From poster SunnyAfternoon:

A sad day for mankind when a tiny, racist, violent, hard core, and influential minority manages to lead hundreds of millions of supposedly free citizens of a democratic country by the nose.

But God forbid anyone bring up how these threads devolve into anti-Jewish hatefests. That would be unpossible! This is all just simple, objective criticism of a foreign nation because of a deep rooted and benevolent love for the people of Palestine.

You people have such pure motives at heart. Your untethered rage at Israel and rabid conspiracy theories of American Jewish puppet-masters with their banking and media control, is all simply the necessary evil that leads you to what you've always cared about: The welfare of the people of Palestine.

Really, truly, I'm touched by your deep love for the people of Palestine. Because I'm sure that's all that motivates you.

And Glenn. His deep love for the suffering of the Palestinians. It's noble and altruistic. And not simply an excuse to rant away pathologically at the illigitimacy of a country that bothers him for reasons so complex, he can't acknowledge them coherently without complete cognitive meltdown.

Thanks for following up on my question on Chomsky from last night. I was intrigued by your explanation of Newton vs. the official 9/11 version.

Since you've obviously done your homework, there's one possibility you might be able to shed some light on: Let's assume that the collapse of the Twin Towers was not possible according to the official scenario. But all these projections are presumably based on certain conclusions about the structure and components of the Twin Towers. How do these projections change if the variables are changed, i.e. what if the Towers were shoddily constructed using inferior steel, concrete etc.? If they were, in fact, jerry-rigged cracker boxes rather than proud symbols of American omnipotence, would this make the official version more plausible?

After all, I recall one theory that the otherwise well-designed Titanic was ultimately sunk by the use of cheap steel and inferior rivets in its hull. In the Armenian earthquake of the 1980s, dozens of Soviet-built housing estates collapsed like so many sand castles due to shoddy practices and stolen cement (the revelation of which, incidentally, helped bring down the Soviet Union itself).

I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, but this somehow this scenario makes more sense to me and points to a whole new set of abuses and shortcomings. After all, what goes around comes around...

This article is pretty saddening. Although I guess this is just an extension of watching wars on CNN. Link at sig.

"[...] Staggering discrepency in decibles [...]"

Candidates Appear at AIPAC

June 3, 2008

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/06/candidates-appear-at-aipac.html

For an organization that doesn't make campaign contributions, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is remarkably influential in U.S. politics, […] AIPAC, which spent just under $1 million on federal lobbying last year, is joined in its efforts to influence Washington policymakers by a network of local political action committees, which do make campaign contributions, and bundlers who raise money for pro-Israel candidates. Together, this network's goal is to garner support for U.S.-Israel relations and Israel's stances with its Arab neighbors. […]Compared to the pro-Israel lobby, the voices of pro-Arab groups are far more muted, however. […]The staggering discrepancy between the decibels of these two interests is nothing new, however. […]”

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054009.html

Haaretz is carrying the UN statement about the IDF, it is an official statement from UNRWA. The story in the Washington Post that I cited is also being reported by the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/world/middleeast/10mideast.html

The only way you can say these are unsubstantiated rumors and propaganda worthy of Goebbels is to really stretch things. You are claiming the U.N. spokespeople and ICRC reps are lying and spreading Goebbels-like propaganda?

Or perhaps you believe an IDF spokesperson is an impartial, neutral, and independent source of information, but an ICRC spokesperson is not?

You don't have a case for claiming propaganda and you know it.

This obsession with decrying Israel for defending itself against an intractable enemy, which takes every opportunity to kill innocent Israelis in the name of a "merciful" Allah, is starting to get not only knee-jerk predictable but also rather pointless.

Unfortunately for the Hamas-first crowd, Israel has every right to eradicate the source of all these terrorist rocket launchings. If you think the IDF should simply set aside their weapons and allow any form of deadly ordnance to come sailing across the border and explode within Israel itself, you better think again.

Most of you Lockstep Leftists probably imagine that all those fierce Hamas militants as fighting "the good fight," as though this siege was an Islamic Masada, or the Last Stand at the Alamo. Sorry to break it to you, lefties, but it's not.

The tragic episode in Gaza will not end with an exultant Jihad Jubilee, wherein everyone triumphantly fires their AK-47's into the air while shouting "Allahu Akbar!" with a beaten and demoralized IDF scurrying back across the border and yelping like a whipped dog. You may as well put away your celebratory keffiyehs and simply confront the simple, honest truth of this whole matter: Israel will win, and the Palestinians, no thanks to Hamas, will find themselves ever further from achieving any sort of legitimacy or dignity in their continually grim existence.

Now that's truly sad.

If you really believe that's a valid argument let's see you hand over the keys to your house to the nearest Native American.

Sorry, the statute of limitations has kicked in. Otherwise, as we know, as per the Old Testament, the Israelis committed genocide, and should be held responsible today.

I wrote: No government has a "right to exist" --- people do. and shooter even quoted it.

Shooter wrote: Not true.

This indicates a power worshiping totalitarian who thinks an arbitrary organization is much more important than the people.

He is arguing that a government owns the people and they are its property. Much like in the American South once upon a time, he believes that all of the people are not equal.

Shooter; you are a f'ing fool.