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

Sunday, June 08, 2014

Shame on Israel: ...I saw with my own eyes that the guy wasn't armed. The report also said: "A man without arms on the roof." The company commander declared him a lookout, meaning he understood that the guy was no threat to us, and he gave the order to kill him and we shot him. I myself didn't shoot, my friend shot and killed him. And basically you think, you see in the United States there's the death penalty, for every death sentence there are like a thousand appeals and convictions, and they take it very seriously, and there are judges and learned people, and there are protests and whatever. And here a 26-year-old guy, my company commander, sentenced an unarmed man to death. - Anonymous Israeli Paratrooper

Stories from an occupation: the Israelis who broke silence

A group called Breaking the Silence has spent 10 years collecting accounts from Israeli soldiers who served in the Palestinian territories. To mark the milestone, 10 hours' worth of testimony was read to an audience in Tel Aviv. Here we print some extracts

Peter Beaumont Tel Aviv 

Saturday 7 June 2014

The young soldier stopped to listen to the man reading on the stage in Tel Aviv's Habima Square, outside the tall façade of Charles Bronfman Auditorium. The reader was Yossi Sarid, a former education and environment minister. His text is the testimony of a soldier in the Israel Defence Forces, one of 350 soldiers, politicians, journalists and activists who on Friday – the anniversary of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land in 1967 – recited first-hand soldiers' accounts for 10 hours straight in Habima Square, all of them collected by the Israeli NGO Breaking the Silence.
When one of the group's researchers approached the soldier, they chatted politely out of earshot and then phone numbers were exchanged. Perhaps in the future this young man will give his own account to join the 950 testimonies collected by Breaking the Silence since it was founded 10 years ago.
In that decade, Breaking the Silence has collected a formidable oral history of Israeli soldiers' highly critical assessments of the world of conflict and occupation. The stories may be specific to Israel and its occupation of the Palestinian territories but they have a wider meaning, providing an invaluable resource that describes not just the nature of Israel's occupation but of how occupying soldiers behave more generally. They describe how abuses come from boredom; from the orders of ambitious officers keen to advance in their careers; or from the institutional demands of occupation itself, which desensitises and dehumanises as it creates a distance from the "other".
In granular detail, the tens of thousands of words narrated on Friday told of the humdrum and the terrible: the humiliating treatment of Palestinians at checkpoints, shootings and random assaults. Over the years the Israeli military's response has been that these stories are the exceptions, not the rule, accounts of a few bad apples' actions.
"What we wanted to show by reading for 10 hours is that the things described in the testimonies we have collected are not exceptional, rather they are unexceptional," says Yehuda Shaul, one of the founders of the group and a former soldier himself.
Shaul breaks off to greet the European Union ambassador and a woman soldier who served in his own unit whom he has not seen for years. We talk about the solitary soldier in the square, now talking to the researcher. "We'll get in contact. See if he wants to talk. Perhaps meet for coffee. Then, when we interview people, we ask them to recommend us to their friends. We might get 10 phone numbers, of whom three will talk to us."
It is not only word of mouth that produces Breaking the Silence's interviews. At the annual conferences that soldiers leaving the army attend to prepare them for the return to civilian life, researchers will try to talk to soldiers outside. Shaul explains why he and his colleagues have dedicated themselves to this project, why he believes it is as necessary today as when he first spoke out a decade ago about his own experience as a soldier in Hebron. "In Israeli politics today the occupation is absent. It's not an issue for the public. It has become normal – not second nature; the occupation has become part of our nature. The object of events like today is for us to occupy the public space with the occupation."
His sentiments are reflected by the Israeli novelist and playwright AB Yehoshua, who gets on the stage to read a comment piece he had written the day before to mark the event. "The great danger to Israeli society," Yehoshua explains, "is the danger of weariness and repression. We no longer have the energy and patience to hear about another act of injustice."
A man appears holding a handwritten sign that condemns Breaking the Silence as "traitors". Some of those attending try to usher him away while others try to engage him in conversation. A journalist asks Shaul if the man is "pro-army". "I'm pro-army," Shaul answers immediately. "I'm not a pacifist, although some of our members have become pacifists. I'm not anti-army, I am anti-occupation."
ISRAELI SOLDIERS' OWN WORDS

Nadav Weiman. Photograph: Quique Kierszenbaum
SERGEANT NADAV WEIMAN
2005-08, Nachal Reconnaissance Unit, Jenin
We'd spread out above Jenin on "the stage", which is a tiny mountain top. That evening an arrest mission was in progress, there were riots inside the refugee camp, and we sat above and provided sniper cover for the operation. Things got rolling and there were arrests, some rioting began in the city.
There was random peripheral fire so there were generally no people on rooftops. Some time in the middle of the night, we detected someone on a roof. We focused our sights on him, not knowing for sure whether or not he was a scout. But we targeted him and got an OK to fire because he was on a rooftop very close to one of our forces.
We were several snipers, and we took him down ... Later when we got back to Jalame, it started: "Was he armed or not?" But we'd got our OK from the battalion commander. He was also the one to come and speak with us when we got back to the base in Jalame. We were with the guys with whom we sat to debrief after the action, and it was wall-to-wall, "You don't realise how lucky you are to have actually fired in an operation. That hardly ever happens, you are so lucky."
And according to the way we implemented the rules of engagement, we declared him a target by documenting him. We thought the Palestinian had been speaking on the phone, he seemed to be raising his hand to his head, looking sideways, going back and forth, just like a person scouting and sending information back. You could see the angles of his body, his whole conduct facing the soldiers who were north of him, in the alley below, a few metres away.
SERGEANT, ANONYMOUS
Undisclosed Reservist unit, Gaza Strip 2009, Operation Cast Lead
The actual objective remained rather vague. We were told our objective was to fragment the Strip, in fact we were told that while we were there, not knowing how long, we would have to raze the area as much as possible. Razing is a euphemism for systematic destruction. Two reasons were given for house demolitions. One reason was operational. That's when a house is suspected to contain explosive, tunnels, when all kinds of wires are seen, or digging. Or we have intelligence information making it suspect. Or it's a source of fire, whether light arms or mortars, missiles, Grads [rockets], all that stuff. Those are houses we demolish.
Then we're told some will be destroyed for "the day after". The rationale is to leave a sterile area behind us and the best way to do that is by razing it. In practical terms, it means you take a house that's not suspect, its only transgression is that it stands on a hill in Gaza. I can even say that in a talk with my battalion commander, he mentioned this and said half smiling, half sad, that this is something to add to his list of war crimes. So he himself understood there was a problem.

Tal Wasser. Photograph: Quique Kierszenbaum
SERGEANT TAL WASSER
2006-09, Oketz (canine special forces), Nablus
Standing at the roadblock for eight hours a day puts everyone under this endless pressure. Everyone's constantly yelling, constantly nervous, impatient … venting on the first Palestinian to cross your path. If a Palestinian annoys one of the soldiers, one of the things they'd do is throw him in the Jora, which is a small cell, like a clothing store dressing room. They close the metal door on him and that would be his punishment for annoying, for being bad.
Within all the pressure and the stress of the roadblock, the Palestinian would often be forgotten there. No one would remember that he put a Palestinian there, further emphasising the irrelevance and insignificance of the reason he was put there in the first place. Sometimes it was only after hours that they'd suddenly remember to let him out and continue the inspection at the roadblock.
SERGEANT, ANONYMOUS
Nablus Regional Brigade, Nablus, 2014
"Provocation and reaction" is the act of entering a village, making a lot of noise, waiting for the stones to be thrown at you and then you arrest them, saying: "There, they're throwing stones."
Lots of vehicles move inside the whole village, barriers. A barrier seems to be the army's legitimate means to stop terrorists. We're talking about Area B [under civilian Palestinian control and Israeli security control], but the army goes in there every day, practically, provoking stone throwings. Just as any Palestinian is suspect, this is the same idea. It could be a kid's first time ever throwing a stone, but as far as the army is concerned, we've caught the stone thrower.

Avner Gvaryahu. Photograph: Quique Kierszenbaum
SERGEANT AVNER GVARYAHU
2004-07 Orev (special anti-tank unit), Nablus
It was when I was a sergeant, after we had finished training. 200 [the number of the commander] said to us unequivocally: "That's how you're ranked. With Xs. Every night I want you to be looking for 'contact' [an exchange of fire] and that's how you'll be ranked."
At some point I realised that someone who wants to succeed has to bring him dead people. There's no point in bringing him arrests. [The message was:] "Arrests are routine, the battalions are making arrests. You're the spearhead, the army has invested years in you, now I want you to bring me dead terrorists."
And that's what pushed us, I believe. What we'd do was go out night after night, drawing fire, go into alleys that we knew were dangerous. There were arrests, there were all kinds of arrests. But the high point of the night was drawing fire, creating a situation where they fired at us.
It's a situation, totally insane, you're in it, it's hard to explain. You're looking through the binoculars and searching for someone to kill. That's what you want to do. And you want to kill him. But do you want to kill him? But that's your job.
And you're still looking through the binoculars and you're starting to get confused. Do I want to? Don't I want to? Maybe I actually want them to miss.
SERGEANT, ANONYMOUS
Kfir Brigade, Tul Karem, 2008
There was one checkpoint that was divided into three lanes: there's a settlement, a checkpoint, and then Israeli territory. In the middle, there's a Palestinian village, so they just split the checkpoint into three lanes. Three lanes, and the brigade commander ordered that Jews should only wait at the checkpoint for 10 minutes. Because of that we had to have a special lane for them, and everyone else, the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs, had to wait in the other two lanes. I remember that settlers would come, go around the Arabs, and just did it naturally. I went over to a settler and said: "Why are you going around? There's a line here, sir." He said: "You really think I'm going to wait behind an Arab?" He began to raise his voice at me. "You're going to hear from your brigade commander."

Gil Hillel. Photograph: Quique Kierszenbaum
GIL HILLEL
2001-03, Sachlav (military police), Hebron
On my first or second day in Hebron, my commanders asked me to go on a "doll", a foot patrol that we conduct in the casbah and Jewish settlement. I agreed, it seemed cool. It was my first time in the field, come on, let's do it. We went on patrol, into the casbah, and I think that was the first time I sensed the existential fear of living under constant threat.
We started the doll and I started feeling bad. The first time in the field is not simple. One of my commanders, the veteran among them, took an old Palestinian man, just took him aside to some alley and started beating him up. And I … it wasfine by all the others … I sort of looked at them and said: "What is he doing? Why is he doing that? What happened? Did he do anything? Is he a threat? A terrorist? Did we find something?" So they said: "No, it's OK." I then approached my commander, the [one] who trained me, and asked: "What are you doing?" He said: "Gil, stop it."
And that really scared me. I was scared of their reactions, of the situation we were in. I felt bad with what went on there, but I kept quiet. I mean, what can I do? My commander told me to shut up. We left there and went back to the company and I went to my commander and said: "What are you doing? Why did you do that?" So he said: "That's the way it is. It's either him or me and it's me and …"
They took him aside and just beat him up. They beat him up, they punched him. And slapped him, all for no reason. I mean, he just happened to walk by there, by mistake.
SERGEANT, ANONYMOUS
Nachal Brigade, 50th Battalion, Hebron, 2010
The Jewish settlers of Hebron constantly curse the Arabs. An Arab who passes by too closely gets cursed: "May you burn, die."
On Shuhada Street there's a very short section where Arabs may walk as well, which leads to Tel Rumeida neighbourhood. Once I was sent there and we found three Jewish kids hitting an old Arab woman. Another man from the Jewish settlement happened along and also joined them in yelling at the woman: "May you die!" When we got there they were mainly yelling, but there had clearly been blows dealt as well. I think they even threw stones at her.
I believe the [policeman] was called but ended up not doing anything. The general atmosphere was that there was no point in summoning the police – the policeman is a local settler from Kiryat Arba who comes to pray with the Hebron settlers at the Tomb of the Patriarchs on Fridays.

Nadav Bigelman. Photograph: Quique Kierszenbaum
SERGEANT NADAV BIGELMAN
2007-10, Nachal Brigade, 50th Battalion, Hebron
During patrols inside the casbah we'd do many "mappings". Mappings mean going into a house we have no intelligence on. We go in to see what's inside, who lives there. We didn't search for weapons or things like that. The mappings were designed to make the Palestinians feel that we are there all the time.
We go in, walk around, look around. The commander takes a piece of paper and … makes a drawing of the house, what it looks like inside, and I had a camera. I was told to bring it. They said: "You take all the people, stand them against the wall and take their picture." Then [the pictures are] transferred to, I don't know, the General Security Service, the battalion or brigade intelligence unit, so they have information on what the people look like. What the residents look like. I'm a young soldier, I do as they say. I take their pictures, a horrible experience in itself, because taking people's pictures at 3am, I … it humiliated them, I just can't describe it.
And the interesting thing? I had the pictures for around a month. No one came to get them. No commander asked about them, no intelligence officer took them. I realised it was all for nothing. It was just to be there. It was like a game.
SERGEANT, ANONYMOUS
Paratrooper, 2002, Nablus
We took over a central house, set up positions, and one of the sharpshooters identified a man on a roof, two roofs away, I think he was between 50 and 70 metres away, not armed. I looked at the man through the night vision – he wasn't armed. It was two in the morning. A man without arms, walking on the roof, just walking around. We reported it to the company commander. The company commander said: "Take him down." [The sharpshooter] fired, took him down. The company commander basically ordered, decided via radio, the death sentence for that man. A man who wasn't armed.

I saw with my own eyes that the guy wasn't armed. The report also said: "A man without arms on the roof." The company commander declared him a lookout, meaning he understood that the guy was no threat to us, and he gave the order to kill him and we shot him. I myself didn't shoot, my friend shot and killed him. And basically you think, you see in the United States there's the death penalty, for every death sentence there are like a thousand appeals and convictions, and they take it very seriously, and there are judges and learned people, and there are protests and whatever. And here a 26-year-old guy, my company commander, sentenced an unarmed man to death.

80 comments:

  1. “Do you know, Mother, that Haj Salem was buried alive in his home?

    Does he tell you stories in heaven now?

    I wish I had had a chance to meet him.
    To see his toothless grin and touch his leathery skin.
    To beg him, as you did in your youth, for a story from our Palestine.

    He was over one hundred years old, Mother.

    To have lived so long, only to be crushed to death by a bulldozer.

    Is this what it means to be Palestinian?”

    ― Susan Abulhawa, Mornings in Jenin

    ReplyDelete
  2. Quirk, I posted this in the other thread but I'll drag it up here so you can see it without having to navigate all the way back.


    Quirk, I was hoping that an intelligent man like you would be able to make the logical links afforded by my pecks at the phone screen. I was wrong. Let me elaborate.

    First off you wrote "Once again a federal judge imposes her elitist PC views on a population."

    What makes you think this judge is an elitist? A Judges job is to judge, to rule, and she did. The role of a judge is not to conduct a poll, or divine what is popular but rather to apply the law. In this case the judge decided that the State law violated the constitution. The Constitution supersedes state law - what is elitist about that?

    Rat pointed out the constitutional problem and you acknowledged it but claim that Civil Unions are sufficient. I guess you are arguing that a Civil Union is equivalent to marriage? If yes, then it is absurd to treat them differently in law and if no, you are not affording equal treatment under law.

    You then state you are a traditionalist. The judge specifically referred to tradition as not cutting it.

    "In defending their same-sex marriage ban, state officials claimed that "virtually all cultures through time" have recognized marriage "as the union of an opposite-sex couple."

    But as U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote in her 88-page ruling on Friday, that's simply not true.

    "As an initial matter, defendants and amici have overstated their argument. Throughout history, the most 'traditional' form of marriage has not been between one man and one woman, but between one man and multiple women, which presumably is not a tradition that defendants and amici would like to continue," Crabb wrote in her opinion.

    History alone wasn't enough to justify a ban on same-sex marriage, Crabb said.

    "Like moral disapproval, tradition alone proves nothing more than a state's desire to prohibit particular conduct," she wrote, citing Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in a 2003 sodomy case, which stated that "'preserving the traditional institution of marriage' is just a kinder way of describing the State's moral disapproval of same-sex couples."

    Crabb pointed out that tradition was used as an argument to keep women from voting."
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/gay-marriage-wisconsin-history_n_5462356.html

    I pointed out that polygamy was a traditional form of marriage. Your retort was that it is consensual. So!? So is same sex marriage. Ironically, your acceptance of polygamy involves same sex marriage but, you squawk, I am a traditionalist and that involves just one man and one woman and she is applying elitist PC crap on the world. I think it is you being the silly one.

    In short, since you like logic, tradition is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for a piece of legislation to be the law of the land. It must also pass constitutional muster and this one didn't regardless of old fuddy duddy's who refuse to evolve and change with the times. To the back of the bus with you black folk - it's tradition!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cogent argument. However, domestic unions should have a definition other than “marriage”. The institution of “marriage” is a time honored trademark and we do honor and protect our trademarks. Pepsi is not coke.

      Delete

    2. Why have Government in the marriage business, at all?

      Delete
  3. The crux of the problem, ash, is that of whether or not 'marriage' is a religious or civil state of individuals becoming united.
    The religious marriage, has long been conflated with civil marriage. Now that era is coming to an end, in the United States.

    Religion is being removed from the civil arena, and many people object to that.
    In a more 'perfect' state the Government would not sanctify marriage, but would ONLY provide for 'Civil Unions', contracts between individuals.While marriage was left in the realm of the individuals religious conviction.

    I see no reason why the Government should 'license' religious sanctity. That is, seemingly, a contradiction of the Separation of Church and State, as set forth in the "Establishment" clause. The Government has taken upon itself the power to regulate contracts, which is what a civil union is. Government should have no authority over what constitutes marriage, as that would be a religious union of souls, for eternity... or some other duration, to be decided by the religious sect, denomination or cult which sanctified the marriage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remove the State from marriage licensing, and providing preferential treatment to those that are married, and replace the current system of civil marriage with civil unions, across the board. The State could provide licenses for such civil unions and provide the preferential treatment to those people that choose to enter such legally binding partnerships. Just as they do with civil marriages, today.

      Delete
    2. You make some good points jack but in the current state of the union the government's have dominion over marriage. It does, however, beg the question of whether religion need act within the bounds of the constitution.

      Delete
    3. "religion" should read as "religious institutions".

      Delete
    4. As to whether religious institutions need to act within the bounds of the Constitution, that is a line that is being drawn, as we speak.

      I would not think it appropriate for the Government to 'force' the Roman Catholic Church to allow woman to become Priests. Or Orthodox Judaic Synagogues to allow women to become Rabbis.

      But I think it will be found appropriate for the Roman Catholic Church and Judaic Institutions to provide health care packages as prescribed by law, to their employees or to pay the legislated fines and penalties, if they choose not to provide the mandated benefits.

      Delete
    5. I would object to the Government forcing any religious institution to sanctify marriages that did not fit the precepts of the religious convictions of their particular institution.

      Delete
  4. When Fascism arrives it will be wrapped in a flag, and waving a bible.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the United States, the most "religious" states are, also, the poorest, unhealthiest, most bigoted, racist, and poorly educated states.

    Religion is a cancre on the butt of humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What a lot of horse shit.

    Deuce, you should be ashamed of your self, but you never are.

    ReplyDelete
  7. When fascism arrives, it will be in the hands of a fool in Mississippi with a bottle of Bud in his hands.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I used to kinda like you., Deuce, but you've become a prick, a total prick.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Respond to this Boobie:

    OCCUPIED JERUSALEM — Right-wing Israeli lawmakers are calling on the government to annex about 90 Jewish settlements built on occupied West Bank land, with one of them saying it was retaliation for the collapse of peace talks with the Palestinians a month ago.

    While Israel has built dozens of enclaves since occupieng the land in a 1967 war, it has not applied its law to the territory other than near East Jerusalem, which it annexed as part of its capital in a move never recognised internationally.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government said it does not support the legislation the right wingers introduced in parliament on Wednesday, but some cabinet members have urged such a step, blaming the Palestinians for the collapse of a nine-month round of US-brokered negotiations.

    Most Western nations and the United Nations regard settlements built on land Israel occupied in 1967 as illegal and an obstacle to peace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You cannot "occupy" what is yours.

      Jerusalem, never belonged to the Arabs, it was stolen by the Arabs.

      A thief is still a thief even after 1100 years.....



      Delete
  10. YAWN...

    A spotter is a legitimate target.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If he really was a 'spotter' and not a man out hanging his wash.

      Delete
    2. His timing was Darwinian, then.

      You spy, you die
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwJs4xsLHuw

      Delete
    3. The Capuchins are loose.

      :-)))

      bye, bye

      Delete

    4. Do you advocate that standard for J. Pollack?

      Delete
    5. Or are you saying that there is a Civil War in Israel?

      Delete

    6. Or both, the two questions and the answers are not necessarily exclusive of each other.

      Delete
  11. Read this real great piece about the Israel Defense Forces
    Brave Soldiers of the IDF
    It is really quite an informative piece of blogging.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ...some perspective...

    https://www.google.com/search?q=photos+aftermath+of+intifada+bombings&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=D6uUU9ygCoSnyASf_oGgAw&ved=0CFsQsAQ&biw=1680&bih=917#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=iWsy5SSIWEHGRM%253A%3BLfK7UmTntWhGLM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fquitenormal.files.wordpress.com%252F2011%252F05%252Fdolphiafterexplode.jpeg%253Fw%253D593%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fquitenormal.wordpress.com%252F2011%252F06%252F01%252Ften-years-ago-today-was-the-hamas-dolphinarium-suicide-bombing-in-tel-aviv-that-killed-21-teenagers-and-injured-132%252F%3B500%3B343

    ReplyDelete
  13. A couple of the comments by 'Bob; aren't by this Bob from Idaho.

    Someone is playing games again, probably rat.

    He has done this before.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Name/URL Bob is in the midst of an identity crisis.
      Easily fixed, but as we all know by now ...

      You can't fix stupid

      Delete
  14. Rufus, your periodic little comments about religion and spirituality are so goddamned stupid I don't even know where to start.

    Of all the people that comment here you have shown yourself time and again to be the most ignorant and illiterate of them all. You even beat the rat, which is really hard to do.

    How does one tell a man without a brain that he has no brain?

    It's a really tough assignment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How does one tell a man without a brain that he has no brain?

      I look in the mirror and say ...

      "You can't fix stupid"

      Delete
    2. Good idea, Bob, just look into the mirror and repeat the mantra, about one hundred times ...

      I can't fix stupid

      Delete
  15. Are you out there, Melody?

    Some music, please.

    ReplyDelete
  16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7knsP2n5w&list=PLFgquLnL59alCl_2TQvOiD5Vgm1hCaGSI

    ReplyDelete
  17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCMrXC8D05Q

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wait just a dern minute here..............I thought the Jews where off topic................and who brought up the Jews but Deuce?.....a little pillow talk I guess.............

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The thread is about Israel not Jews

      The two are not and never were the same thing
      Anyone who thinks differently is either deranged or a victim of the Goebbels style propaganda propagated by the Zionists

      Delete

  19. 9/11 Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out

    High-rise architects, structural engineers, scientists, physicists, chemists, scholars, educators, firefighters, forensic fire engineers, demolition experts and others have put together a ground-breaking scientific assessment of the events at the World Trade Center.

    The sudden, complete collapse of the third skyscraper on 9/11, WTC Building 7 at 5:20pm, is now being seen around the world as “the smoking gun” which disproves the official story about 9/11. These experts also introduce additional “overwhelming evidence” for a controlled demolition hypothesis at WTC which is disturbing to say the least.

    The film does not speculate, and empathizes with viewers by also presenting the most popular segment of the film, which introduces the professional perspectives of eight psychologists who explain some of the reasons why it is so hard for people to face the scientific evidence.

    This is the most scientific and compelling 9/11 documentary film to date, containing vital information that demands action from all of us. We can no longer afford to ignore the World Trade Center evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C15vl5corSY

    ReplyDelete
  21. I fell in love with Bob from Idaho and sang him these songs.

    ReplyDelete
  22. .

    Ash, I will answer your questions but this is the last time. I find your weird assumptions and inability to follow an argument without diversion or logic extremely annoying. However, before starting on your most recent post let me review our discussion from yesterday and were you went wrong.

    In response to a point made by rat, I stated my objection to calling a gay union a marriage.

    • QuirkSat Jun 07, 05:58:00 PM EDT
    .

    [Rat] The alternate view, Q, is that the Federal Judges are protecting the rights of individuals from the tyranny of the majority.

    I'm sure she thinks she is doing the Lord's work, rat, and that a lot (the majority) of people agree with her. As far as I'm concerned the LGBT (I guess it has now morphed into LGBTQQIA) community can do what they want. Likewise, I think they should have every legal right available to every other American. I have relatives who are gay. They should not be discriminated against in the least. I believe an overwhelming majority of Americans including me approve of civil unions that would assure those rights.

    My objection is taking a perfectly good word that has had a generally accepted definition for millennia and changing it for political reasons.

    I guess I am a 'traditionalist'. I also don't like calling war a kinetic engagement.


    Above, I put in bold my reason for objecting to calling a gay union a marriage. Simple, nothing complicated. The last sentence was merely to emphasize my disapproval of the corruption of the language. Yet, the only word you seem to have latched onto is ‘traditionalist’, either missing or ignoring the point of my post entirely and seemingly unable to comprehend that a person can be a traditionalist in more than one sense.

    (continued)

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      2.

      • AshSat Jun 07, 06:12:00 PM EDT

      Are you a traditionalist un favor of polygamy?

      • AshSat Jun 07, 06:17:00 PM EDT
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/gay-marriage-wisconsin-history_n_5462356.html

      • QuirkSat Jun 07, 07:13:00 PM EDT

      I have no problem with polygamy if it is consensual. The problems you usually hear about are the abuse of women's rights when the practice is established by men and isn't fully consensual.

      Personally, I couldn't afford it...but...

      .
      Delete

      • AshSat Jun 07, 07:34:00 PM EDT

      Gay marriage is also consensual.

      • QuirkSat Jun 07, 08:43:00 PM EDT

      .

      And your point?

      .
      Delete

      • AshSat Jun 07, 08:56:00 PM EDT

      I'm in phone at moment but...

      you said you were traditionalist with respect to marriage therefore gay marriage bad. It has been pointed out that polygamy is traditional. Your response - ok because consensual. So, gay marriage also consensual. What's your beef with gay marriage?


      At this point, I admit that I had lost all patience with your silliness and inability to read and understand simple English text. First you misrepresent me and then you offer up a ridiculous equivocation. Therefore, the following:

      • QuirkSun Jun 08, 12:05:00 AM EDT
      .

      Ash, I will give you the benefit of the doubt on your question "What's your beef with gay marriage?" and assume you are asking about my objection to calling it 'marriage' rather than any objection to the union itself.

      If you bothered to read my response to rat in the post above, you would already know my reasons for objecting to calling a gay union a 'marriage'. Once again, I suggest you actually read and try to understand the arguments here rather than just assuming.

      If you understood the difference between the definitions of homosexual and heterosexual you might also understand the major difference between polygamy and 'gay marriage'.

      If you understood that the words 'consensual' and 'traditional' identify two distinct concepts that are independent of one another perhaps you wouldn't have put up this silly post.

      If you understood the silly associations you come up with in your arguments perhaps you would be a more careful writer. If two distinct relationships share one quality, 'consensual', that does not mean that the two relationships are for all intents and purposes identical. I haven't a clue why you brought up 'traditional' in the conversation since you yourself define one relationship as 'traditional' while the other clearly isn't. I would go on but frankly your thought processes leave me metagrabolized.

      .


      .

      Delete
    2. .

      In response to your latest post,

      First off you wrote "Once again a federal judge imposes her elitist PC views on a population."

      What makes you think this judge is an elitist? A Judges job is to judge, to rule, and she did. The role of a judge is not to conduct a poll, or divine what is popular but rather to apply the law. In this case the judge decided that the State law violated the constitution. The Constitution supersedes state law - what is elitist about that?


      You have answered the question yourself.

      The role of a judge is not to conduct a poll, or divine what is popular …

      Yet, that is exactly what this judge is doing in using the same rationale for her decision as was used by the SCOTUS majority in knocking down DOMA. Here is Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority in describing why DOMA is unconstitutional.

      "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."

      Less respected? This decision isn’t about law. It is about making the gay community feel good about itself.

      In his written dissent, Scalia declared that the Constitution "neither requires nor forbids our society to approve of same-sex marriage, much as it neither requires nor forbids us to approve of no-fault divorce, polygamy, or the consumption of alcohol." The majority’s opinion, he wrote, declares "open season on any law that (in the opinion of the law’s opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited."

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-doma-decision_n_3454811.html


      .

      (continued)

      Delete
    3. .

      2.

      Rat pointed out the constitutional problem and you acknowledged it but claim that Civil Unions are sufficient.

      Yes.

      I guess you are arguing that a Civil Union is equivalent to marriage?

      Only in the legal sense.

      If yes, then it is absurd to treat them differently in law and if no, you are not affording equal treatment under law.

      What the hell don’t you understand? I am not arguing that they be treated differently under the law. I am saying the civil union can grant them every legal right of any other American. Just don’t call it marriage. The word has been around a lot longer than the Constitution.

      You then state you are a traditionalist. The judge specifically referred to tradition as not cutting it.

      "In defending their same-sex marriage ban, state officials claimed that "virtually all cultures through time" have recognized marriage "as the union of an opposite-sex couple."

      But as U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote in her 88-page ruling on Friday, that's simply not true.

      "As an initial matter, defendants and amici have overstated their argument. Throughout history, the most 'traditional' form of marriage has not been between one man and one woman, but between one man and multiple women, which presumably is not a tradition that defendants and amici would like to continue," Crabb wrote in her opinion.


      First, you took my use of the word 'traditionalist' out of context. Second, I could give a flying fuck what this lady had to say. This is the money quote that everyone refers to but it completely misses the point. She emphasizes the word ‘couple’ when the real emphasis should be on the term ‘opposite-sex’ which she completely ignores.

      History alone wasn't enough to justify a ban on same-sex marriage, Crabb said.

      "Like moral disapproval, tradition alone proves nothing more than a state's desire to prohibit particular conduct," she wrote, citing Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in a 2003 sodomy case, which stated that "'preserving the traditional institution of marriage' is just a kinder way of describing the State's moral disapproval of same-sex couples."


      While she is ready to quote Scalia when she wants to, she ignores his opinion when it's opposite hers. [See the Scalia quote above on DOMA.]

      Crabb pointed out that tradition was used as an argument to keep women from voting."
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/gay-marriage-wisconsin-history_n_5462356.html


      Her’s is a ridiculous analogy and completely irrelevant to my objection which centered on the adulteration of the language. I am not arguing against gays having every legal right afforded to any American. Just don’t call it what it is not for political reasons.

      I pointed out that polygamy was a traditional form of marriage. Your retort was that it is consensual. So!? So is same sex marriage. Ironically, your acceptance of polygamy involves same sex marriage but, you squawk, I am a traditionalist and that involves just one man and one woman and she is applying elitist PC crap on the world. I think it is you being the silly one.

      And this is what drives me nuts about you.

      I pointed out that polygamy was a traditional form of marriage. Your retort was that it is consensual.

      Nonsense. Go back and read your own posts. You don’t even know what you said and yet you are telling me what I said and getting it wrong.

      Out of the blue (I say this because you obviously couldn’t have read my post to rat) you ask me if I am in favor of polygamy. I did not say it was consensual. I said, “I have no problem with polygamy if it is consensual.”. I feel the same way about a couple gays hooking up. Mine was a general statement in response to a general question.

      .

      (continued)

      .

      Delete
    4. .

      3.

      In short, since you like logic, tradition is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for a piece of legislation to be the law of the land.

      It took a long time but you finally made some sense. Unfortunately, you ignore reality when it comes to ‘gay marriage’ and my argument against the term. Mine is not an argument about denying anyone any rights, it is an argument against calling the union something that it is not, marriage.

      ‘Gay Marriage’ is a political term, while it does seek to assure gay unions the same legal rights as all other Americans, civil unions could be legislated that would do the same thing. No, the reason it has to be ‘marriage’ as was noted by Kennedy in DOMA was so gays wouldn’t feel disrespected.

      It must also pass constitutional muster and this one didn't regardless of old fuddy duddy's who refuse to evolve and change with the times. To the back of the bus with you black folk - it's tradition!

      The parting slam of your typical liberal PC pissant. Lordy, you and your ilk are laughable.

      .

      Delete
    5. .

      I noticed on the last page you put up your post three times. I wasn't sure if it was blogger, you were stuttering, or just pissing your panties waiting for a response. Yet, then I see you also put the post up here.

      Sorry, for the delay in responding today.

      .

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

      Delete
    7. Don' know anything about why the post went up 3 times in the last thread. Sorry if that hurt you.

      in response to my:

      "I guess you are arguing that a Civil Union is equivalent to marriage?"

      you responded:

      "Only in the legal sense."


      This is the the crux of the issue. Is Civil Union equivalent? I don't believe it is in the legal sense but I fully admit I could be wrong on that. If it is then it seems only political then to refuse to call it marriage simply to appease guys like you who bristle at their conception of what marriage means.

      Delete
    8. .

      Oh, the 'marriage is just a word' defense. I can assure you that those in the gay community don't believe it is just a word. Otherwise, why aren't you and the gay community arguing before the Supreme Court that they have a right to 'civil unions' that are 'legally' equivalent to heterosexual marriage? But, as you know, they don't. Initially, they did. However, activists within the community soon began pushing for their unions to be called 'marriage'.

      If it is then it seems only political then to refuse to call it marriage simply to appease guys like you who bristle at their conception of what marriage means.

      Of course it is political. There was overwhelming support of gays and civil unions in this country long before the push for 'gay marriage'. I supported them. Yet, the gays insisted on redefining the word marriage. The reasons where spelled out by Kennedy in DOMA.

      I personally don't accept his PC bullshit. When I say I don't accept it, it is not that I am politicking against it. I have nothing against gays doing what they want or indulging in political ploys to achieve their ends. Just don't ask me to redefine my understanding of marriage to accommodate them.

      This should be no surprise to anyone who has paid any attention to my frequent rants here about Orwell, rewriting history, or the cute euphemisms, evasions, and pomposity we are bombarded with daily from our pols, the media, or interest groups.

      .

      Delete
  23. rat hallucinates.

    I don't like men that hallucinate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone who has seen a post by 'Rat' is hallucinating, Melody Gardot.
      I've been doing it quite a bit, lately,,
      But standing in front of the mirror, repeating the mantra .... that is helping me to realize ...

      I am stupid and no one can fix stupid

      I am looking for my sign..

      Delete
  24. I'd choose even old Budweiser Ruf over rat.

    Always choose dumb over hallucination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what my momma always said.

      Delete
  25. I'm in favor of "gay" marriage, because

    1) It does No harm to me,

    and,

    2) It make them happy.


    Now, what can be wrong with that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I neither favor nor oppose marriage, for other folks, anywhere in the US.
      Figure it's their business, who and why they get married.
      The legal benefits attached to the 'definition' of civil marriage have removed the definition of the word from a traditional one, to a contemporary legal one.

      By treating citizens differently, based upon the labels attached to them, it makes the labels 'fair game' for the lawyers and judges to manipulate. The government creates division and then imposes the solution to to that divisiveness.
      The Hegelian Dialectic at work.

      Delete
    2. .

      Your position as stated further up stream vis-a-vis the government made a lot of sense, rat. This one not so much.

      There have always been legal ramifications associated with marriage; however, you are talking the legal contract associated with marriage. In the tradition I was raised in, the teaching was that the priest merely 'officiates' at the wedding. The couple actually perform the marriage themselves when they say 'I do'. If you accept that, other than the legal contract you speak of, there is no need for a minister, either civil or religious.

      However, that still leaves old 'fuddy duddy's' like me who bemoan the the adulteration of the language especially when it is for strictly political or PC reasons.

      .

      Delete
    3. The point I am trying to make, Q, is that when the government promotes one group of citizens over another, attempts social engineering based upon the definition of a word, then the definition will be changed, based upon benefit driven politics, not correctness.

      Delete
  26. 3) Although Dr. Baker argues that the decline in prime working age workers is due to "weakness of the labor market", this decline was happening long before the Great Recession. For some reasons, see: Possible Reasons for the Decline in Prime-Working Age Men Labor Force Participation and on demographics from researchers at the Atlanta Fed: "Reasons for the Decline in Prime-Age Labor Force Participation"

    Lets take a look at Dean Bakers "41-Year-Olds". I used the BLS data on 40 to 44 year old men (only available Not Seasonally Adjusted since 1976). I choose men only to simplify.


    Read more at http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/#viBCdhptAlMSUTyF.99

    This graph shows the 40 to 44 year old men participation rate since 1976 (note the scale doesn't start at zero to better show the change).

    There is a clear downward trend, and a researcher looking at this trend in the year 2000 might have predicted the 40 to 44 year old men participation rate would about the level as today (see trend line).

    Clearly there are other factors than "economic weakness" causing this downward trend. I listed some reasons a few months ago, and new research from Pew Research suggests stay-at-home dads is one of the reasons: Growing Number of Dads Home with the Kids

    Just looking at this graph, I don't think there are many "missing 41-Year-Old" men that will be returning to the labor force.

    Read more at http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/#viBCdhptAlMSUTyF.99

    It goes on, with some very enlightening graphs

    Interesting (Quite Strong) Trend

    ReplyDelete
  27. As for me I definitely don't want to get poked in the ass and find the whole thought of it abhorrent.

    I do accept my recent reading about sexual orientation and early fetal development.

    Therefore accept the gays as full members of the community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wasn't that hard a poke but I did get a rush out of that barium enema ...

      Delete
  28. Just don't ask me out on a 'date'.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The Man Who Created Aids : ‘Robert Gallo’
    By DNA | December 27, 2013 26 Comments

    In April 1984, Dr. Robert Gallo filed a United States patent application for his invention, the HIV/AIDS Virus.
    Normally, when a patent is filed and approved, as Dr. Gallo’s was, anyone who uses the product or invention owes a royalty payment to the inventor. Thus, holding the intellectual property laws to their fullest interpretations, one must only wonder why Dr. Gallo has yet to file a lawsuit seeking to recover damages from the usage of his invention? As odd as this scenario may sound, it bears need for additional scrutiny.

    The scientific evidence is complete and compelling, the AIDS Virus is a designer bi-product of the U.S. Special Virus program.
    The Special Virus program was a federal virus development program that persisted in the United States from 1962 until 1978.
    The U.S. Special Virus was then added as ‘compliment’ to vaccine inoculations in Africa and Manhattan.
    Shortly thereafter the world was overwhelmed with mass infections of a human retrovirus that differed from any known human disease, it was highly contagious and more importantly, it could kill.

    A review of the Special Virus Flow Chart (“research logic”) reveals the United States was seeking a ‘virus particle’ that would negatively impact the defense mechanisms of the immune system. The program sought to modify the genome of the virus particle in which to splice in an animal “wasting disease” called “Visna”.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I see Jack Ass Hawkins has mentioned Hegel again. I always get a grin when he tries to swim deep, and drowns.

    Hegel really didn't have that much to say. It's one of those outlooks that seems profound on the surface but it is mostly just big words.

    Søren Kierkegaard is really much better and he abosolutely destroyed Hegel with humor.

    Soren was a little nuts himself though, and love lost and love lorn, and we are better off reading Huck Finn and Walt Whitman.

    A sweating ovary and a stressed prostate gland have as much to do with the movement of history as an Hegelian antithesis, whatever our rat crapper may say, day by day.

    Both Hegel and Soren missed the big issue.....the monomyth.

    ReplyDelete
  31. But the people did not.

    Jack and Jill went up the hill
    To fetch a pail of water.
    Jack fell down and broke his crown,
    And Jill came tumbling after.[1]

    This is simply a rendition of a failed attempt at the seizure of transcendent meaning. The movement from the world of everyday to the world of supernatural wonder has here failed.

    The water that is to be found at the top of a hill is of course spiritual water, no other kind of water being found at the top of a hill.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Are you learning anything, Jack Ass Hawkins?

    ReplyDelete
  33. The monomyth is a comedy of errors, a lie.

    All across humanity the monomyth has two mothers.

    The monomyth is the cause of the terrors of the modern world. The diminution of the female of the matriarch.

    So Joseph Campbell wrote and anyone who studies the subject understands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. The monomyth demands obedience, above all. It is at the core of fascism, of tyranny.

      Delete
  34. When monotheism is a Trinity ...

    Jesus said;

    He who blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven,
    and he who blasphemes against the Son will be forgiven:
    but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven


    Then monotheism is a less than a myth, it is a lie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Then God said,“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

      Even in the 'beginning of the Jude-Christian myth, there was no monotheism, but a plurality of Gods.

      They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear


      Delete
  35. Jack Hawkins,

    Re: “I see no reason why the Government should 'license' religious sanctity.”

    Had you been born and bred in the West or had educated yourself beyond Wiki, you would know why governments have been involved in such things. Since you weren't and didn't, try having a look at Duke William's "Doomsday Book", completed 1086. You might also have a look at Jonathan Israel's definition of mercantilism (highly regarded and generally applied), timeframe irrelevant.

    Governments do what they do for what are perfectly rational reasons that relates to self-interest. What is to be pitied is that governments no longer hang and/or burn morons who presume to criticize what they do not understand. In retrospect, the 1st Amendment might have been overly liberal.

    Western governments have never "sanctified" marriage, having had little interest in how their subjects copulated as long as the state prospered thereby. Licensing helped in that regard. Western elites, including clergy have coupled like rabbits whenever and wherever opportunity could be had. That being the case, there was no institutional need for polygamy or polyandry. Moreover, it prevented the loss to the tax base through the en masse execution of zealous fanatics and their ignorant adherents over personal matters of sex. The sole exception to the regnant status quo coming to mind was Philip II of Spain, who had the good sense to abdicate and enter holy orders before he could do irreparable harm to the well lubricated sexual machinery of Europe.

    Instead, Moron, marriage was one of the Church's seven sacraments and through the ceremony the union added to the body of Christ. The continued growth of the body of god was essential to the evangelical mission of the Church. The Reformers maintained the sacrament of marriage for the same reason. Only the Mormons reverted to polygamy, although Joseph Smith initially forbade it until enlightened by the ever cooperative angel Moroni and a pair of strange shapely ankles and the ample bosom belonging to another man's wife.

    Read! Read! Read! The Gutenberg Project can supply your needs for many lifetimes. Indeed, it would greatly enhance the quality of commentary at the Bar if you would spend at least one lifetime preparing your next comment. Good luck and good reading.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. A ream of fascist gibberish, but the condition response by allen, foretold by the prophets.

      Delete
  36. Neither Soren nor Hegel ever got this, but the poets have, and the people.

    ReplyDelete

  37. “Sometimes you can see things happen right in front of your eyes and still jump to the wrong conclusions.”

    ReplyDelete
  38. By not banning rat you have turned this place into a farce again, Duece.

    That is why I am forced to name in as Melody Gardot, my name Bob haven been stolen again, by the usual suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  39. It's just like Uncle Bob said, this place is a farce.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  40. I analyze rat as being very very depressed with signs of Asperger's.

    Rufus is just a dumb drunk that doesn't do anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. “Insecure people put others down to raise themselves up.”

      Delete

  41. 911: Russia Presents Evidence Against US, UK And Israel Co-Conspirators?


    by Michael Thomas

    “9/11 was an Anglo-American black operation executed in collusion with Israeli Secret Services.” — 9/11 Investigator

    It appears that Russia has been conducting systematic data dumps on 9/11, the release of which represents more factual information on the attacks than any US Government source. In the wake of the Anglo-American coup d’état conducted by the CIA and MI6 in Kiev, it appears that Russia has no more patience for Western interference.

    Especially when nations are destabilized on Russia’s borders do the stakes in this highly consequential geopolitical chess match go up.

    Since Vladimir Putin has no intention of starting World War 3, he can only respond to US-EU meddling by using asymmetric warfare on the internet. Were the American people to understand that elements within the US Federal Government were behind the 9/11 attacks , EVERYTHING would change in a heartbeat. Because the Obama Administration has shown no sign of aborting its planned takeover of the Ukraine, Russia is now left with fewer, but still quite potent options

    The following excerpt recently appeared on an alternative news website — Veterans Today — under the subtitle “Too Classified to Publish”

    Essentially this unprecedented release of ultra-secret and highly classified information illustrates Putin’s new tack toward Western intractability. Simply put, Russia will no longer stand by idly while the Anglo-American Juggernaut projects it power wherever it so chooses.

    TOO CLASSIFIED TO PUBLISH

    According to a retired FXX agent specializing in Israeli counter intel: The type of nuclear devices used on 911 were a modified version of the W-54 nuclear artillery shells that were covertly provided to the Israelis between 1988 and 1998 from US surplus stockpiles illegally exported during the Bush/Clinton era.


    - See more at: http://asheepnomore.net/2014/06/02/911-russia-presents-evidence-us-uk-israel-co-conspirators/#sthash.iwXDI6WG.ZFTjPtYu.dpuf

    ReplyDelete