Also maybe you missed my first post Scuzza ...

where I went after Friedman not for this debacle but for his stance on the Iraq War. No one responded. Which is fine. But personal objection, on this thread, started OUT with Friedman's stance on Iraq.

-- libertyson

I saw it, agreed, moved on.

I think it is especially important that amongst those who oppose aggression we get this straight: while there is a secondary utilitarian argument against aggression (failure, blowback, etc) our primary objection is a moral one.

If we give way to utilitarian arguments we are no longer moral objectors.

I just cant do it.

I believe the first couple sentences in that post pretty well peg it as satire.

Shame on you, you disgusting anti-semite.

Palestinians are also semites.

NY Times Columnist Pelted w/ Pie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WXwdSPhgLI

some fool wrote: "You will find that for as long as we've been keeping data on these things, civilian casualties always exceed military casualties. That you're singling out Israel means either you don't read history or you have a specific anti Israeli agenda."

That is the dumbest thing written here at UT this year. Historically armies battled and did not kill civilians. For example, check the War Between the States in the USA.

Perhaps you should check and see if your history books came from "The Onion".

Every war against a democracy is won by changing the minds of the civilian population. The way this is done is by imposing pain. Blockades, etc. - same thing, lower scale.

The same principle applies to most wars against non-democracies, as well. Two excellent examples are Japan and Germany circa 1946.

Why don't you cut the shit and admit that you don't believe the US and its allies can use military force in any meaningful way and still maintain your version of "legality."

Also, quit singling out Israel, among the many states currently using these techniques - it makes you look like a bigot. One easy example is the pounding that the Tigers and their supporters have taken in Sri Lanka over the past couple months. Far more damage and loss of life there on both sides.

We get it - you believe it is morally superior to fail at terrorizing Israel than to succeed at paciifying Gazan rocket fire.

Hamas should sue Israel and the US for torturous interference. Since Friedman's only gripe with Hamas is that they aren't a state; Hamas needs to sue. If Hamas can prove that they are being prevented from becoming a state by illegal and inappropriate actions on the part of the US and Israel--and some here might say that they indeed have--then Hamas declare a state in Gaza to be coupled with the "provisional state to be annexed in the West Bank." Upon this grant of statehood coupled with any awards Hamas can not only fire rockets at Israelis with impunity! Hell, they might even have the money to get good American Weapons. Then the Israelis can suck on that judgment.

I just thought that torturous interference charge funny. I've heard Realtors and hack attorneys throw that around. Thought I'd pick up the charge.

Hamas could surrender. Stop firing missiles into Israel. Admit defeat.

These are the facts, whether you like them or not. Israel will continue to ravage Gaza until Hamas caves. The US government will bipartisanly support Israel until it decides to stop.

After a few months, all will be forgotten outside of the Mideast.

It would be humiliating, for sure. Oh well.

was quite reasonable.

hey hey, i skimmed (can't fully read friedman's columns without barfing these days) friedman's article right before i came to salon and posted this comment over at nyt:

""the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future."

this is sick and twisted logic. it is the logic of terrorists and hostage-takers. it is collective punishment at its worst.

the solution is not to hold on to the territories indefinitely while continuing to kill innocent civilians in the hopes of getting at the enemy you want. the solution is for israel to return to the 1967 borders and the creation of a palestinian state. no withdrawal without freedom (gaza), no 97% of the entire west bank (with walls and massive carvings of settler territory), no halfway solution. there is one just solution and only one way to end violent nationalist struggles.

why does the history of countless failed campaigns against guerilla nationalist movements escape tom friedman and the israeli hardline? why is (40 years' worth) of failed hardline policy toward the territories still accepted as the only way to "deal" with palestinians?"

me and you glennie, same wavelength ;)

(btw, when are you going to write about how the attorney general took six months to decide that he didn't want to prosecute that jerkoff at DOJ? or how a pentagon official actually used the word torture when describing what happened to a sad man at gitmo? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_torture and didn't some democrat committee somewhere ask obama to prosecute bush? curses i can't find the link now.. anyway, you see what i'm getting at here? lots of ground to cover ;))

Why do you think Hamas will cave?

In their book, The Israel Lobby, Mearsheimer and Walt refer to a statement by former New York Times executive editor Max Frankel. He is quoted as saying that he "wrote most of our Middle East commentaries...from a pro-Israel perspective."

Doesn't get much clearer than that. When you know that few will see anything wrong with promoting the foreign policy agenda of another country, why not just come out an admit the obvious?

Friedman's an asshole, simple as that and not too bright. But what should we expect, the NYT is not some consistent bastion of journalistic integrity, and when it comes to all things involving Israel or America's "wars" they come down squarely on the side of propoganda/hasbara. Not shocking in any way.

My only hope is that what comes around goes around for people who stand on the sidelines and cheerlead injustice. Broken souls and broken minds. Seems to be a lot of that going around. You'd think people would have had enough of war already and taken Ike's advice.

Debating whether or not phosphorous, cluster, or atomic bombs have legitimate uses is like debating whether or not torture is moral or justifiable. Amoral counterproductive madness.

Next he'll trot out the Arthur Goldberg theory of political legitimacy "if an advanced military bombs the living shit out of infrastructure, civilians, and their duly elected political representatives who are resisting your anti-nationalist anti-territorial expansionist aims with sticks, stones, and Kalishnakovs, then the resisters are necessarily politically illegitimate and we have liberated them". As a jerk coworker of mine told me about torture "the way I see it we gave them the opportunity to tell us what we wanted to know (i.e. lay down arms and submit). Most people just don't get it.

I think we need to start money bombing J-Street and hope they work tirelessly to reconstruct the narrative.