When Fredâs database crashed last night, I desperately âGoogledâ Rantburg in search of my suddenly elusive favorite source of news. In the process I found this little gem of an editorial by some quivering moonbat named Brad Stroud. I wonât ruin the fun of reading it for you other than to mention that a) he uses the word âfascistâ in reference to all of us some six times in five paragraphs b) .com is the most fascist fascist of us all.
(snip)
Donât misunderstand me. If you read the comments stimulated by an article posted at Rantburg.com, youâd find about 75% being racist, hateful crap. Those are easy to dismiss mostly because they are short, stupid, hateful comments. Those are not the ones, however, that send a chill down my spine: It is the ones that kind of make sense. It is the ones that have a violent, militant, unrelenting logic to them that have gripped my attention. Why? Because I do not doubt that these are the kinds of people prepared to reinvent America as a form of fascism in the service of preserving its âfreedomâ against the âIslamo-fascistsâ. Yes. Here one can watch the forming of opinions and the making of arguments - arguments that need to be criticized and destroyed.
#6
He's just trying to drum up a few more clicks on his site meter. I'm guessing he only gets those 100 visitors who listen to Air America and were at Camp Casey signing books.
hey Willow of Truth, bending in the wind...how do you feel about the Dem's new make-over? They are all for the war now. And even your beloved Howard Dean is now a "Neo-con".
In that spirit, I posit a challenge to those who have even a few minutes to spare to offer to âRantburg: Civil and Well Reasoned Discourseâ. Perhaps there really is some civility and reason to be had here but just in case, I implore you all to offer precisely that to Rantburg. Offer up good solid articles or your own articles or just respond - reasonably - to the ones already posted. Then defend your views against the snipes from the subterraneans whose willtoignorance illuminates the meaning of exercising ones willtotruth. Do so in the name of confronting racism if nothing else.
Take a shot at it.
Tell me about your encounters. Forward them even, as a comment and perhaps we can then have some civil and reasoned discourse on the meaning and value of the discourse at Rantburg.
BMS
And his loyal reader Jez replies:
jez Says:
November 18th, 2005 at 11:01 am
A lot of bollox there, as should be expected. A few ready-made ad hominems too, which look like they were copied and pasted from some âhow to bash a liberalâ website or someth.(sic)M/blockquote>
copied and pasted ad hominems? At the 'burg? I don't think so.
Stop by Brad's and leave something. Tell us about your encounters. Forward them even, as a comment. lol.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2005 12:09 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I'm buttoning up my digital brownshirt even as we speak post, Muck.
#11
Oh little liberal, fear any opposing viewpoint and simply dismiss them as invalid. Shy away from open dialogue and let your listener know only your argument. For if you let the conservative viewpoint into your space, it will rally your followers to it.
#13
youâd find about 75% being racist, hateful crap
Come on people, you're not trying hard enough! We've got a reputation to live up to. I want more crap, or else!
Posted by: Steve ||
11/30/2005 12:31 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Offer up good solid articles or your own articles or just respond - reasonably - to the ones already posted.
In this case, 'good' is in the eye of the beholder, rather than in the eyes of potential readers. And simply regurgitating anti-war talking-points is not responding reasonably. The nym 'willtotruth' kinda sez it all: arrogant, myopic, and well... fascist.
#15
the snipes from the subterraneans whose willtoignorance illuminates the meaning of exercising ones willtotruth
I don't think he means me specifically, but thanks for the compliment. Excuse me now, I have to get back to my fascist war mongering and drinking the blood of live babies.
#18
He's just trying to drum up a few more clicks on his site meter. I'm guessing he only gets those 100 visitors who listen to Air America and were at Camp Casey signing books.
I'd f*ckin' kill for a hundred visitors. Hell, I'd kill for just five ;o)
#19
Brad aka Willtotruth came for a visit and apparently tossed his cookies after his first visit. What would you expect? Anyone who would call the majority of us fascists and racists must have a pretty delicate disposition. He needs a dose of the real world. I recommend a tour:
Compare and contrast: American agriculture and housing vs. Zim-Bob's. Arlington National Cemetery vs. Saddam's mass graves. Self-guided tour of Washington, DC vs. self-guided tour of Pyongyang. Gitmo vs. Dear Leader's gulags. Freedom of speech in the U.S. vs. speech in Tehran, Pyongyang, Gaza, or Damascas.
Buy a one-way ticket, Brad. If you tossed your cookies after one trip to Rantburg, you'll never survive the tour.
#22
If you read the comments stimulated by an article posted at Rantburg.com, youâd find about 75% being racist, hateful crap.
If you consider non-PC language to be "racist, hateful crap", then guilty as charged. In my entire time here, Fred and the moderators, to their extreme credit, have always promptly slapped down bigotry and hate-speech whenever it rears its ugly head.
Those who aren't on speaking terms with the truth will always have a difficult time here at Rantburg. Too bad for them. My heart pumps p!ss.
#25
You (and me too, I guess) are all a bunch of fascists???
I'm very confused... I thought you were zionist stooges... now I don't know what or who to believe anymore, dang! It's like my whole universe is spiralling out of control.
#26
Heh. He just got a case of weak knees cuz I put the crosshairs on him in that thread. pronetobabble thinks he's been in the lion's den. Lol.
What he's missing, in a very big way, IMHO, is that we are not the ones trying to reinvent America. We are trying to keep America the bastion of freedom it was founded to be - and has been. He and his socialist scum buddies are the ones trying to rewrite the constitution and reinvent America as a Stalinist outpost - scoring a fatal coup against freedom. Fuck him. He can't have America - not while we draw breath, anyway.
#27
Not to beat on a dead horse, but I especially liked this comment:
Hate, hate, hate - for the Palestianians, of course.
First of all Brad, I might not be an English major but I think they're called Palestinians. Spell check your blog postings, my man. Secondly, itâs not that we âhate, hate, hateâ the âPalestianiansâ (as you call them). Itâs just that, well, to be honest theyâre not real lovable.
Of course you, not being a fascist and all, spend a great deal of time mulling over the Jewish problem.
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
11/30/2005 15:18 Comments ||
Top||
#29
It always gives my blood pressure white caps when lefties toss around the words "fascist" and "racist." Their use of these words is a dodge, a way of avoiding the hard work of gathering facts and using logic.
Thus, people who favor small government and self-reliance are "fascists" even though real fascism, as promoted by Mussolini and Franco, for example, envisioned a populace subordinated to the will of the state as expressed by a maximum leader.
Similarly, the left uses the word "racist" whenever any group whose behavior they wish to excuse is criticized, even if that group has no homogeneous racial component at all--for example, Islam, which is multi-ethnic.
By the use of these throw-away words the left trivializes all reason and analysis that does not meet their ends, thus weakening the entities that require free, honest debate to survive, most especially democracy.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
11/30/2005 15:23 Comments ||
Top||
#30
"...the Jewish Problem" So much naive self-rightous and self-important babble and prattle.
#31
Poor Wisp of the Willow. I'm guessing he's over the age of 50 or under the age of 23. Cause it seems you have to be that old or that young to cling to the discredited beliefs to which he so desperately adheres for his sense of superiority over us knuckle dragging conservatives.
His idea of a discussion is to simply scream racist - like in the olden days they would scream heretic to anyone who might threaten to ask uncomfortable questions regarding religion. No "discussion" is needed. An accusation of witch or heretic is adequate reason enough to discredit the points made.
One need only look at the wretched trail of misery left in the wake of the belief system to which Willow clings. Welfare reform in the US? Based on the idea that the little brown folk were incapable of fending for themselves and needed to be fed and housed like livestock in corrals...never mind they are perfectly capable of living free. Poor little brown victims...we shouldn't expect any more from them, right Willow. Hmmm...whose the "racist" in that argument.
And who is really responsible for the "plight of the Palestinians"? IJMHO, but I happen to think that they would have been much further along by now if the Willows of the world didn't bow to the corrupt and selfish Arafat - who used them as pawns. If instead the world had called upon them 20 years ago to act like adults, and stop blaming the Jews for their every problem, then perhaps they would have had 20 years to establish a meaningful form of government. But the willows of the world gave them nothing but words of support for the self-destructive, victimization blame game that leaves them in the chaos that exists for them today.
Here's a challenge for Willow Boy. Try to have a discussion - just one - where you argue ideas rather than simply screeching "racist" as if that was all you needed to say. For two reasons, one, the word has lost all of it's impact and second because it's not a meaninful discussion.
#33
Actually Brad, this is a one-man low-budget operations. All the opinions expressed are those of Fred. Fred is Seafarious, .com, Alaska Paul, mojo, Shipman, DePotGuy, John Q, Dave, CyberSarge, Desert Blondie, Barbara S. and all those funny names too. It is hard work but someone has to do it.
#34
Hmmmmmmmm. He got THREE comments on his eloquent commentary and one of those was his. Color me impressed!
Oh, well. Another coat on my jackboots...
#35
He got THREE comments on his eloquent commentary and one of those was his. Color me impressed!
My fellow Rantburgers must be a self-disciplined bunch - you mean to say that nobody left a message on Brad's board?! Or is it more likely that he removes comments he disagrees with? Fascism, indeed.
#37
I left a reasonably-toned reply--but all it says at the moment is that my comment is "awaiting moderation". We'll see indeed if he's interested in level-headed discourse.
#40
I left a comment. Let's see if it sticks. Here it is --
=====
Iâm a moderator at Rantburg. Iâve personally pranged some of the articles you tried to post, Brad. We generally donât accept articles written by known moonbats (or unknown moonbats, either, and we generally can figure those out). But if you have something you want to say, by all means, leave a comment.
What I find humorous is this: in your quest to portray people who comment regularly (and that includes me, I take it) at Rantburg as âracistâ and âfascistâ, you demonstrate one of the great truisms of modern politics â
â itâs the hard Left that is screechy, violent, hateful and nasty.
And I thank you for doing so.
Now then, since you brought up a few specifics, it would be rude of me not to reply with specifics.
al-Zarqawi is no myth. Heâs a real person and heâs murdered a number of people in Iraq. Heâs personally beheaded several. Thatâs âbeheadedâ, as in, wielding a sword and cutting a personâs head off. On video. We at Rantburg tend not to like such people. You might want to comment, either at Rantburg or on your own blog, how you feel about beheadings. Seems rather âhatefulâ to me.
White phosphorus: WP is not a weapon of mass destruction. Itâs a smoke and incindinerary device used by every Western military. The US doesnât use it against civilians. You might not have noticed this, but our military takes a great deal of care to get civilians out of the way of the fight. You might wish to compare that to how the jihadis and Baâathists deliberately use civilians as shields. Apparently they donât respect civilians very much. Seems rather âhatefulâ to me.
Palestinians, or as I like to refer to them, âPaleostiniansâ. Space limitations donât permit me to go into details, but you may wish, on your blog, to compare and contrast the restraint the Israelis show to what would happen if the Paleos ever got the upper hand. Hint: all the Joooos die. Seems rather âhatefulâ to me.
War on Terror: yup, itâs going to go on for a while, until the Islamofascists (who are real âfascistsâ, by the way) either are killed or decide to study computer programming, or become Unitarians.
.com: we love him. Great guy. Has lived in Arabia, Asia and other hellholes. Heâs seen hellholes, and I rather suspect you havenât. You might want to invite him for a beer sometime, heâs got some great stories.
Best wishes,
Steve White
Moderator, Rantburg
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/30/2005 17:23 Comments ||
Top||
#41
Well, my comment was indeed allowed in the thread "Making the Inconceivable Obvious - Israeli Power, Palestinian Survival". We'll see where the lines are drawn shortly I imagine.
#45
What he's missing, in a very big way, IMHO, is that we are not the ones trying to reinvent America. We are trying to keep America the bastion of freedom it was founded to be - and has been. He and his socialist scum buddies are the ones trying to rewrite the constitution and reinvent America as a Stalinist outpost - scoring a fatal coup against freedom. Fuck him. He can't have America - not while we draw breath, anyway.
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2005 20:06 Comments ||
Top||
#47
Now this is skeery, lol. I can handle dimwit orcs who live under bridges and suck up DU and Kos as truth - they're dumb as rocks and kinda fun to play with. But you guys, denizens from the opposite end of the IQ and capabilities scale, skeer the shit outta me, lol! I'd better skedaddle back to my game and hide. Very humbly. 8-}
#50
Gosharoonies, he sure sounds all constructive 'n reasonable now, unlike his appearance here, as he sort of admits. I'm feeling purdy bad. I think I'll have a beer cup of tea.
Two bits of advice for folks who come to RB - or, hell, to any blogsite:
1) Do not assume that the discussion began with your post. At RB, it has probably been ongoing for a long long time. Perhaps the same people here who engage you have been discussing said topic for years. Yes, years.
2) Choose a neutral nym. A pretentious nym lessens your chance of being heard. Think about it. Attempting to craft some faux-clever nym merely indicates you're packing an agenda: you did not come to discuss diddley-squat, you came to peddle your view. Lol, trust me, it does not lend that air or aura you find so compelling, but invites ridicule. You have to be exceptionally convincing, well spoken, and erudite to overcome it, in fact. It is a burden. Pretenses always are.
While American civilians and politicians debate when and whether to withdraw troops from Iraq, the buzz among some military lawyers has been a recent Pentagon rule change that they say potentially limits service members' ability to defend themselves.
In June, the Pentagon changed its Standing Rules of Engagement to allow commanders to limit individual self-defense by members of their unit. Interpreted for me by two Army judge advocate general officers (JAGs), this essentially means that soldiers and Marines may not have the individual prerogative to fire upon an enemy when they are faced with an imminent threat of death or serious injury.
That belongs only to commanders, who may not be present to make a decision every time a soldier or Marine faces a deadly threat.
The impetus behind the rule change likely evolved from concerns that a soldier might misinterpret a danger and kill an innocent instead of a bad actor. But critics say the solution to this ever-present tension is better training, not more restrictive rules.
Commanders and JAGs close to the debate say the rule change poses numerous potential problems and contradicts the guiding principle in all of America's rules of engagement, which is that nothing in these rules limits the inherent right of self-defense. If a soldier or Marine can't make a split-second decision to kill or be killed, even at the risk of making an erroneous judgment, he or she may eventually hesitate, fumble the wrong way, and end up dead. Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
11/30/2005 09:44 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Friggin idiots. Anybody want to guess how many JAG officers have actually been in harm's way, or fired a shot in anger?
Even better, why do you think we lost an opportunity to pop the one-eyed mullah? We fiddle-farted around while some Navy JAG O-6 could make up her mind and lost the target of opportunity.
#2
BUT THEY HAVE THEIR OWN TV SHOW!!! THEY MUST BE MORALLY PURE!!!
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/30/2005 10:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I am not a grunt but I think I would shoot first and take my chances in court later. At least I would be alive to make the court appearance and I donât think they could find a hostile jury panel for killing a perceived threat. IMHO this is getting haunting close to the ROE that helped doom the war in Vietnam.
#4
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN TV SHOW!!! THEY MUST BE MORALLY PURE!!!
Most of the Jags I've known subscribe to the belief of demanding moral purity for others. Not all, certainly. But enough believe themselves to be priests, writing down the perfect word of God that, if followed (by others) will make a perfect world.
#5
This was inevitable, and sorry to say, it is probably a good thing. Hear me out.
First of all, the vast majority of Iraq is settled and relatively quiet. Even the violent parts are becoming more and more like an episode of 'Cops', rather than a hot battlefield. This is how we planned it, and how we want it to happen.
Unfortunately, our guys, men with guns, are not policemen. At a particular point, this starts to get in the way. For example, when an ordinary robbery goes down, and the cops and the bad guys get into a fight, it takes a hell of a lot of discipline for a soldier to not get involved.
But, plain and simple, it is not his job to interfere at that point. He has to back off and let the locals handle it.
And the more peaceful Iraq becomes, the more the soldiers are going to have to chill out. A critical moment happens when in some parts of the country, the soldiers will stop going out in public with their guns. Their orders will be simple: "If someone starts shooting, run away and call a cop."
Psychologically, it's a bitch. But you really, really want that transition to happen. Because it means that we *have* won. Game, set and match.
#8
The lawyers screwed up government, health care, and business. They're just branching out into military operations. How long till we send two lawyers with any soldier whenever we have a combat operation. I'm OK with that, but only if the lawyers go first.
In a November 4, 2005 article on the Al-Jiran website titled "George Galloway Will Yet be Tried," Iraqi author Fadhil Rashad called for British Member of Parliament George Galloway to stand trial for robbing from the Iraqi people.
The following are excerpts from the article:
"For 35 years, the tyrant Saddam Hussein distributed the Iraqi people's money to the right, to the left, and to whoever applauded him⊠The best evidence of this is the Oil-for-Food scandal, where he distributed vouchers to whoever wrote in support of him and sang his praises in the press, and to whoever appeared on satellite TV to defend his rotten personality. It should be emphasized that the oil vouchers he gave out were for oil that was robbed from the Iraqi people at a time when it was in dire need of it, because of the sanctions imposed on it as a result of the wars [initiated by] this very same tyrant.
"[He gave the vouchers] to the sons of heads of state, to the heads of state themselves, and to editors who continue to fiercely defend Saddam when they are interviewed on satellite TV - and this despite the evidence of his crimes that surfaced after the downfall of his regime. This evidence includes mass graves and remote subterranean prisons⊠Indeed, they are not unappreciative of his favorsâŠ
"Observers are looking forward to Iraq being a turning point in the spread of democracy in the Middle East. It is thus strange that on a daily basis I see and hear the leader of a democratic party in a large country plugging his ears and shutting his eyes, choosing not to hear the cries of tens of thousands of victims of those mass graves and the massacres of the Anfal [offensive] [1] and Saddam's other crimes. Instead, he appears on satellite TV stations and continues to defend Saddam.
"It is a truism that money can blind one to the truth⊠I know that George Galloway knows the truth, and that he is well aware of the [crimes] that Saddam perpetrated against his own people and against the neighboring countries. However, he turns a blind eye to them, because he wants to make the whole world turn a blind eye to them and to overlook the oil vouchers that he himself received from Saddam. I want to say in this article: George Galloway, leader of the Respect party - you defend your friend and benefactor Saddam and you will yet be tried just like your friend and benefactor Saddam. I assure you that the Iraqi people will never turn a blind eye to those who robbed them. You robbed from all of the Iraqis what amounts to approximately 20 million barrels of oil [that you received] in exchange for misleading public opinion concerning the crimes perpetrated by Saddam against his people.
"In this article, I call on the Iraqi government to open the file on the Oil-for-Food scandal and file criminal indictments with international courts against those who benefited [from the oil vouchers] and those who stretched out their hands and took those vouchers from Saddam.
"May the first [to be indicted] be George GallowayâŠ"
#2
That would be ONE COOL THING for the Iraqis to go after the Oil-for-Food folks in criminal indictments. Talk about getting mileage, maybe not justice (long shot) but going after bad karma....well allrighty, then.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/30/2005 20:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Now wouldn't that be sweet. I wonder if the UK and Iraq will work out an extradition treaty...
#4
I can see Iraq bringing actions against various wormsweasels Europeans at the International Criminal Court. If they are really cagy, they could cut a deal with Saddam after he is sentenced to death. Life without parole in exchange for his testimony. That would be delicious.
#5
Opinionist, I disagree. Saddam has to go--the reasons being so obvious that there is no need to discuss them. Although, I wouldn't mind if Iraqis got some beef from him under pretenses that his pending death sentence may be commuted to life w/o parole and then say "We were just kidding".
However, I don't think it is really necessary, there is a ton of documents that were not destroyed by Saddam's goons that provide enough evidence for the scam.
by Joshua Frank Tin Foil Alert!
DNC Chair Howard Dean has a fickle stance on virtually every foreign policy issue thrown his way. None, however, are more telling of his partyâs incompetence than his posture on the Israeli/Palestinian issue, which is virtually identical to that of the neocons.
Recently Dean returned from a week-long jaunt to Israel sponsored by the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC). Shortly after his return Dean spoke to an elite crowd of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) friends and lobbyists in Philadelphia about his trip to Israel. And the audience was pleased with what they heard.
âLiterally, from Israel's birth, as that great Democrat Harry Truman took the courageous step to immediately extend America's hand to recognize the State of Israel,â Dean espoused. âDemocrats have done all we can to foster the special, enduring relationship between the two countries. Maintaining Israel's security is a key U.S. national security interest...â
But Deanâs vision of Israelâs security is not without consequences for Palestinians or Arab Israelis.
The October 2003 issue of The Jewish Week quoted Gov. Howard Dean as saying that he had been very clear in his support for âtargeted assassinationsâ of alleged Palestinian terror suspects. He believed these men were âenemy combatants in a war,â adding, âIsrael has every right to shoot them before they can shoot Israelis.â
This position bears a striking resemblance to that of both Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. And why is Deanâs position, like that of Bush and Clinton, so dead wrong? From the 1948 war to the proposal to settle the whole of the Occupied Territories, Israel has always been associated with the policy of expelling Palestinians from the land -- an act that is frighteningly similar to the Nazi objective during the Second World War to round up and clear all the Jews from Europe to provide âLebensraumâ for the citizens of Germany.
Deanâs former campaign fundraiser during his bid for the presidency, Steven Grossman, was the ex-director of AIPAC. The most influential pro-Israel lobby in the United States, AIPAC is committed to, amongst other things, defending Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his former Likud Partyâs every mishap.
What does the AIPAC ideology entail? How about support for the current wall being erected by Israel to keep Palestinians at bay, as well as Israeli settlements in the West Bank, support for a nuclear program in the country, as well as billions in US aid? All this despite the numerous UN resolutions Israel has broken with their dealings of occupied territories of Palestine, including UN Resolution 1402, which demands that Israel withdraw its military from all Palestinian cities at once.
Nevertheless, Deanâs defense of AIPAC and Ariel Sharon, whom Bush has called a âman of peace,â mirrored the sentiments of many of Washingtonâs most influential Zionist strategists.
A prime example: Richard Perle, the ex-Chairman of the Defense Policy Board who was influential in advising the Bush administration on invading Iraq, certainly would have corroborated Deanâs comments in the December 5, 2003 issue of The Jerusalem Post. An article in that issue quoted Dean as saying, âIsrael is a democracy, [and] the only democracy aside from Turkey in the region. Israel has incurred severe economic damage as a result of being forced to fight this war. I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees and thereby enabling Israelâs economy to grow, the US will be advancing its own interest.â
He continued, âAs a fellow democracy that shares our values, that is fighting a war against terrorism, Israel is a friend, a strategic asset, and an ally for the US. A strong Israel is essential for advancing the US interest of building a stable world.â Given this impassioned rhetoric, it is nearly impossible to imagine that Dean would have ceased to support the USâs billion-dollar loan guarantees to Israel if he had been elected.
âThe human rights situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories continues to deteriorate. Some 2,500 Palestinians, most of them unarmed and including some 450 children, have been killed by the Israeli army and more than 900 Israelis, most of them civilians and including more than 100 children, have been killed by Palestinian armed groups since the start of the current uprising, or intifada, in September 2000,â contends Amnesty International. âTens of thousand of Palestinians and thousands of Israelis have been injured, many maimed for life. Palestinians do not feel safe, in either the street or in their homes, as Israeli army aircrafts, helicopter gunships and tanks frequently shell Palestinian refugee camps and densely populated residential areas. Israelis also do not feel safe when they leave their homes, as Palestinian armed groups deliberately target Israeli civilians in suicide bombings and other attacks on buses, restaurants and other public places.â
When he was interviewed in The Forward in the fall 2002, Dean admitted that his position on Israel was âcloser to AIPACâsâ than that of Palestinian advocates, such as the Jewish-led Peace Now, and declared his support for building the wall that will separate Palestinians from the occupied territories.
Debunking the ignorance of the Israeli wall, Bernard Avishai, author of The Tragedy of Zionism, wrote in Harperâs January 2005 issue:
âThis is where the demographic argument gets you. You put West Bank Palestinians behind a wall where economic life is virtually impossible, and you hive off another hundred thousand Arab Israelis and put them behind the wall, too. Meanwhile, you expand your border to include non-Jewish settlements and maintain existing political economic barriers for Arab Israelis, a barrier of institutional practice and law, a barrier of land and common ideology. You say Jews and Arabs must be separated because even if Israelâs Arab citizens will make the most of what liberties Israel gives them, they could not possibly want to be absorbed into Israel. And after all of this, you suppose yourself a democracy because you represent the general will of the âJewish majority.â But is the choice really Apartheid or binationalism?â
In the aforementioned Forward issue Dean also championed Israel for taking its battles across the border into Syria. âIf Israel has to defend itself by striking terrorists elsewhere, it's going to have to do that,â Dean told Judy Woodruff in a CNN interview. He followed this statement by claiming: â[T]errorism has no place in bringing peace in the Middle East ... nations have the right to defend themselves just as we defended ourselves by going into Afghanistan to get rid of Al Qaeda.â
Later, when Joseph Lieberman and Kerry questioned Deanâs half-baked call for âpeaceâ in Palestine, the former governor responded, âI was a little surprised because people who know me know very well I am a strong defender of Israel ... But after I thought about it for a while, I wasnât surprised. I think that the connection of the Jewish community to Israel is so strong, and the feeling in Israel that someday they may be abandoned is enormous.â
Howard Deanâs own campaign website even went as far as to boast that the United States should âmaintain its historic special relationship with the state of Israel, providing a guarantee of its long-term defense and security.â
So hereâs Howard Deanâs blunt message on behalf of the Democratic Party: âForget Palestineâ.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/30/2005 10:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
âI was a little surprised because people who know me know very well I am a strong defender of Israel ... But after I thought about it for a while, I wasnât surprised. I think that the connection of the Jewish community to Israel is so strong, and the feeling in Israel that someday they may be abandoned is enormous.â
I was waiting for the "some of best friends are Jews" statement.
#3
Two quick points: Why *shouldn't* Israel hold the Paleos "at bay"? That sounds like a smashing good idea.
Which leads to the second point. The Intefadah is over, in large part because of the wall. This means that it not only saves Israeli lives, but Paleo lives as well.
Let the wall be celebrated! Now the Paleos have the chance, with the billions of dollars freely given to them by the rest of the world, to turn their land into a paradise. Whether they sink or swim, it is no longer the Israelis that can take the credit or the blame.
To say otherwise is to admit that the Paleos don't have what it takes to be a nation, that they are inferior. That they are violent primitives that have no right to demand from others what they refuse to work for themselves. That they are damned.
#5
Some 2,500 Palestinians have been killed by Isreali forces
In the meantime over a million Blacks (four hundred more people) have been killed by Arabs in Soudan but this guy couldn't care less. What can you expect from the party who sends KKK people to the Senate?
#6
You put West Bank Palestinians behind a wall where economic life is virtually impossible
Let's see. Oil is selling at over 40$ a barrel. Have not all Arab countries but just one, Saudi Arabia, give ten cents from every barrel sold and Palestinains will be swimming in money. BTW: presently most of foreign aid treceived by Palestinians comes from Europe or the US with the "Arab brothers" putting near zilch (specially after discarding funding for salafist mosques).
Another point: about half of EU's foreign aid goes to the Palestinians. One would have thought that countries like Burundi or Black Soudan were far more in need.
#7
"Some 2,500 Palestinians, most of them unarmed and including some 450 children, have been killed by the Israeli army...â contends Amnesty International."
I think they count some suicide bombers as being "killed by Israel" as well as counting terrorists who were caught without their machine guns when they were killed. I also note that these figures don't seem to count the Paleos who were murdered by Paleo terrorists either in factional fighting or as accused collaborators.
#10
presently most of foreign aid treceived by Palestinians comes from Europe or the US with the "Arab brothers" putting near zilch (specially after discarding funding for salafist mosques).
No, the 'brethren' give money to the surviving family member of the boomers, 'holy warriors' and other such prime examples of the Palestinian community.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The following are excerpts from the article: 
