You have said that there is no such thing as an "unjust war." So why have you not enlisted in George W. Bush's "war on terror"?

If you haven't enlisted, then please explain why.

xxoo,

SteveDew

That sounds like a ton of projection coming from the people who's voices are in the 98% majority. Much like Christian fundamentalists who complain they're being oppressed. that's what you sound like. But more to the point - feel free to slur me. It makes no difference. To me it's a legal issue about inciting violence and hate speech. Thank you.

'Humanitarian crisis' in the U.N. statement is a specific term (I think they call such things 'terms of art'). It means a crisis that requires an intervention into an armed conflict, either passage of relief workers or supplies, or even a ceasefire. The term 'humanitarian' here is analogous to the term International Humanitarian Law, meaning the laws of war. In such circumstances a 'humanitarian' is someone who is humane, impartial, neutral, and independent -- usually marked by an acknowledged symbol (e.g. a red cross, crescent or crystal, or a U.N. flag or some other sign acknowledged by parties to the conflict) -- who must be given passage and safety to alleviate said crisis. It also implies that it is the duty of the international community to intervene if nothing else works, and that the parties to the conflict have obligations to avert or alleviate or permit such alleviation.

Whether or not war is ever humane is not relevant to that use of the term. It is assumed that the current conflict cannot be stopped in the timeframe of the humanitarian crisis and has to be accepted as the conditions under which the intervention must take place.

Congratulations, you've just been chosen as the Grand Prize winner of "Stupidest Argument on the Internet":

You have said that there is no such thing as an "unjust war." So why have you not enlisted in George W. Bush's "war on terror"?

If you haven't enlisted, then please explain why.

Sorry but I'm not playing that 'citation needed' game with you.

That's fine, but otherwise you kind of don't have anything to say, do you?

"You're a bunch of racists!"

"Uh, no we're not! Prove it!"

"No, way, I'm not playing that game with you!"

"..."

I mean, is there anything else you have to add? Are we done here?

Racists don't get to decide how the targets of their slurs and attacks can feel about that.

lollerskates...

You still haven't answered my question. Why do you hate the United States, specifically the 1st Amendment?

Sorry but I'm not playing that 'citation needed' game with you. You are not the arbiter I need to deal with. Thank you anyway. Racists don't get to decide how the targets of their slurs and attacks can feel about that.

I figured you'd say something like that. And while I may not be an arbiter, I do object to being called a "racist [who doesn't] get to decide how the targets [of my imagined slurs and attacks] get to feel about that."

While you're visiting the thought police, remember to tell them of how brave you are in your support of the cause of free speech (that's the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights).

Is that Glenn's own article is about the apparent shock he feels at being given an opportunity to voice an opposing view. Something the letter writers here would never accept or permit and it seems, the Salon moderators agree. Again though it's not a free speech issue. As one of the most popular letter writers, 'Derbig Mooser' here said and I quote "It's not against the law to be antisemitic" And 'he' is entirely right. It's not. And 'he' is free to openly preach his antisemitism as much as he wants. There are any number of hate groups in the US who do this and their speech while not specifically protected, is at least tolerated or ignored. So you're in good company. If you like you can check with the Southern Poverty Law Center. They track hate groups in the US. No, the issue is what boundaries if any are in place for establishments like Salon who as a third party, hosts it, promotes it and incites it. And what boundaries are in place for their hosting provider?

I will plan to find out. It's entirely possible that it all comes to naught and the self professed antisemitic racists here can put one in the W column. Obviously the owners of Salon are not concerned with what their names are attached to, or they too support it. Again, I don't know. Thank you.

You have said that there is no such thing as an "unjust war."

O RLY?

When and where did Glenn say that? Or are you another one of those who's above the whole "providing evidence for their charges" game?

Hurl your barbs. I won't respond and have no need of what you think of that. Thank you again.

an opposing view. Something the letter writers here would never accept or permit

Just to check in with you, Sparky: are we or are we not having a conversation here?

It is really silly to describe Hamas or Islamic fundamentalists as Nazis or to equate them to the Nazi threat. The Germans under Nazism were the military superiors in the region, verily in the world at the time.

Hamas is hardly a military juggernaut, nor Iran, nor Al-Queda.

Who are the military masters? We see the ugly works of the Chinese, the Russians, the Israelis and the Americans. The sense of exceptionalism they are allowed is perverse and anathema to democracy and liberty.

I believe in the Declaration of Independence and the Golden Rule. Those with the might have a duty to serve their people. But, here we see another fiduciary lapse as we betray the rights of people across the globe. The US is the most prolific actor in this drama though perhaps Israel is the most pernicious.

I wish Israel came in armored cars, arrested the Hamas bad-boys, or fought a limited fight. If Israel has done this, then offering fair trials to the arrested, she would have risen in awe and respect. She would look both restrained, and mighty enough to act with restraint.

Most Arabs I speak with wish Israel would declare her borders and then shine as a damning indictment of the corrupt Arab gov'ts. I have seriously heard this sentiment more than any other.

How can a country never declare her borders? Does Israel refuse to limit herself? It seems fair offers, offers of peace aren't held out like an unattainable carrot only to be yanked away. Remember after Arafat how Sharon castrated Abbas, before he could deliver concession one?