is the outcome. Gosh, I almost forgot the Orthodox churches.

      Why would the Jews need Zionism and a secure homeland of their own? Oh, let's try the insanity of Christianity for a start, an example of which you have kindly gifted us.

      Delete


    2. “Religious people claim that it's just the fundamentalists of each religion that cause problems.

      But there's got to be something wrong with the religion itself if those who strictly adhere to its most fundamental principles are violent bigots and sexists.”

      ― David G. McAfee

      Delete


    3. "I don't understand your optimism," Ben-Gurion declared.
      "Why should the Arabs make peace?
      If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel.

      That is natural: we have taken their country.
      "

      Delete
    4. If you wish to split hairs, Jesus' fellow Jews, the Pharisees, had him killed, but the Romans actually pulled the trigger, so to speak. Thank you.

      Delete
  43. .

    Not quite sure what relevance this talk of women's rights has, however

    And don't give a good goddamn about women's rights.

    They are ALL assholes. So you say.


    Please provide a link and include time and date so we can check the context.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  44. Bob - when considering prostrate cancer treatment you should consider having none at all. I've had a doctor tell me that prostrate cancer is often a very slow developing cancer and if you get it late in life then the chances are that old age will get you before the cancer does. Treatment for cancer can be a hellish experinece. Of course don't take some potatoes advice as being the proper course but it is an issue worth discussing with your doctor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if they can tell which is slow, and which is not?

      Do the guys that get it when young sometimes get the aggressive type, and older guys tend not to?

      Drew Pinsky's in his 50's, I think, and had robotic surgery.

      He said they caught it just before it was about to penetrate out of some capsule, which would have been bad.

      Delete
    2. .

      Caught at an early stage there should be 100% chance of recovery.

      .

      Delete
    3. He said the long term effects of radiation therapy can be worse than surgery.

      (for a guy in his 50s I'd guess he was thinking)

      At my age, in my situation, It'd be a convenient way for me to take my exit more gracefully than if I didn't have a convenient phoney excuse.

      (My present situation, but who knows, maybe a bright idea will strike one of these days.)

      Delete
    4. But still, Quirk, the prevailing medical wisdom for old farts is often just to wait until something else kills you.

      Delete
    5. The surgery is neither painless nor free.

      Delete
    6. .

      Bob has nothing to worry about. He is too cantankerous.

      As for cost, I've been meaning to talk to him anyway. Now that I'm paying for his healthcare, I want him to start doing a few more push ups.

      .

      Delete
    7. .

      I have to admit, I stole the sit up line from Jay Leno.

      .

      Delete
    8. .

      I had planned on saving it for Rufus.

      .

      Delete
    9. I don't know much about it (thankfully I've never had to research it for myself) but I think there are different cancers, different rates of growth, and the age of the patient all come into play on kinds of treatment or none. I think my doctor told me about it a number of years ago when there was talk of doing PSA screenings as opposed to the jolly digit probe..

      Delete
    10. The biopsy - I had 12 little bits of my prostate removed and closely examined - determines with a great deal of accuracy what type of cancer one is facing.

      Mine is type whatever it was, one of the slowest growing varieties, and caught early. My blood PSA was elevated from a routine blood test is what tipped them off - I was told to go see the prostate docs.

      This external beam radiation is a little burst each day for nearly two months, weekends off. I am told it has no side effects at all.

      Except the hair on my head might grow a little.

      I am going to a small gold pellet placed in the prostate, through the same procedure as the biopsy, which was an easy procedure.

      This provides a good target for the external beam radiation.

      Later on, when my wife turns me to ashes, she can sift the ashes with a flour sifter, and recover the gold pellet before placing me in an urn over the fireplace.

      Who knows what the price of gold may be then?

      Delete
    11. The jolly digital probe simply indicates whether the prostate is enlarged or not.

      You got to have the biopsy if your PSA is elevated.

      The biopsy tells the tale.

      Delete
    12. The docs here did list the don't do anything option, since I've a slow growing type.

      But they also said, if you choose that don't come back in eight or ten years wanting some treatment. We won't do it.

      I took it this was their way of firmly saying "Do something now while the time is ripe."

      And having the prostate removed now, which is a certain cure at his stage, leaves one fat and sluggish, sometimes tired to the point of having a hard time getting up out of a chair.

      Plus one might find oneself needing to wear a bro, not a bra, and perhaps even dribbling and needing to wear Depends the rest of one's life.

      I think I am on the right track with my decision.

      Delete
    13. Prostate cancer will eventually spread to the bones. It likes bones. At that point the Lord is calling one home.

      Delete
    14. Knew a guy in his 60's, I think who got radioactive pellets for testicular cancer.

      Are the gold ones irradiated?

      Please go into a little more detail about the aftereffects of the biopsy.

      Would that be called a needle biopsy?

      Delete
  45. ...priceless...

    Teresita RedingerWed Jan 08, 03:13:00 PM EST
    Anonobob: You have just said that the Jews killed Christ.The Jews didn't kill Christ.

    On the contrary, it is written (1 Thess. 2:14-15):

    For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men


    ...written like a true Greek...

    Thank you. You have just explained one of the primary causes of European hatred of Jews. When Dr. Luther is added to the mix, the perfect genocidal cocktail is the outcome. Gosh, I almost forgot the Orthodox churches.

    Why would the Jews need Zionism and a secure homeland of their own? Oh, let's try the insanity of Christianity for a start, an example of which you have kindly gifted us. Thank you, Jesus!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Allen: Why would the Jews need Zionism and a secure homeland of their own? Oh, let's try the insanity of Christianity for a start, an example of which you have kindly gifted us. Thank you, Jesus!

    I'm not surprised that you said that, allen. Anti-Christianism is the last acceptable bigotry in America. But at least we know you're not writing from a posture of some high moral ideal. It's just tribalism, pure and simple. Go Seahawks, boo Saints.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a lot of anti - hick, anti - peckerwood bigotry out there in big city America though.

      I have suffered greatly from this form of prejudice myself, sometimes right here from at least three contributors.

      :)

      Delete
    2. The Seahawks should crush the Saints, Miss T.

      It's if/when they get up against the Broncos which worries me.

      Game time is Saturday 1:45pm Pacific Time.

      I will be looking for you, Miss Fely, old man Redinger and Quirk in the crowd. It's played in Seattle I believe.

      Delete
    3. T, I'm not surprised that you said that, allen. Anti-Christianism is the last acceptable bigotry in America

      Obviously, not.

      Delete
    4. "The Seahawks should crush the Saints, Miss T."

      We'll see what Drew Brees has to say about that.
      It ain't over 'til it's over.

      The Niners will host The Saints in Candlestick!

      Delete
  47. MOME: If you wish to split hairs, Jesus' fellow Jews, the Pharisees, had him killed, but the Romans actually pulled the trigger, so to speak. Thank you.

    Suicide by Roman, Moman.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Since you missed the point (or did you), let's try again. And do recall that you fellows kept this nonsense up for 1700 years, leading to the deaths of countless Jews.

    You may be sure that anytime someone here questions the need for Zionism, I will point them to you.

    allenWed Jan 08, 04:55:00 PM EST
    ...priceless...

    Teresita RedingerWed Jan 08, 03:13:00 PM EST
    Anonobob: You have just said that the Jews killed Christ.The Jews didn't kill Christ.

    On the contrary, it is written (1 Thess. 2:14-15):

    For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men

    ...written like a true Greek...

    Thank you. You have just explained one of the primary causes of European hatred of Jews. When Dr. Luther is added to the mix, the perfect genocidal cocktail is the outcome. Gosh, I almost forgot the Orthodox churches.

    Why would the Jews need Zionism and a secure homeland of their own? Oh, let's try the insanity of Christianity for a start, an example of which you have kindly gifted us. Thank you, Jesus!

    ReplyDelete
  49. What worries Jews is the millions of nutters who still believe it possible to kill G-d. It would be laughable had it not cost so much blood and misery.

    One group of Christians practices actual cannibalism, while a detested offshoot practices ritual cannibalism. Jews are left wondering why you have to eat your god's flesh and drink his blood.

    If the Church Fathers were to return to life and say the things they said during the 1st-4th C, they would be medicated and institutionalized.

    Then there is the venerated Judensau, capturing graphically the bile you call doctrine.

    Alfred Hitchcock's unseen Holocaust documentary to be screened

    It's a little known fact that the great director made a film about the Nazi death camps – but, horrified by the footage he saw, the documentary was never shown.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He thought he was so great that the film was worse than the reality!

      Delete