Time to stop the open funding of terrorism!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Somer,
This is always interesting. Smoke and mirrors, indeed!
Recent reports from Afghanistan show that the Taliban has regained control of two districts, opium crop (remember the "war on drugs"?) is bumper.
Iraq is going down in flames of civil war.
Now this overly aggressive response by Israel to the kidnapping of two soldiers.
Horror stories??? Far too many.
"Humane war"???

Never happened yet.

The innocents suffer for the mistakes of others.
Same old, same old.

Question: Do you honestly think that our present leadership will in anyway influence the current outcomes?

I'm interested in your take on this... and btw, those rockets aren't manufactured in Iran. They come from China. Can I buy some at Walmart?
Oh! I almost forgot to mention who holds the notes on the US deficit...you know who, don't you?

Still all smoke and mirrors...makes for entertaining reading but doesn't have much to do with the Israeli reality...the people of Israel have a right to defend themselves...as I often quote in other circumstances, "in the end, we have only those rights which we can defend...only those rights!" The Garden of Eden doesn't exist...never did! There are no perfect solutions, no fairytale endings...no place on earth without evil lurking...has nothing to do with the situation at hand! Folks make decisions, both good and bad...if you choose to allow pigs in your house, it will smell like pig crap! Support terrorism and you can't complain when an Israeli missile comes through the kitchen window...you may feel you've been wronged and perhaps you have...but you'll still be scattered over the countryside.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Yikes! You cannot defend that which is wrong by cloaking it in necessity, turning men into brainwashed sheep may produce a mighty army but it will not protect each soul from the consequences of immoral acts. Judgement translates to choices and free will mandates that every choice has a consequence. A person cannot be moral and kill without feeling...in war, we take life least ours be taken yet it should haunt us forever, otherwise our very existence is meaningless...life is about choices, love and pain, there is no escape from that and only a fool tries to minimize or justify that which can not be justified!

Well spoken Somer! As for others posters, as far I'm concerned...Our first mistake was giving a DAMN what other countries in the world think! And the second was currying favor and influence(with cash) to many countries who didn't know how to utilize money we supplied(for generations).

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

For the record: Andrew Sullivan is a leftist former New York Times reporter ... who is also openly homosexual and a crusader for homosexual rights.

Not that there's anything wrong with that ...

... but let's just keep the facts straight.

What in the world does a man's sexual orientation have to do with what he thinks about taxes, governmental authority and states' rights? Oh, right, to the Republicans, EVERYTHING. Oy.

What do you consider a "leftist?" I also can't find any corroboration to him having been a reporter for the NYTimes. What years did he work there? Please give me the dates, along with a list of what you consider to be "leftist" attributes.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

What in the world does a man's sexual orientation have to do with what he thinks about taxes, governmental authority and states' rights? Oh, right, to the Republicans, EVERYTHING. Oy.

What do you consider a "leftist?" I also can't find any corroboration to him having been a reporter for the NYTimes. What years did he work there? Please give me the dates, along with a list of what you consider to be "leftist" attributes.

Sullivan was ... and perhaps still is ... a writer/reporter for the New York Times Magazine and the New York Times Book Review.

As I clearly stated ... his sexual practices have nothing to do with his primarily leftist political beliefs ... but he trumpets them wherever his work appears ... so they are relevant when discussing his background as a writer and analyst.

In any case ... Andrew is not a "conservative" or "right-winger."

None of which is relevant to the main question of what your point was in providing that unverifiable, unattributed anecdote.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Sullivan was ... and perhaps still is ... a writer/reporter for the New York Times Magazine and the New York Times Book Review.

As I clearly stated ... his sexual practices have nothing to do with his primarily leftist political beliefs ... but he trumpets them wherever his work appears ... so they are relevant when discussing his background as a writer and analyst.

In any case ... Andrew is not a "conservative" or "right-winger."

None of which is relevant to the main question of what your point was in providing that unverifiable, unattributed anecdote.

What are Sullivan's most recent articles for the Times Magazine and the Book Review? I think you have the NEW YORK Times confused with the LONDON Times. The NEW YORK Times, you see, publishes in New York. The LONDON Times publishes in LONDON. Sullivan is a regular contributer to the LONDON Times. But I can see how you'd get them confused-- New York... London... what's the difference, really?

Still awaiting your list of what you think are lefty platforms.

[GenuineRisk]

It's not justification for what is going on, but here is a blogger post from a student in Beirut about the support for Hezbollah and maybe some of the reasons why:

Date: 2006-07-18 13:33
Subject: Some insight, perhaps
Security: Public

It occured to me that a lot of people may have no idea why the Shia in the south support the HA so strongly.
The HA, being far from stupid, spent years being the benefactors of the population of the south that was otherwise largely cut off from the rest of the country. They built homes for them, organised schooling, hospitalised the needy, brought them spiritual support... At the same time, the only thing those simple people (way too illiterate and monolinguistic to have access to many sources of information) ever saw from Israel were bombs falling on their heads and events such as the Qana massacre (for the unaware – a UN compound of the Fijian detachment full of Shia refugees was targeted and bombed some years ago, making the entire world reel).

So exactly how do we explain to these people that the HA who fed, treated, schooled and sheltered them are the bad guys, and that Israel is not evil incarnate? As you can see, they've been told being bombed makes them heroes – and they believe it.

Brainwash is the new Black Plague.
62 comments | post a comment


The link to the blog is: http://cedarseed.livejournal.com/

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

What are Sullivan's most recent articles for the Times Magazine and the Book Review? I think you have the NEW YORK Times confused with the LONDON Times. The NEW YORK Times, you see, publishes in New York. The LONDON Times publishes in LONDON. Sullivan is a regular contributer to the LONDON Times. But I can see how you'd get them confused-- New York... London... what's the difference, really?

Still awaiting your list of what you think are lefty platforms.

Perhaps you should also make your snide remarks to The New Republic ... which also seems to think that Andrew works for the New York Times Magazine and the New York Times Book Review. ...

http://www.tnr.com/showBio.mhtml?pid=30

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It's not justification for what is going on, but here is a blogger post from a student in Beirut about the support for Hezbollah and maybe some of the reasons why:

Date: 2006-07-18 13:33
Subject: Some insight, perhaps
Security: Public

It occured to me that a lot of people may have no idea why the Shia in the south support the HA so strongly.
The HA, being far from stupid, spent years being the benefactors of the population of the south that was otherwise largely cut off from the rest of the country. They built homes for them, organised schooling, hospitalised the needy, brought them spiritual support... At the same time, the only thing those simple people (way too illiterate and monolinguistic to have access to many sources of information) ever saw from Israel were bombs falling on their heads and events such as the Qana massacre (for the unaware – a UN compound of the Fijian detachment full of Shia refugees was targeted and bombed some years ago, making the entire world reel).

So exactly how do we explain to these people that the HA who fed, treated, schooled and sheltered them are the bad guys, and that Israel is not evil incarnate? As you can see, they've been told being bombed makes them heroes – and they believe it.

Brainwash is the new Black Plague.
62 comments | post a comment


The link to the blog is: http://cedarseed.livejournal.com/

Ho-hum ... another unverifiable, unidentified, undocumented bit of "Did you know that Hitler built the autobahns and fed stray dogs" terrorist propaganda.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Ho-hum ... another unverifiable, unidentified, undocumented bit of "Did you know that Hitler built the autobahns and fed stray dogs" terrorist propaganda.

LOL... Do you babble on like this at the poker table? Your inability to begin to comprehend the motives of your adversaries leaves you likely to lose at cards, conflict and life.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Perhaps you should also make your snide remarks to The New Republic ... which also seems to think that Andrew works for the New York Times Magazine and the New York Times Book Review. ...

http://www.tnr.com/showBio.mhtml?pid=30

"Contributing to" is not the same as being a "reporter" for, which is what I believe you said Sullivan was. Many, many writers have contributed on occasion to the Times Magazine and the Book Review-- the numbers include numerous writers of all different political persuasions. It's not the same as writing for, or being a "reporter." Under your conditions, one could say Karl Rove reports for TIME Magazine, since a contribution from him appeared in the issue on Teddy Roosevelt.

Still "Waiting for Lefty" platforms...

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

"Contributing to" is not the same as being a "reporter" for, which is what I believe you said Sullivan was. Many, many writers have contributed on occasion to the Times Magazine and the Book Review-- the numbers include numerous writers of all different political persuasions. It's not the same as writing for, or being a "reporter." Under your conditions, one could say Karl Rove reports for TIME Magazine, since a contribution from him appeared in the issue on Teddy Roosevelt.

Still "Waiting for Lefty" platforms...

Nice bit of squirming and sidestepping ... but you were busted nonetheless.

I've seen Sullivan's by-line on New York Times articles on the internet ... I haven't deigned to touch the actual propaganda rag for the past 20 years ... so please "forgive" me if I didn't know which section of the rag the electronic articles were lifted from.

And I have no idea what you're waiting for, Ms. Odets ... please explain.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Nice bit of squirming and sidestepping ... but you were busted nonetheless.

I've seen Sullivan's by-line on New York Times articles on the internet ... I haven't deigned to touch the actual propaganda rag for the past 20 years ... so please "forgive" me if I didn't know which section of the rag the electronic articles were lifted from.

And I have no idea what you're waiting for, Ms. Odets ... please explain.

BB, you're constantly jumping on people for unsubstantiated links, so until you can give me hard evidence that Sullivan was a regular staff writer for the NYTimes, and not an occasional contributor, then I have to apply your own standards on unsubstantiated things and assume you made it up. Whining that you think you saw the articles on the internet but that you don't read the Times so you don't know which "section" the articles were from doesn't count as solid backup. I need to know the years he was a writer/reporter, as you put it. Contributor is just contributor. Not writer or reporter, as you state.

Here is the pertinent line from an earlier email, to answer your other question:

"What do you consider a "leftist?" I also can't find any corroboration to him having been a reporter for the NYTimes. What years did he work there? Please give me the dates, along with a list of what you consider to be "leftist" attributes."

So, actually, that's two questions you haven't answered yet. When was Sullivan on staff at the NYTimes and what do you consider a "leftist?"

I still think you're confusing the London Times with the NY Times. Sullivan does write a regular column for the London Times.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So, actually, that's two questions you haven't answered yet. When was Sullivan on staff at the NYTimes and what do you consider a "leftist?"

Two things define a leftist...

1. A leftist believes that government is the solver of economic and social problems ... and that it does so by confiscating and redistributing wealth ... which leftists assume is an existential substance ... not something which has to be created.

2. A leftist is someone who deludes herself ... and attempts to distract and bemuse others ... by obsessing over minutiae which are completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed ... and is always successful with the former ... and never successful with the latter.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Dixie Porter

"The first casualty of war is the truth", Ernest Hemmingway.

The situation here is grave. I believe the "if" no longer exists and rightfully should be replaced with "when" in regard to the bombing of TA.

Should the escaltion include more Syrian/Iranian troops and ordinance we shall be back in the same situation as 1973 (Yom Kippur War).

It is "well Known" that nuclear loaded aircraft were in the air waiting for a deploy order should the Arabs have crossed the Jordan back then. Fortunately or NOT the Arabs collapsed.

Dateline: Herzilya, Israel

Well, finally you are seeing some clarity.

It is so very disappointing to see the Israelis trying yet again to oppress the Lebanese into submission for the stated purpose of "stability" in southern Lebanon. I actually hope the UN, as well as a multi-nation peacekeeping force, takes the stability of Lebanon more serious this time. After all, the Israelis did this very same thing in 1982. And failed. And Israell did this very same thing in 2000. And, of course, Israel failed. Hopefully they will not fail yet again, though failure seems likely.

It probably will take some action against TelAviv to move public opinion in Israel that last needed step toward seeking peace.

It's been 25 years since Israel started the transformation of Beirut from being the "Paris of the Middle East" into looking like an ordinary TelAviv slum.

Originally Posted by Dixie Porter

The situation here is grave. I believe the "if" no longer exists and rightfully should be replaced with "when" in regard to the bombing of TA.

Should the escaltion include more Syrian/Iranian troops and ordinance we shall be back in the same situation as 1973 (Yom Kippur War).

It is "well Known" that nuclear loaded aircraft were in the air waiting for a deploy order should the Arabs have crossed the Jordan back then. Fortunately or NOT the Arabs collapsed.

Dateline: Herzilya, Israel

My first reaction was "No ... not even the Syrians and Palestinians could be that dumb!" ... but ...

... then I realized that the strings are being pulled by Persians from 1,000 miles away ... and they could care less what happens to the Arabs ... so ...

... yeah, you're right ... the idea of the Lebanese, Palestinians and Syrians being used ... once again ... as cannon fodder is hardly far-fetched.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

My first reaction was "No ... not even the Syrians and Palestinians could be that dumb!" ... but ...

... then I realized that the strings are being pulled by Persians from 1,000 miles away ... and they could care less what happens to the Arabs ... so ...

... yeah, you're right ... the idea of the Lebanese, Palestinians and Syrians being used ... once again ... as cannon fodder is hardly far-fetched.

First you sound as moronic as ever. And, without knowing it, you've stumbled (finally) in the right direction without knowing it.

The Israeli "End-Game" here will be to play nice with the Syrians. Always has been. As you know, Syria is calling the shots here.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Dixie Porter

Arabs bomb Nazareth (birthplace of JC) killing two children in a predominantly Arab city. This was NOT a good idea when the most powerfull man in the world is a "born again Christian" who may very well believe he is carrying out
God's work.

The scuttlebut I am hearing is chilling. All 4 scenarios for the end game are horiffic. It has been 61 years since a nuclear bomb was used in war at an enemy target. Both Israel and the US are TIRED of taking casualties. This is exacly the positon the US took in 1945 re: predicted casualties in an ivasion of mainland Japan.


The "body count" reported in the news is 10% of what it actually is for the Arabs. My guess is Conde shows up on Yom Kippur to say Kadish for the Arab world.

The time is limited for American Hating Arabs like yourself to be able to walk our streets in safety.

This situation wreaks of the "Wansee Conference", only this time it is the "final solution" to the Arab problem.

The "scuttlebut" you hear is the sound of your head scuttling further up your butt. You do not hear anything worth a sh1t. Really now.

What you're hoping for is just not going to happen. You're just an old man sitting in his chair watching CNN proclaiming to the world and pretending to yourself that you have Omert's ear. Uh huh.

And, of course, you're wrong. I'm not an America hater. Just hate the foolishness that you and other war-mongering oppresssors profess as the correct solution. Many, many billions of people see the world different than you. And you cannot accept that they may be right.

Israel blew the Lebanon issue in 1982 and again in 2000. I suppose that is also my fault? Israel, along with the U.S. have really f***rd up in Lebanon., leaving the fledgling democracy of Lebanon up for grabs. The U.S. had a war to lose and the Israelis needed to get back to those ever-scary, sling-shot toting Palestinians.

You just don't get it. Never will, probably never have. But knowledgeable, non-robotic people see this for what it is.

Again, the deal to be made is with the Syrians. And it will be made. Get used to it.

Originally Posted by Dixie Porter

Arabs bomb Nazareth (birthplace of JC) killing two children in a predominantly Arab city. This was NOT a good idea when the most powerfull man in the world is a "born again Christian" who may very well believe he is carrying out
God's work.

The scuttlebut I am hearing is chilling. All 4 scenarios for the end game are horiffic. It has been 61 years since a nuclear bomb was used in war at an enemy target. Both Israel and the US are TIRED of taking casualties. This is exacly the positon the US took in 1945 re: predicted casualties in an ivasion of mainland Japan.


The "body count" reported in the news is 10% of what it actually is for the Arabs. My guess is Conde shows up on Yom Kippur to say Kadish for the Arab world.

Shocking ... unpleasant ... horrific ...

... but necessary.

How can I become part of that minyan? Have yarmulke ... will travel.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Shocking ... unpleasant ... horrific ...

... but necessary.

How can I become part of that minyan? Have yarmulke ... will travel.

You continue to follow the fool Dixie Porter as a puppy follows a child.

Dixie is, as always, wrong. Rice will be in the Middle East by early tomorrow... just as I predicted. She is not likely to be carrying any nuclear weapons but rather a list of tangible issues to speak to the Syrians about (through and with the Jordanians, Saudis and Egyptians, of course).

Along with those losing ther lives in Haifa, you should be praying for these Arab leaders for the guidance and wsdom they will use to bring this to its end.

Save the yarmulke for another day.

I am clearly on the side of Israel as demonstrated by many of my posts. I dont think they have done everything properly, but they are a moral democracy.

And I occasionally find myself on the side of someone such as the bold one. And I wonder what the hell, have a gotten completely wrong? Such shallow thinking. I need to go back and rethink this thing. Kinda like when the KKK backs Republicans, or animal rights groups let infected lab rats lose- vote Democratic... please dont back, we really dont want your vote.

Just want to be isolated from primitive thought patterns.