Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
You are rendering yourself a raging clown
Awesome, dude. That was like a "greatest hits" medley of every cheap argument by assertion you've ever written here.
I think you can copy the permalink address to that comment and just copy/paste it instead of having to come up with fresh comments. Really, it's an all-purpose rant.
Oomooex - Friedman is a joke, as in...how many Friedman units does it take to change a lightbulb? But answer me this: When was the last time you heard anyone refer to the "Arab-Israeli" conflict? Huh, bright guy? I think it's an interesting change that has occurred over the years - might be worth some discussion, might be worthy of some letters or some wit.
Sinnard - reading comprehension problems much?
regarding the responses of the right-wing folks here, let me start by saying that shooter and elephant, unlike a certain robot fellow, generally play fair (by caustic internet standards, at least) and contribute to the conversation. More often than not, it seems to me that they make glenn's points for him. a few examples, admittedly without specific citations:
1) first off, i believe it was shooter who said that blame is due palestinian citizens for electing hamas, and made some comment along the lines that they deserved to be terrorized by the IDF for supporting hamas. of course, this also justifies the civilian deaths of 9/11. "the american people elected leaders that radical muslims did not like and they got what was coming to them." of course the analogy falls apart because hamas is pure evil and america is pure good, and any attack we launch or support by proxy is per se justified.
2) to the people who point out that civilians are always terrorized by war: of course. but countries accepted the duties of proportional response and limiting civilian casualities when they signed on to geneva. limiting the impact of our military interventions is, of course, what makes us morally superior to terrorists. of course from a right-wing perspective, we are morally superior just because we are. we never need to question our claim of moral superiority, because we have named ourselves legitimate governments and our enemies terrorists. we are per se justified in whatever we do, again.
3) regarding proportionality, it is widely known that the rocket attacks have killed a handful of people over the course of a decade, and the latest offensive in gaza has killed hundreds of women and children. the justifications offered would be hilarious if they were not sick, and can only be reasonably boiled down to one overriding belief: they (palestinians) are subhuman, and our right to security justifies killing 10 of them in a week for every 1 of us they have killed in a decade. they deserve it. of course dehumanization is the same rationale that justified slavery and apartheid and any number of genocides throughout history, but this does not seem to concern anyone on that side. they are per se justified to target schools, aid workers, and anyone else who interferes because they are good and the people they fight are evil.
4) finally, the idea that morality need not come into play because it will work. they will destroy all the terrorists and the rest of the population will give up and eventually everybody will be so afraid of israel that it will be safe. this is probably the most absurd assertion on its face, and even moreso when you reintroduce any sense of morality into it. because it is essentially a justification, not an excuse, for genocide. israel is allowed to take military action until every last person in palestine stops shooting rockets at israel, and as long as one person has a rocket, israel can keep wiping out civilians to get to that one person. and remember, its the civilians' fault.
the most tragic thing is that it wont work. even if israel could eliminate hamas and hezbollah, there will be other terrorist organizations, and they will continue to pursue nuclear weapons. for instance chechen separatists, predominantly muslim, have (allegedly) increased their contacts with global terror groups recently. given the number of soviet nukes supposedly floating around, many in the intelligence community think it is entirely likely that a terrorist group could acquire a warhead. they will want to attack the u.s., but israel is a more convenient target, since sophisticated delivery systems would not be necessary. given the incredibly close relationship between the two countries, terrorists might see a successful WMD attack on israel as "just as good." by enraging a good majority of the world with its current acts, israel makes this kind of attack more likely.
and israel could certainly reduce the threat by limiting its military operations and focusing on diplomacy (for those that can be persuaded) and intelligence (for those that cannot). that they chose not to signals to me that the same groups have power in israel and america: ideologues divorced from reality, too arrogant to realize when theyve made mistakes, and too evil to care about the consequences.
"a sizeable majority" = one or two
This man should never be allowed to ever speak another word on foreign policy. It should be a law based on his previous words.
A person who believes he is entitled to loudly speak his ridiculous opinions as a result of being extremely wealthy. A war cheerleader who suffers no consequences from the wars he encourages is now a terrorist representative.
The US can easily be viewed as a terrorist nation with Friedman and friends as spokesmen. Look at what they are turning our nation into. Soon the spells of these witches will pass and the people will restore their sanity.
Israel likes to think it was the beginning of the human race and clearly wants to be responsible for bringing about its end.
Don't worry, GG. You're not the first to fall victim to Israel-hatred pathology, and judging by history, you won't be the last.
-- WinSmith
I've figured you for a frothing and sloppy propagandist. I've figured you for a self absorbed narcissist. (I guess that might be redundant.) I still see both of those traits in you, but now, I just figure you for insane. And I'm not tossing out a "ad hominem", I mean it literally in the clinical sense. I'm not qualified to make that judgment, of course, but after a couple hundred of your letters, that's my unqualified diagnosis.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
