- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Poor ol'Cr[oo]kischarle--unable to mount a civilized argument, which takes intelligence (not something someone this brain dead could ever have), he (I'm willing to bet that it's a he) resorts to vacuity and lying and assassinating the character of the person whose argument he doesn't like.
As I don't toe the pro-Israeli line (that is, won't fib that the Israelis aren't committing crimes against humanity like he does), what I say can't possibly be "fact". It's an "opinion"; that is, it isn't in line with official propaganda, so it doesn't count as truth--just as a dissident who believed in democratic freedom in the USSR was 'mad' because such thoughts didn't tally with Soviet 'reality'. So the events I describe are only "theory" (you know events like the illegal apartheid wall, condemned by the International court; the massacres at Sabra Chatila and Qara; the 2002 destruction of the Jenin refugee camps; the demolition of family homes in Gaza by the Israeli army; the brutal suppression of all types of Palestinian resistance, including peaceful demonstrations; what is known as Plan D, resulting in the slaughter and expulsion of Palestinians in 1947 & 1948 in such regions as Jish, Lydda, Ramle and Deir Yasin; the systematic devastation of infrastructure in Gaza and slaying of civilians, most of whom are children; the ongoing blockade and starving of the Palestinian population, which Richard Falk the UN rapporteur for Human Rights, has made clear is the very definition of genocide; Sharon's use of F-16's against Palestinian villages in 2001; assassinations of Palestinian leaders in order to provoke counter-attacks, thus providing them with the 'trigger', according to Jane's Foreign Report, that would stimulate Israeli soldiers to avenge themselves on Palestinians, as opposed to becoming Refuseniks; running over protesters like Rachel Corrie with bulldozers--all of which are on record and have been tabled by the UN and have been seen by eyewitnesses. Hardly "theory"! That's solid proof, except to Orwellians who will happily tell you that 2+2=5 and that one's conviction it's 2+2=4 is just an "opinion".
These are all known--only Cr[oo]kischarle pretends these are "unknown facts" (to quote his clumsy expression). As such facts get in the way of his ability to spread lies and propaganda it's no surprise then that this dishonest poster (really a troll) chooses to ignore them. Instead, just shoot such pesky facts down by calling them "blither"--the way fans intimidate the umpire to change the penalty against their team by abusing him and accusing him of favouring the other teams, even as replays show the decision was right. Never mind that just stating something doesn't make it true. Others do the same. Those views they don't like they call 'stupid', while those they approve of they describe as 'intelligent' (and self-righteously feel they don't need to provide proof or proffer argument). Cr[oo]kischarle, for instance, doesn't bother to explain why he may beg to differ, or think differently about matters, rather he employs language to disguise the truth ("fact?", he asks disingenuously, as one might exclaim 'fuck', to make it seem as though I didn't provide any and excuse himself from the burden of having to disprove my claims, which he can't).
Obama also uses language to obfuscate what he really means and to obscure his real intentions. By "tainted" he means 'illegal', not admissible in a court of law. When he declares that they would need to create a court or procedures where such "tainted" evidence can be admissible what he is saying in fact is that material gathered in an unconstitutional way should be allowed. That's the opposite of our democratic justice system. Let's hope he's just appeasing his masters and isn't being serious.
