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

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Yo Putin! Up Yours!

Russian worker taking down the Ukrainian flag and getting off a selfie for posterity

Anyone who has visited Moscow will recognise the Seven Sister high-rises commissioned by Joseph Stalin between 1947 and 1953, that jut out across the city’s skyline.
But commuters stuck in rush-hour traffic this morning may have noticed that the one on Kotelnicheskaya Embankment had been given a little bit of a touch-up.
Activists apparently defied both the authorities and any fear of falling 176 metres from the 26-story structure and made it to the top of the tower overnight, painting the star at the top of the building (and hammer and sickle in the centre) in the Ukrainian blue and yellow colours, and attaching a Ukrainian flag for good measure.

109 comments:

  1. I feel for the poor bastards that end up in a Russian prison for this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jesus, Quirk, what the hell are you, suicidal?

    Trying to impress Maria again?

    Get the hell down off there and go deep deep undercover now !

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hamas attacked Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Ben Gurion Airport and even targeted Israel's offshore gas platforms...

    I hope Israel destroys Hamas totally.

    But what of the poor Palestinians? Maybe they should start a revolution against their Hamas masters? Use the cell phones and call in IDF strikes with specific locations? Maybe they can start SHOOTING the Hamas launching crews that come into their areas to set up "tents" in the middle of the night...

    Or not... If the civilians of Gaza support Hamas? Support the attacks on the innocent civilians of Israel? Protect Hamas's missiles with their bodies and blood? (as they love to chant "with our bodies and blood we will liberate all of palestine") Then? More will die.

    It's really the people of Gaza's choice. Flee, Fight, Surrender or Fight the Hamas in their midst...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do realize WiO that the notion that Hamas can be destroyed "totally" is a pipe dream don't you?

      On top of that the pounding of Gaza has increased support for Hamas, or so it appears. Could that actually be the wish, the plan, of Israeli policy makers? What could be gained, for Israel, by such a thing?

      Delete

    2. "On top of that the pounding of Gaza has increased support for Hamas, or so it appears."

      Actually, Ash, what appears to most of us normals is that Hamas summarily shoots those in Gaza who protest against Hamas.

      Delete
    3. AshWed Aug 20, 10:42:00 AM EDT
      You do realize WiO that the notion that Hamas can be destroyed "totally" is a pipe dream don't you?

      On top of that the pounding of Gaza has increased support for Hamas, or so it appears. Could that actually be the wish, the plan, of Israeli policy makers? What could be gained, for Israel, by such a thing?


      America defeated Nazi germany and Imperial Japan.

      It is possible to do that to Gaza.

      Delete
    4. Really!? Let me get this straight - you think that if Israel takes full control of Gaza it can build a society there like Germany or Japan?

      Delete
    5. I am saying the best way to solve the problem of Gaza is the complete and total destruction of Hamas. Then full and complete occupation of the Gaza Strip. That might take 50 years.


      Delete
    6. In your view do you think it would be possible to "totally destroy" Hamas without a complete occupation of Gaza. It would seem to me that Israel would have to completely occupy Gaza in order to have a chance of achieving the "total destruction of Hamas".

      If Israel should "completely occupy" Gaza what would the status of the people living there be? Would they become Israeli citizens with all the rights that accompany that? If not, what status would they have during this possible time period of 50 years?

      Delete
    7. The status of the people of Gaza?

      They would be citizens of "Occupied" Palestine.

      Delete
  4. Israel did not relent on the attacks upon the people of Gaza.
    Not for a single hour.

    The NASI never lifted the blockade.
    That blockade, that Israeli action which exemplifies the persistent Israeli aggression against the people of Palestine.
    Zionist aggression that is the root cause of the conflict.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Honest to God you do have a remarkable ability to pull bullshit out your ass, desert rat.

      Delete
    2. and yet it is EGYPT that destroyed over 1600 smuggling tunnels that led into the gaza strip..

      Zionist aggression= the refusal to bend over and take it up the ass from terrorists….

      It's a unfair situation now that Jews defend themselves against terror, life was so much more fun for Rat and his types when back in the good ole days they could rape and pillage without any resistance..

      How unfair that the Jews fight back…

      LOL


      "Zionist aggression that is the root cause of the conflict."

      LOL

      I guess history starts for rat and his ilk when it's convenient, let's just sweep under the rug the moslem arab's siding with the nazis of ww2, the Hebron murder and pogroms of the 1920's, the 600 years of Ottoman (Islamic) cruelty to the Jews, the 600 years before that of Islamic fascist rule over the Jews and of course, the Moslem arabs murderous treatment of the Jews of Medina.

      Death, conversion, dhimmi status was the choice SINCE 640 CE by the arabs…

      but you say "Zionist aggression that is the root cause of the conflict"

      LOL

      Nitwit

      Delete
  5. "samWed Aug 20, 12:47:00 AM EDT

    What did one saggy boob say to the other?
    Reply

    Replies






    QuirkWed Aug 20, 01:00:00 AM EDT

    .

    Pass me that Royal Coachman."



    LOL!!

    I gotta say Bob brings some, ummmmm, color to this place. What a piece of work he is. Like the classic racists of old who claim to have known a black person, or worked with one, or even, gasp, employed one or been friends with one is evidence that they aren't racist old boobie trots out the canard that posting an article from a Black writer at AM Thinker will be the negative proof of the assertion that he is a racist. hee hee, or that he'll email Deuce some pictures that will demonstrate he isn't a racist - I'm guessing they would be pictures of him and the "niece" who isn't a niece that he pants so salaciously over.

    That article he posted analyzing the fat black people of Ferguson was wrong on so many levels it is amusing the he would even consider posting it here, but, that is the beauty of Boobies and the rabbit holes they inhabit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why, that was almost creative, Ashole !

      Delete
    2. .

      .

      Obumble cannot resist the seductive lure of the perverse and the outre. Like the blind idiot god Cthulhu of the Lovelace Mythos, he sits for eternity in his fetid lair, dissolute and eremitic, aimlessly transcribing the degenerate and never-ending mewlings of the American Thinker, that illicit spawn of the tragic commingling of the Weekly World News, Sun Magazine, and Jadar, a mute, misanthropic, misogynist midget alien from the lost planet Crypto, a menage a trois' so evil, so iniquitous and depraved that is has been at times compared to the editorial page of the New York Times or even to a Paul Krugman puff piece.

      .

      Delete
    3. See there, Ash, that is how it is done.

      Take a lesson from a master, Master Quart.

      Very, very good, Quart !

      Delete
  6. Israel created Hamas in the exact same model as colonial powers always create insurgents underwhelmed by their occupier’s beneficence.
    Hamas is a consequence of Israeli arrogance and disdain for acceptable human behavior that they would not tolerate if inflicted on Jews.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you support Hamas's bombing of Israeli cities and civilians. If American Indians started to bomb your family would you feel the same way?

      Delete
  7. Name one colonial power that did not create an insurgency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I reject your pretense that Israel is a "colonial" power.

      Israel is the liberated homeland for the Jews. Regardless if you or your arab friends like it or not…

      Israel IS.

      Once again, you try to delegitimize the rights of Jews to self determination as expressed as their own nation. Sitting on 1/900th of the middle east.

      Do arabs have a right to 21 nations? And a 22nd called Palestine?

      If so why?

      They are not indigenous to most of the middle east.

      Most arab nations, or even the thought of nationalism, did not exist in 1890. India, Pakistan and others were created out of thin air…

      Why only the Jews have no rights to a homeland, when you yourself have one in America, stolen from the natives?

      The Jews have been in the area called today "israel" for thousands of years. The arabs? Only left Arabia in 640 CE and only AFTER they stole the land of the Jews…(medina)..

      Your argument that jews are not entitled to their own state when everyone else in the world is is specious and racist.

      Of course couple that with the well proven point that Israel, as Jewish Nation has freedom of religion for all faiths, including arabs who practice Islam. 20% of Israel is arab…

      You are correct however, the moslem arabs are a colonial power and the Jews, the druze, the kurds, the b'hai. the coptics, the arab christians are all fighting back now… an insurgency against arab moslems..

      They colonized the middle east in 640 ce…

      yep...

      Delete
    2. A colonial power is one from the outside. Israel is not a colonial power. Moreover, it has incontestable international legal standing via the Mandate of 1922. As a reminder, with two exceptions, the Arabs have rejected peace treaties and negotiated national borders and armistice lines (e,g,1949, 1967, or 1973) are not an internationally recognized national borders.

      Delete
    3. .

      A colonial power is one from the outside. Israel is not a colonial power. Moreover, it has incontestable international legal standing via the Mandate of 1922. i.



      :o)

      i. Chapter 38 pp 321-327 WiO and Allen's Alternate History of the Universe

      .

      Delete
    4. So Quirk, you are suggesting that Jews have no historic ties to the land? That there were not Jews living in the middle east seeking liberation from arabs, turks or brits?

      Please explain.

      Delete
    5. The UK acquired the Mandate from the Turks. Under title of international law it subdivided it as it saw fit. Part of that subdivision was the Mandate of 1922, specifically brought forward in 1947 under the UN partition plan. That the Arabs refused to comply did not nullify either the 1922 or 1947 law. As things now stand, armistice lines notwithstanding, the boundaries of the Jewish homeland remain set by the Mandate of 1922. See Quebec v. Dominion of Canada. Three border disputes in Africa were settled under the same process in the 90's. I could reference them but I won't do the work for idiots and anti-Semites.

      Delete
  8. AshWed Aug 20, 10:42:00 AM EDT
    You do realize WiO that the notion that Hamas can be destroyed "totally" is a pipe dream don't you?

    You do realize you're advocating appeasing fascist islamists?

    Ash, BEND over and take it up the ass…. Cause that's WHO you are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How is my suggesting that Israel can not fully destroy Hamas appeasing them? That is simply the reality of the situation and the many years Israel has spent trying to destroy Hamas is evidence that they can't. It is time for a new approach by Israel.

      Delete
    2. I agree the new approach should be trying to completely destroy them. Never been done before.

      You seem to think that the pinpricks that Israel has done to Hamas was trying to destroy them, no it was trying to knock them down a few pegs.

      Your lack of knowledge of the area shows.

      Hamas, the daughter group of the moslem brotherhood USED to get a great amount of support from Egypt, but times are a changing…

      Egypt now KILLS the moslem brotherhood and Hamas it finds in the sinai murdering and beheading folks…

      Egypt has destroyed 1600 tunnels and is stopping weapons that once easily passed into Gaza…

      The new approach?

      KILL or capture every Hamas member. Destroy every Hamas building. CUT off all UNRWA funds for Hamas employees (30,000).

      All the while the old approach of Israeli food, medicine, fuel and electricity should flow to the innocent civilians of Gaza.

      The cancer of Hamas (the same as ISIS) cannot be allowed to grow.

      Delete
    3. 'pin pricks' you call it? figures!

      Egypt's approach to the MB is interesting. No, they aren't killing them all, as you assert, for that would be mass murder. Rather they have a military dictatorship and have outlawed, as they had done before, the MB. Tough love for, what appears to be, the majority of their population.

      I presume you are onboard with allen's solution to these issues for your ideas conform:

      "nothing is going to change that short of tough love, forced labor, and reeducation."

      What a lovely society that brings to mind.

      Delete
    4. Egypt's approach to the MB is interesting. No, they aren't killing them all, as you assert, for that would be mass murder.




      Actually Deuce put up a thread that told of the killing of hundreds in one day…

      And if you would learn history you'd find that being a member of the Moslem Brotherhood did get you killed for decades inside of egypt.

      Delete
    5. Sure, some have been killed, but no, it isn't open season on killing any MB in sight.

      Delete
    6. Ask the moslem brotherhood that question..

      Al queda is the moslem brotherhood.

      ISIS is the moslem brotherhood...

      Delete
    7. You are displaying your lack of knowledge and propensity for propaganda.

      Delete
  9. Ash: "On top of that the pounding of Gaza has increased support for Hamas:


    Ash, Hamas launched attacks into Israel, on jerusalem, tel aviv, it's international airport and it's natural gas platform.

    These are acts of war. They launched them 6 hours before a mutually agreed upon cease fire. This is the 11th cease fire they have violated.

    War sucks. But Hamas wants the war because it wants to murder JEWS.

    Sorry if israel taking out hamas saddens you.

    But it is going to be much worse before it gets better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      A blockade is an act of war.

      .

      Delete
    2. A blockade is also and act of war. Hamas has refused to cave to Israeli demands and Israel has refused to cave to Hamas demands. Yes "War sucks" and it is sad but also interesting to see how this plays out. I fail to see a good end game for either side in this dispute. Israel has far more military power than their opponent yet war still sucks for Israelis too. It is easy for you to sit in your armchair in Ohio and preach your hatred while others suffer and die pursuing your cause.

      Delete
    3. QuirkWed Aug 20, 12:35:00 PM EDT
      .

      A blockade is an act of war.


      Not is the case of Gaza. Gaza is not an internationally recognized country. Both Egypt and Israel regulate the attempted flow of contraband into an openly hostile territory. Both countries have been attacked by an internationally recognized terrorist organization, Hamas. Hamas and the organizations from which it sprang have been driven out of nearly every Arab country in the region.

      Delete
    4. A blockade is an act of war.


      The blockade was the RESULT of Hamas's war.

      Remember israel handed over the strip to the Fatah? There was no blockade.

      The blockades of the Gaza Strip refers to a land, air, and sea blockade on the Gaza Strip by Egypt and Israel from 2007 to present. After the 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip by Israel, in 2006, Hamas won the Palestinian legislative election, triggering the 2006–07 economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority by Israel and the Quartet on the Middle East. In March 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed a Palestinian authority national unity government headed by Ismail Haniya. Shortly after, in June, Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in the course of the Battle of Gaza,[1] seizing government institutions and replacing Fatah and other government officials with its own.[2] Following the takeover, Egypt and Israel largely sealed their border crossings with Gaza, on the grounds that Fatah had fled and was no longer providing security on the Palestinian side.[3]


      Hamas is ISIS

      Delete
    5. You guys and spit and moan about blockades being and act of war or not the fact is Israel and.....Hamas? are at war. Israel is waging a lopsided war now yet, still, for Israel and others. "War Sucks".

      Delete
    6. .

      You are of course right, Ash. On the one hand, WiO talks of 'acts of war' generated on the Hamas side while on the other our legalistic solipsist, Allen says you can't have an act of war against Hamas since Palestine is not a state.

      Mere obfuscation. Either that or the boys lack the mental acuity to discern the difference between definition and meaning. In this case their definitions appear to be situational, either through intent or through ignorance.

      .

      Delete
    7. hmmmm, good point Q. If a blockade on Gaza is not an act of war because Gaza is not a "internationally recognized" country then Gaza, not being an "internationally recognized" country cannot commit an act of war.

      hmmmm....





      .... I guess it is just like the "War on Drugs". Good luck winning that one boyz!

      Delete
    8. What's a "lopsided" war mean?

      Is that some kind of philosophy?

      Delete
    9. Quart, you are so much more intelligent than Ash. Why are you hanging out him?

      I worry you are beginning to lower yourself so.

      Delete
    10. Quart take it either way.

      Hamas is a terror organization, the same as ISIS that has seized an area to operate out of.

      The MOMENT it joined the UNITY government of the PA? It became a government.

      Either way, Hamas is dedicated to murder Jews.

      Are you listening?

      Murder jews. It's what they are committed too.

      Now to me? That is a crime all it's own.

      They don't have to like me, they can even hate me, but to be dedicated to the murder of my self and children?

      That warrants a death sentence to them

      Delete
    11. Lopsided as in Israel has a much stronger military force than the Palestinians and kill many more folk than 'they' lose. Yet Israel can't seem to win the lop sided war. It seems there is more to it than just shooting fish in a barrel hoping the fish will learn to become good 'Indians" (see boobies post below).

      Delete
  10. But the 109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States at that time.

    When those receiving benefits from non-means-tested federal programs — such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and veterans benefits — were added to those taking welfare benefits, it turned out that 153,323,000 people were getting federal benefits of some type at the end of 2012.


    lol

    Welcome to Looterville, USA

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bob OreilleWed Aug 20, 03:56:00 AM EDT

    “During the nearly seven minute clip, he asserted that the unrest was being fueled by people from outside the community. But in the next breath he suggested Al Sharpton ask those who are rioting and looting: What exactly is it that you want? What is the message that you’re trying to get across? We’re willing to listen, just tell us what it is.

    I thought this was a misguided idea.”

    Even a reasonably intelligent person knows the sort of puke the savages will spew. Dr. Carson is not reasonably intelligent, he is a genius. Carson knows that when the ignorant, PC, bigots start informing the viewing audience of the lies they learned in kindergarten their cause is doomed. It’s really childishly simple: there is no rational correlation between their raids into the territory of hard working capitalists and the killing of a gang enforcer. The more they talk and the more animated they become with stories of life on the plantation, the more barbarically dissociated from reality they will appear. The viewing audience will become revolted, enraged, or dismissive – all of which will serve to motivate the Conservative base to put these hateful monsters down, once for all. Carson knows that focusing light on these vermin will kill the myths that have led to the entitlement delusions that have cost America dearly. In short, the public will finally see that the racial hatred and its corresponding false narrative cannot be remediated by well-meaning, misplaced sympathy and never ending entitlements. Michael Brown’s homies hate us and nothing is going to change that short of tough love, forced labor, and reeducation.
    For the fun of it, a board certified neurosurgeon might have something to say about autopsies other than, “Da boy be shot six times.”

    Dr. Carson knows that facing off against a semi-literate fool such as Sharpton, no holds barred, is the first step to his journey to the White House or to the chair of the President of the Senate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh my, allen is advocating the Israeli solution to America's 'black' problem:

      "...nothing is going to change that short of tough love, forced labor, and reeducation."

      Yet another example of his broken moral compass.

      Delete
    2. and, as WiO being to the 'right' of allen, notes below - he'd prefer to simply kill them or expel the. What a pair!

      Delete
    3. Killing mass murderers is such a terrible thing…

      Ash do you have no survival instinct?

      Delete
    4. oh you mean like that mass murdereing wife and child of the Hamas muckity muck who's home just got blasted with them in it. Gotcha!

      Delete
  12. Ash
    Hamas has refused to cave to Israeli demands and Israel has refused to cave to Hamas demands.


    Hamas demands that israel kill itself and all it's citizens.


    ASH: It is easy for you to sit in your armchair in Ohio and preach your hatred while others suffer and die pursuing your cause.

    My "hatred" is for a political group that advocates the genocide of all Jews. So sorry if I don't want to take it up the ass like you do by those islamic nazis you seem to love so much…

    Oh, At last check I thought I was supposed to be in Israel according to the 3 stooges of the bar...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, no, to the best of my knowledge the main demand in the current negotiations is that the blockade be lifted. There are others but, no, they are not calling for Israel to kill itself. Israel is demanding that all Palestinians be "disarmed". Not gonna happen.

      Delete
    2. your knowledge sucks.

      they want the ability to import more lethal weapons.

      what part of committed to the genocide of the Jews do you not understand?

      were you dropped on the head as a child?

      The only reason there is a blockade is that hamas is importing weapons of war to murder jews with….

      Delete
    3. They also want to import and export things like FOOD.

      Delete
  13. Ash, question for you, seriously, are you not an occupying colonial person living on another's land in Canada?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All of us in North America have expropriated the lands from the native Indians. With the remaining ones, especially in Canada, we are trying to make amends. Does this fact mean that Israel should expropriate the lands they desire in the Middle East? No, not in my opinion. How, in yours, does it justify the Israelis taking of lands over there? As I've pointed out to you, on numerous occasions on various areas where you've used this argument the childhood adage still applies:

      Two wrongs don't make a right.

      Delete
    2. I compare the israelis to the indians.

      what right does the arab world have to 899/900th of the middle east?

      Delete
  14. AshWed Aug 20, 12:56:00 PM EDT
    'pin pricks' you call it? figures!


    Surely you'd admit that Russia in Chechnya, America in Japan, Britain in Dresden etc are all not described as "pin pricks"?

    Now the total killed in all IDF attacks on the Gaza strip don't equal to 1/100th of the dead America caused in Iraq, Japan Vietnam or Germany..

    So yeah, pin pricks sounds about right..

    BTW Syria has killed over 180 thousand so far in 36 months…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. ASH: I presume you are onboard with allen's solution to these issues for your ideas conform:

      "nothing is going to change that short of tough love, forced labor, and reeducation."

      Dont "assume" or presume anything.

      I advocate the killing or capture of all Hamas members. period.

      Delete
    2. I might be disposed to exiling the Hamas captives to Canada….

      Delete
    3. ah, as usual, you are always to the 'right' of allen - just kill the buggers, or expel them as opposed to putting them in forced labor camps for re-education. Sweeeet!

      Delete
    4. No exile them to canada. They would make great dating material for your daughter and wife...

      Delete
  15. ,iI reject your pretense that Israel is a “colonial” power.

    Israel is the liberated homeland for the Jews. Regardless if you or your arab friends like it or not…


    All colonialists base their claim on higher moral authority.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A colonialist wouldn't say:

      "nothing is going to change that short of tough love, forced labor, and reeducation."

      would they? We can't let the heathen run amok!

      Delete
    2. .

      What is "Occupation"Wed Aug 20, 02:34:00 PM EDT

      So Quirk, you are suggesting that Jews have no historic ties to the land? That there were not Jews living in the middle east seeking liberation from arabs, turks or brits?

      Please explain.



      Here, you are responding to my post commenting on Allen's assertions,

      QuirkWed Aug 20, 01:52:00 PM EDT

      Allen: A colonial power is one from the outside. Israel is not a colonial power. Moreover, it has incontestable international legal standing via the Mandate of 1922. i.


      Quirk:

      :o)

      i. Chapter 38 pp 321-327 WiO and Allen's Alternate History of the Universe



      Actually, my comment was primarily aimed at Allen's comment regarding Israel having incontestable international legal standing via the Mandate of 1922. However, wrt your comment,

      Of course, I am not suggesting Jews have no historic ties to the land. (However, as you know, I have argued against the idea that Jews have an intrinsic 'right' to the land of Israel solely on the basis of it being their historic homeland. History and common sense argue against the latter. The idea is as illogical as that the Big Guy actually promised it to them.)

      With regard to your actual point, which I assume is that because there were some Jews in Palestine all along, the current population of Israelis can't be considered an occupying power as they control the West Bank and Gaza, IMO, it is an unsustainable proposition.

      First, from the beginning, the Jews were a minority population in Palestine. At the beginning of the Mandate period, they only made up about 10% of the population. By 1948, they had grown to about a third of the population, for the most part through immigration from Europe. Today, with the forced expulsion of Arab populations and additional Jewish immigration they make up about half the people in the land made up of Israel proper, Gaza, and the WB. As I've said before regarding the population levels at the time of the mandate, having someone stand in line and hold your spot might work on Black Friday at Best Buy but it doesn't when trying to form a country.

      Second, the initial push for a Jewish homeland didn't come from Jews residing in Palestine but rather from Zionists residing in Europe. Likewise. the rise in population of Israelis leading up to 1948 came through immigration from the West.

      Third, look up the Hague Regulation and the Geneva conventions regarding this subject.

      Fourth, "If it looks like an occupation, and it struts like an occupation, it probably is an occupation." 1/


      1/ p. 96 The Tao of Quirk

      .

      Delete
  16. I had to share this with my buds at the Belmont but I'm sure a few here will appreciate the Onion's take:

    "Tips For Being An Unarmed Black Teen

    With riots raging in Ferguson, MO following the shooting death by police of an unarmed African-American youth, the nation has turned its eyes toward social injustice and the continuing crisis of race relations. Here are The Onion’s tips for being an unarmed black teen in America:

    •Shy away from dangerous, heavily policed areas.
    •Avoid swaggering or any other confident behavior that suggests you are not completely subjugated.
    •Be sure not to pick up any object that could be perceived by a police officer as a firearm, such as a cell phone, a food item, or nothing.
    •Explain in clear and logical terms that you do not enjoy being shot, and would prefer that it not happen.
    •Don’t let society stereotype you as a petty criminal. Remember that you can be seen as so much more, from an armed robbery suspect, to a rape suspect, to a murder suspect.
    •Try to see it from a police officer’s point of view: You may be unarmed, but you’re also black.
    •Avoid wearing clothing associated with the gang lifestyle, such as shirts and pants.
    •Revel in the fact that by simply existing, you exert a threatening presence over the nation’s police force.
    •Be as polite and straightforward as possible when police officers are kicking the shit out of you.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/tips-for-being-an-unarmed-black-teen,36697/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Suppose that a man leaps out of a burning building—as my dear friend and colleague Jeff Goldberg sat and said to my face over a table at La Tomate in Washington not two years ago—and lands on a bystander in the street below. Now, make the burning building be Europe, and the luckless man underneath be the Palestinian Arabs. Is this a historical injustice? Has the man below been made a victim, with infinite cause of complaint and indefinite justification for violent retaliation? My own reply would be a provisional 'no,' but only on these conditions. The man leaping from the burning building must still make such restitution as he can to the man who broke his fall, and must not pretend that he never even landed on him. And he must base his case on the singularity and uniqueness of the original leap. It can't, in other words, be 'leap, leap, leap' for four generations and more. The people underneath cannot be expected to tolerate leaping on this scale and of this duration, if you catch my drift. In Palestine, tread softly, for you tread on their dreams. And do not tell the Palestinians that they were never fallen upon and bruised in the first place. Do not shame yourself with the cheap lie that they were told by their leaders to run away. Also, stop saying that nobody knew how to cultivate oranges in Jaffa until the Jews showed them how. 'Making the desert bloom'—one of Yvonne's stock phrases—makes desert dwellers out of people who were the agricultural superiors of the Crusaders.”
      ― Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22: A Memoir

      Delete
    2. There were Jews in the middle east before the holocaust.

      learn history

      Delete
  17. Some colonial powers have, at times and to an unprejudiced eye, actually done more good than ill.

    The English in India come to my unprejudiced mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I am NOT saying Israel is a colonial power, an absurd proposition.

      They are in the situation they are for winning their defensive wars.

      Delete
    2. .

      The English in India come to my unprejudiced mind.

      Your reading list reflects your 'unprejudiced mind'.

      .

      Delete
    3. .

      They are in the situation they are for winning their defensive wars.

      Then why not can the bullshit and 'declare' the occupied territories as part of Israel just as Russia took over Crimea?

      .

      Delete
    4. .

      The same applies to the bullshit you guys throw around about the US taking this land from the natives. We did it. No one denies we did it.

      Russia took over Crimea. They did it. They are not denying they did it or that it is done. They are also living with the consequences.

      Cut the kabuki. Absorb the rest of Palestine, not in dribbles and drips as is happening right now. Do it all at once. And live with the consequences.

      But as we all know that is unlikely to happen.

      .

      Delete
    5. They would take it all but there is the pesky problem of all those 'non-jews' living there. They are, Israelis, basically, a decent people and, unlike our pal WiO, hesitant about going all in with ethnic cleansing to keep the dream of Israel the Jewish State alive. They are trapped on the horns of a dilemma. Ariel Sharon recognized this, chose the Israel as a Jewish State horn, and gave up the dream of Eretz Israel. Bibi seems intent on trying to square the circle and lay upon both horns.

      Delete
    6. Ash. I have not advocated ethnic cleansing. Taking out Hamas is not the same issue. Why do u lie?

      Delete
    7. AshWed Aug 20, 04:26:00 PM EDT
      They would take it all but there is the pesky problem of all those 'non-jews' living there.

      ASH, Israel is already 20% Non-jewish.

      Pull your head out of your ass

      Delete
    8. Sure you have. As a practical matter how would you determine a Hamas person from a Palestinian in order to deport the correct one?

      Delete


    9. “I went to interview some of these early Jewish colonial zealots—written off in those days as mere 'fringe' elements—and found that they called themselves Gush Emunim or—it sounded just as bad in English—'The Bloc of the Faithful.' Why not just say 'Party of God' and have done with it? At least they didn't have the nerve to say that they stole other people's land because their own home in Poland or Belarus had been taken from them. They said they took the land because god had given it to them from time immemorial. In the noisome town of Hebron, where all of life is focused on a supposedly sacred boneyard in a dank local cave, one of the world's less pretty sights is that of supposed yeshivah students toting submachine guns and humbling the Arab inhabitants. When I asked one of these charmers where he got his legal authority to be a squatter, he flung his hand, index finger outstretched, toward the sky.”

      ― Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22: A Memoir

      Delete
    10. AshWed Aug 20, 05:31:00 PM EDT
      Sure you have. As a practical matter how would you determine a Hamas person from a Palestinian in order to deport the correct one?

      How does the Canadian government?

      You seem to be getting dumber and dumber by the day.

      I guess you never heard of "intel"?

      Or let's start with the ones that self identify…

      Delete
  18. Police sources to NYT: Witnesses, forensics prove Wilson sustained an injury during his confrontation with Michael Brown
    posted at 11:21 am on August 20, 2014 by Allahpundit

    Kind of an important detail, yet buried 21 paragraphs deep. They’re not as specific as Jim Hoft was yesterday in alleging that Wilson’s eye was busted — the type of injury is unspecified here — but this is the first evidence I know of reported in a major paper that Brown might have been physically aggressive towards Wilson.

    Er, why didn’t the Times think to ask its sources, “What kind of injury?” Or did they and received a “no comment” in reply? Police might want to keep that detail a secret to see if witnesses will independently corroborate it. I.e. if it’s his eye and a witness claims he saw Brown punch Wilson in the face, they know that witness is likely credible.

    However, law enforcement officials say witnesses and forensic analysis have shown that Officer Wilson did sustain an injury during the struggle in the car…

    “It was something strange,” said [eyewitness Michael] Brady, 32, a janitor. “Something was not right. It was some kind of altercation. I can’t say whether he was punching the officer or whatever. But something was going on in that window, and it didn’t look right.”…

    According to his account to the Ferguson police, Officer Wilson said that Mr. Brown had lowered his arms and moved toward him, law enforcement officials said. Fearing that the teenager was going to attack him, the officer decided to use deadly force. Some witnesses have backed up that account. Others, however — including [Brown's friend Dorian] Johnson — have said that Mr. Brown did not move toward the officer before the final shots were fired…

    The F.B.I., Mr. Bosley said, pressed Mr. Johnson to say how high Mr. Brown’s hands were. Mr. Johnson said that his hands were not that high, and that one was lower than the other, because he appeared to be “favoring it,” the lawyer said.

    Brady says he’s been interviewed by local police but not by the FBI yet. Huh. The Times also stresses that several witnesses say that when Brown stopped running from Wilson and turned back to face him, he did put his hands up. Whether he then lowered them and advanced on Wilson, as Wilson claims, or stayed put in surrender mode is in dispute.

    Another interesting tidbit from the Times: Supposedly “many” witnesses have told cops that Wilson’s gun went off while he was still in the car arguing with Brown, which apparently caused Brown to start running. Why the gun went off will be a hot topic at trial, needless to say. It’s possible, I guess, that Wilson fired it deliberately, to intimidate Brown, but … why on earth would he do that? There are lots of ways a cop can intimidate you without blowing a hole in his own squad car or risking a ricochet. It’s more likely that the gun went off accidentally. How come? Did Brown grab for it when Wilson had it holstered? Or did Wilson have the gun out to intimidate Brown when it went off, either through Wilson’s own carelessness or because Brown grabbed at it himself? The defense is going to argue that Wilson’s fear of death or severe bodily harm was reasonable; it’s hard to make that argument based on Brown’s size alone given that Wilson was armed and Brown wasn’t, but if they can show that Brown had already tried to take a deadly weapon from Wilson and obviously had the strength to succeed on a second attempt, the argument is easier. And if they can show on top of that that Brown had already evinced an intent to harm Wilson by injuring him somehow, it’s easier still. Kind of a big deal here. Why’d it take 21 paragraphs to get to it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. boobie, why don't you actually go to the NYTimes and READ the article instead of getting it filtered through allahpundit?

      Delete
    2. .

      It's not on his reading list.

      :o)


      .

      Delete
    3. .

      On a more serious note, I haven't really been following the Ferguson events that closely. My real interest was sparked when the issue of the militarization of the police was raised. However, it's hard to get away from the story and today I saw a video of the Governor, Nixon, demanding an 'aggressive prosecution' of the police officer.

      My immediate response was 'who the hell does this jerk think he is'? There isn't even an indictment yet and Nixon has the cop convicted. Where do they get these looney toons?

      .

      Delete
    4. politicians - they lick their finger and stick it up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing and off they go, pandering to the popular sentiment.

      I, too, haven't paid much attention. My initial reaction was that it would be unlikely a cop would simply shoot a surrendering individual in cold blood even if he was black. That NYTimes article on the various accounts of the incident was interesting.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?hpw&rref=us&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpHedThumbWell&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

      What interests me, more than the militarized police issue, is the still simmering black/white divide in America and all the bad blood that still exists.

      Delete
    5. There is something to the story that the very presence of police in military props sends a very strong message. That is the idea. I am sure the Fergusen police department bought into the iconography when it was demonstrated to them on how “the terrorists” view it in Israel and picked up all the props on the cheap from the Pentagon.

      The problem is that the “the terrorist threat” was fictionalized and exagerated by the Congaline but the Hoods and near-Hoods were not. When the artillery rolled in, they got it. It did what it was supposed to do but to the wrong effect. Instead of intimidating, it antagonized and made good cop/bad cop, real bad cop.

      Delete
    6. Your comment reminded me of this article Deuce:

      "The Nine Commandments of policing – which Ferguson police forgot

      A week ago in Ferguson, Missouri, a young, black man named Michael Brown was shot and killed by the police. We don’t know much about what happened, or whether his death was justified, a mistake or an accident – or something worse. To many in Ferguson and across the continent, it looked like another example of police overreacting, over-policing and killing someone for no good reason. We don’t know that, at least not yet. What happened that night is still unclear; an investigation and someday probably a trial will settle it.

      But we know what happened over the following days and nights in Ferguson. None of it was in the heat of the moment. It was all carefully considered and it’s all on camera. It plays like an Oscar-worthy documentary on everything policing is not supposed to be.

      The police caught on camera in Ferguson earlier this week, calmly running amok, were absurdly well-armed – but almost entirely untrained in how to be police officers. They weren’t upholding the peace or protecting citizens. No, quite the opposite.

      Faced with a small, peaceful protest against an alleged case of police using excessive and unnecessary force, police responded with… excessive and unnecessary force. SWAT teams were called in. Armoured vehicles were hurried to the scene. Officers in full body armour, anonymous behind black gas masks, used tear gas and flash-bang grenades to clear the streets. Reporters were arrested for doing their jobs. At least one local alderman, too. The Internet is overflowing with images of officers pointing guns at unarmed civilians; on Wednesday, one of the armoured vehicles had a sniper on its roof, carefully aiming through his scope at demonstrators on the other side of the street.

      Yes, over several nights of protest, there had been some looting and violence – but the police displays of force were almost entirely directed at people lawfully exercising constitutionally protected rights.

      On Thursday, with the situation spinning out of control, the Governor finally yanked responsibility away from local police, putting it in the hands of Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri Highway Patrol. Capt. Johnson took a different approach. There were no gas masks and no armoured vehicles. Police walked into the crowds and mingled. People took selfies with cops. The police no longer saw their job as stopping the protests; they were instead there to assist citizens in doing something that is their right, namely protesting. Imagine that.

      What are the police for? In 1829, the first modern police force was created in London by home secretary Sir Robert Peel. It is the precursor to and model for all police forces in Canada and the United States. London’s Metropolitan Police Force was founded on a philosophy that came to be known as Robert Peel’s Nine Principles of Policing. Nearly 200 years on, there is no clearer statement of what policing in a democratic society is supposed to be about.


      Delete
    7. 1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

      2. To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

      3. To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

      4. To recognize always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

      5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

      6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

      7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

      8. To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the state, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

      9. To recognize always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

      The militarization of the police, in material and more importantly mindset, is not solely an American phenomenon. We see it in Canada too. Some police and police chiefs well remember Peel’s nine commandments; many do not. There are painful Canadian examples of policing gone awry, from Dziekanski to the Toronto G20. As in Ferguson, these cases of officers overreacting and resorting to force, force and more force grew out of something deeper: police forgetting their principles – and in the process, forgetting how to do their jobs.

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-nine-commandments-of-policing-and-how-ferguson-police-forgot-them/article20076106/#dashboard/follows/

      Delete
  19. “Long before it was known to me as a place where my ancestry was even remotely involved, the idea of a state for Jews (or a Jewish state; not quite the same thing, as I failed at first to see) had been ‘sold’ to me as an essentially secular and democratic one. The idea was a haven for the persecuted and the survivors, a democracy in a region where the idea was poorly understood, and a place where—as Philip Roth had put it in a one-handed novel that I read when I was about nineteen—even the traffic cops and soldiers were Jews. This, like the other emphases of that novel, I could grasp. Indeed, my first visit was sponsored by a group in London called the Friends of Israel.
    They offered to pay my expenses, that is, if on my return I would come and speak to one of their meetings.

    I still haven't submitted that expenses claim. The misgivings I had were of two types, both of them ineradicable. The first and the simplest was the encounter with everyday injustice: by all means the traffic cops were Jews but so, it turned out, were the colonists and ethnic cleansers and even the torturers. It was Jewish leftist friends who insisted that I go and see towns and villages under occupation, and sit down with Palestinian Arabs who were living under house arrest—if they were lucky—or who were squatting in the ruins of their demolished homes if they were less fortunate. In Ramallah I spent the day with the beguiling Raimonda Tawil, confined to her home for committing no known crime save that of expressing her opinions. (For some reason, what I most remember is a sudden exclamation from her very restrained and respectable husband, a manager of the local bank: 'I would prefer living under a Bedouin muktar to another day of Israeli rule!' He had obviously spent some time thinking about the most revolting possible Arab alternative.) In Jerusalem I visited the Tutungi family, who could produce title deeds going back generations but who were being evicted from their apartment in the old city to make way for an expansion of the Jewish quarter. Jerusalem: that place of blood since remote antiquity. Jerusalem, over which the British and French and Russians had fought a foul war in the Crimea, and in the mid-nineteenth century, on the matter of which Christian Church could command the keys to some 'holy sepulcher.' Jerusalem, where the anti-Semite Balfour had tried to bribe the Jews with the territory of another people in order to seduce them from Bolshevism and continue the diplomacy of the Great War. Jerusalem: that pest-house in whose environs all zealots hope that an even greater and final war can be provoked. It certainly made a warped appeal to my sense of history.”
    ― Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22: A Memoir

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, that's deep… So has Hitchens EVER said a positive word about the Jewish State?

      Nope…

      Great source…

      Try quoting Hitler next time...

      Delete
  20. A senior Hamas official admitted for the first time on Wednesday that the organization's armed wing, the Qassam Brigades, was behind the kidnapping and murder of Israeli teens Nafatli Fraenkel, Gil-Ad Shaer and Eyal Yifrah in the West Bank in June.

    The Hamas official, Salah al-Aruri made the comments during a conference of Islamic clerics in Turkey. He praised the "heroic action of the Qassam Brigades who kidnapped three settlers in Hebron."


    So Rat can now apologize for calling it an Israeli false flag… Saying how Israelis would kill their own….

    Yep the truth comes out and it shows rat is a despicable liar….

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And hopefully soon?

      Salah al-Aruri will be dead.

      Delete
  21. A blockade is an act of war.....

    So in 1967 the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Titran cutting off Israel was an act of war....

    Only took u assholes 4 years to admit it,

    ReplyDelete
  22. QuirkWed Aug 20, 05:46:00 PM EDT

    .

    On a more serious note, I haven't really been following the Ferguson events that closely.

    ........................

    BWABWABWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!! !!!! !!!!!

    If that hasn't been obvious for a long time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And not just the Ferguson Affair either.

    hoot hoot hooooooooooooooooooot

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just read my posts, Quart, I'll keep you to speed.

      And you can keep sucking on the quart, Quart.

      Start with this:

      Missouri cop was badly beaten before shooting Michael Brown, says source

      By Hollie McKay
      Published August 20, 2014
      FoxNews.com


      <<<>>>Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com.

      “The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all swollen on one side,” said the insider. “He was beaten very severely.”

      According to the well-placed source, Wilson was coming off another case in the neighborhood on Aug. 9 when he ordered Michael Brown and his friend Dorain Johnson to stop walking in the middle of the road because they were obstructing traffic. However, the confrontation quickly escalated into physical violence, the source said..

      “They ignored him and the officer started to get out of the car to tell them to move," the source said. "They shoved him right back in, that’s when Michael Brown leans in and starts beating Officer Wilson in the head and the face.

      The source claims that there is "solid proof" that there was a struggle between Brown and Wilson for the policeman’s firearm, resulting in the gun going off – although it still remains unclear at this stage who pulled the trigger. Brown started to walk away according to the account, prompting Wilson to draw his gun and order him to freeze. Brown, the source said, raised his hands in the air, and turned around saying, "What, you're going to shoot me?"

      At that point, the source told FoxNews.com, the 6 foot, 4 inch, 292-pound Brown charged Wilson, prompting the officer to fire at least six shots at him, including the fatal bullet that penetrated the top of Brown's skull, according to an independent autopsy conducted at the request of Brown's family.<<<>>>

      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/

      If you will share with your fellow ignoramuses, we can have a beginners class !

      Question: Do want to try to read the longer articles like this one for yourself, or do you wish teach to provide a synopsis?

      Delete
    2. (Note: Nothing has been proven yet......the case is wide open)

      Delete
    3. Another Snap Reading Assignment (SRA) for Quart and class:

      http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/20/fox-news-source-wilson-was-beaten-very-severely-before-shooting-michael-brown/

      Delete
  23. Foley's death came despite repeated pleas from his family, friends and employer to find the 40-year-old New Hampshire man and return him to safety.

    ...

    The Pentagon said the unsuccesseful rescue attempt involved air and ground components.

    "As we have said repeatedly, the United States government is committed to the safety and well-being of its citizens, particularly those suffering in captivity,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said in a statement. “In this case, we put the best of the United States military in harms' way to try and bring our citizens home.”

    ReplyDelete
  24. No Incident Report has, yet, been made public.

    No Hospital Report on the Officer's supposed "wounds" has been made public.

    No witness has, yet, stepped forward to contradict, In Public, the words of the 3 Witnesses that said the teenager was standing with his hands in the air.

    This "should" have the effect of sparking very strong voter registration, and, even more important, "Get Out The Vote" drives for the next municipal election - not just in Ferguson, but all over St. Louis Co.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, and the private autopsy showed No wounds on the boy's hands, indicating a struggle (or a blow had enough to fracture the cop's orbital socket bone.)

      Delete
    2. Megyn Kelly is reporting an autopsy (which one? I think the county one) showed there was a laceration on one hand of the young black man. There is talk of the police officer's gun being discharged during a struggle over the gun while the officer was in the patrol car as a possible cause.

      Delete
  25. .

    ...or do you wish teach to provide a synopsis?

    Are you nutz? I've seen your 'capacity' to read and understand a story manifest here over the past couple days. No thanks. If you have something to post merely post a few lines of it with a link to the entire story. I probably won't read it since as I mentioned I am not that interested in i,t but someone else might want to look at it.

    But, please, nothing from the American Thinker. I think we have all had enough of your racist garbage.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ;)

      American Thinker is hardly a racist site.

      The points Rufus makes above are honest ones:

      The case is still wide open......

      Delete
    2. Quart, you won't, for instance, find crap like this on American Thinker, search as you may:

      <<<>>> Jack HawkinsFri Jul 18, 12:36:00 AM EDT

      I mean, you are an Israeli, and there is nothing worse than that.

      In all the world, the Arabs of Israel are the scum.

      Now if you were a European, well thatd be different, but Israelis are all Arabs, Semites.
      Scum of the Earth

      ;-)

      Have a nightmare tonight and a shitty tomorrow,
      QuirkFri Jul 18, 01:13:00 AM EDT

      .

      And the voice of the rat is heard in the land.

      And the world once again cringes.<<<>>>

      ;)

      This is not a criticism of Deuce. It is a defense of American Thinker. AT doesn't go to the extremes of allowing wide open free speech as is normally practiced here.

      Delete
  26. Item cited just now on the O'Reilly Factor -

    In the whole history of Ferguson, Missouri there has been exactly one police shooting that resulted in death, the current one.

    IF this is true it is hard to think the Ferguson Police Department as a racist group.

    ReplyDelete
  27. WiO,

    You are a paragon of patience. Your efforts at teaching the methods of the Cordon Bleu to cannibals might seem commendable, but the butt naked natives can never get past drinking the wine.

    ReplyDelete