Irresponsible Actions, Irresponsible Rhetoric

Sometimes I wake upand hear things on the news and think I am just imagining them, but this one is true- Kofi Anna actually did accuse Israel of deliberately bombing the UN:

United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan was at the centre of a diplomatic storm today after accusing Israel of deliberately bombing a UN observer post in southern Lebanon, killing at least two peacekeepers.

Two peacekeepers were killed and two were feared dead under the rubble of their post in the town of Khiyam, near the eastern sector of the border.

On hearing the news Annan rushed out of a Rome hotel where he had been dining with US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and Lebanon’s prime minister last night, on the eve of international talks on the Lebanon crisis. He said the Israeli hit on the observer post was “apparently deliberate” and demanded an investigation.

“I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defence Forces of a UN observer post in southern Lebanon,” Annan said in a statement.

Annan said the post had been there for a long time, was marked clearly, and was hit despite assurances from Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert that UN positions would not be attacked.

“I call on the government of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this very disturbing incident and demand that any further attack on UN positions and personnel must stop,” he said.

What he thinks he is going to accomplish with this sort of charge is beyond me- it would seem that the bombing of clearly marked positions would be in itself damning of Israel for carelessness and would bolster charges of indiscriminate warfare. But to take it to the next level, to accuse Israel of deliberately waging war on the UN, seems to me to be preposterous and offensive.

There are a lot of groups and a lot of countries in that region who do not adhere and who actively flout to the larger principles allegedly advanced by the United Nations. Israel is not one of those nations, and Annan should apologize.






461 replies
  1. 1
    ScottC says:

    I don’t know what it is, but there has to be something else going on. I can’t see a long time diplomat like Annan saying something so blatant without something to back it up. Or at least want Annan thinks is something.

  2. 2
    dedgeorge says:

    “…it would seem that the bombing of clearly marked positions would be in itself damning of Israel for carelessness and would bolster charges of indiscriminate warfare. But to take it to the next level, to accuse Israel of deliberately waging war on the UN, seems to me to be preposterous and
    offensive. … ”

    Ever heard of the U.S.S. Liberty????

  3. 3
    Gerard says:

    From what I’ve read that outpost has been there for years, the Israelis definitely knew it was there. Its still early in the story and we don’t know it all, you may be right in saying “Deliberate” might be harsh, but “criminally negligent” seems to be a reasonable first impression. Its frustrating for me as an Israeli sympathizer to see that the Israelis insist on bombing themselves in the foot, I can only wonder if they might be panicking.

  4. 4
    PeterJ says:

    Sure, it was a mistake, just as when the Chinese embassy in Belgrade got hit in 1999. Israel obviously bought some old US maps.

    Why do cartographers hate the US/Israel?

  5. 5
    Steve says:

    This post seems rather silly without any facts or evidence.

    I give Israel the benefit of the doubt but they’ve really been stretching it to the breaking point with the scope of this air campaign. Who knows with certainty what their deal is any more.

    And the accusation is striking, in that the UN may attempt to condemn Israel every time it takes a breath, but I don’t see Kofi Annan as the type to just fly off the handle.

    The jury is still out in my book.

  6. 6
    TH says:

    Not intentional?

    Well at least willfully ignoring the possibility: CNN

  7. 7
    Steve says:

    The BBC reports:

    UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon contacted Israeli troops 10 times before an Israeli bomb killed four of them, an initial UN report says.

    The post was hit by a precision-guided missile after six hours of shelling nearby, diplomats familiar with the initial probe into the deaths say.

    Who knows? Not me. I’d advise Kofi Annan to keep that apology in his desk drawer for the time being.

    [PS: Click the link]

  8. 8
    Paddy O'Shea says:

    There is just so much to be concerned about in this war, why seize upon this trivial one-day wonder of a story?

    Can we talk instead about the complete collapse of the Bush admin’s Middle East “Roadmap To Nowhere” initiative? Or that we now have to send our troops back into Baghdad in large numbers to keep it from falling into the hands of the insurgents?

    Or better yet, how about the coming 5 year anniversary of 9-11? Did anyone here really think that after almost 5 years after killing 3,000 Americans Osama bin Laden would still be at large, and still killing Americans?

    Time to put aside the “surgical strike” outrage and deal with bigger things.

  9. 9
    LITBMueller says:

    C’mon, John….Speaking of general stupidity:

    But to take it to the next level, to accuse Israel of deliberately waging war on the UN, seems to me to be preposterous and offensive.

    Dedgeorge rightfully points out the USS Liberty incident. Also, consider the fact that Annan was at that meeting with Rice and others in Rome right when this happened! Rice did her best to sabotage those negotiations with her “Hezbollah must disarm before there can be a cease fire to discuss the disarming of Hezbollah” bullshit demand. You don’t think the IDF, which clearly wants this conflict and was planning for it long before Hezbollah captured their soldiers, might have been willing to take it one step further? Certainly, Olmert has made his dislike of the proposal of sending UN troops to Lebanon well known.

    There are a lot of groups and a lot of countries in that region who do not adhere and who actively flout to the larger principles allegedly advanced by the United Nations. Israel is not one of those nations, and Annan should apologize.

    And, with that, your analysis loses ALL credibility. Israel has never had a great relationship with the UN.

    Israel has long had a stormy relationship with the United Nations, which many Israelis see as tilted against them.

    In 2003 alone, the General Assembly issued 18 resolutions condemning Israel for rights violations, compared to four resolutions for other countries.

    At the height of a Palestinian uprising, Israel accused the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestinian refugees of helping militants and employing Hamas Islamic militants.

    Relations between Israel and the United Nations plummeted after information emerged that U.N. peacekeepers on the Lebanon border suppressed video tapes of three soldiers being abducted by Hizbollah guerrillas in 2000.

    UNIFIL denied the charge, but the U.N. later admitted unintentionally concealing evidence from Israel.

    And they have been HIGHLY critical of UNIFIL, way before the UNIFIL outpost was shelled.

    Israel and the United Nations have rarely seen eye to eye, and the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), created in 1978, has been a frequent flashpoint in relations.

    “Dysfunctional and a failure” is the way the force was characterized by one Foreign Ministry spokesman.

    Some Israeli leaders accuse UNIFIL of providing legitimacy to Hizbollah, allowing it to build up arms while turning a blind eye when Israeli soldiers were seized at the border in 2000.

    And, here’s the kicker, John: Israel has shelled UNIFIL outposts before:

    U.N. officials also complain they have come under Israeli fire. Israeli fire struck a UNIFIL base in southern Lebanon in 1996. The attack killed 106 Lebanese civilians sheltering inside. Just last Sunday, an Indian peacekeeper force was wounded by Israeli shell fire.

    news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060719/wl_nm/mideast_israel_un_dc_1

  10. 10
    Andrew says:

    Were there UN babies there? Because I don’t see how this is furthering Israel’s war to burn the skin off of babies.

  11. 11
    rachel says:

    It’s pointless of Mr. Anan to say that; even it it’s true, he’ll never be able prove it. C’mon, about 50% of Americans believe coalition forces found actual usable WMDs in Iraq which illustrates pretty well how prepared they are to believe what pleases them rather than distressing facts. No way are these people going to even consider listening to a foreign black guy.

  12. 12
    Punchy says:

    But to take it to the next level, to accuse Israel of deliberately waging war on the UN, seems to me to be preposterous and offensive.

    Get some fucking facts (sorry, this whole incident REALLY pisses me off). Via CNN this morn, they said this outpost called Israel TEN TIMES to warn them that their bombs were too close. 10 times…to say…”Hey, we’re getting buzzed”…so in response, Israel adjusts their bombing and…strikes ’em dead. “On accident”…

    This post has been there since 1978. It’s completely impossible that Israel did not know it was there. They’re using precision (probably GPS)-guided bombs, that simply do not miss that egregiously. How they can call this a mistake is ludicrious; the same way they said shooting Red Cross Ambulances was a “mistake”, despite the obvious markings.

    Face it–Israel is here to complete bomb the shit out of anything and everything. They don’t want a cease-fire, and they don’t want to leave anything or anyone standing.

  13. 13
    Marty says:

    Of course it’s all speculation on everyone’s part to accuse Israel of deliberatly bombing the UN outpost or saying it was an accident, outright.

    The USS Liberty is a great example of the fog of war. Just yesterday, the Israeli press reported that 5 soldiers were injured in a friendly fire accident and today, I have read that the Apache which went down two days ago might also have been hit by friendly fire.

    Is it too ridiculous to think the Israelis are flawed and make mistakes?

  14. 14
    Nutcutter says:

    In the horror and madness of this situation for the last week and a half, this is what gets you riled up?

    There are no words.

  15. 15
    Mr Furious says:

    I think accusing Israel of bombing the outpost deliberately is a bit strong—it is certainly possible that it was accidental, but I don’t think Annan is that far out of line. Israel certainly seems to be operating with callous disregard for what they hit.

    That CNN report is pretty damning.

  16. 16
    Punchy says:

    Israel certainly seems to be operating with callous disregard for what they hit.

    Bingo. I’m guessing that Israel did not put the station in their crosshairs and then fire. They simply refused to stop bombing the station’s doorstep, their backyard garden, and their driveway, even after 10 phone calls. Eventually, a gust of wind moved the bomb from the target of the UN’s Jeep into the compound itself.

    Willful negligance (sp?). Just as with the ambulances.

  17. 17
    Nutcutter says:

    “(The Iraq Prime Minister’s) statements are damnable and contemptible.

    But also, I think, understandable.”

    Comedian Bill Bennett — NBC “Today”

    When you need moral clarity, just call on a fat pundit who peddles moral clarity. You can’t invent better material than that.

    The fat pundit also said “You’re either with us, or your with the terrorists. I think we will see this doctrine reintroduced.”

    Seriously, given the nature of this thread, why don’t you hire Bennett to come here and guest blog? He’d fit right in.

  18. 18
    Nutcutter says:

    Oh, I know, Bennett would want a big fee.

    Well, I’ll chip in to bring him here. Turning BJ into All Spoof would be worth the investment.

  19. 19
    Ancient Purple says:

    People dying.
    Rice saying a cease-fire is a bad thing.
    Tens of thousands of refugees.
    Chickenhawks praying that something happens so we can bomb Damascus and Tehran.

    But Mr. Cole thinks the big story is that Annan verbally slapped Israel.

    Color me baffled.

  20. 20
    Nutcutter says:

    Israel certainly seems to be operating with callous disregard for what they hit.

    No, really? They’re showing those wonderful target movies and everything … where you can watch the crosshairs lock onto the target and then BOOM!

    They appear to be proud of what they are doing. What else does it mean when people show their home movies? Is that a form of apology? Or is that all “Look at these bling weapons we got from our friends in the US. Are we da bomb?”

    “Da bomb” here is a figure of speech, of course.

  21. 21
    Punchy says:

    But Mr. Cole thinks the big story is that Annan verbally slapped Israel.

    Maybe Mr. Cole will apologize to his vet after the vet willfully neglects and thus kills his cat. Makes sense, right Mr. Cole? Fog of Animals?

  22. 22
    Andrew says:

    Bombing UN outposts is actually in chapter 10, section 7 of the Protocols. It might not look like it, but it’s part of the Jews’ plan to control all of the world’s gold.

  23. 23
    Pb says:

    John Cole,

    The operative word in Kofi Annan’s statement that you apparently ignored is… ‘apparently’. Now go look at the news reports and tell me that he’s wrong, tell me why there’s just no way that this could appear deliberate. Otherwise, you owe Kofi an apology.

  24. 24
    Krista says:

    Israel certainly seems to be operating with callous disregard for what they hit.

    Be careful saying that. I seem to recall saying that last week sometime, and was scolded roundly because my statement was evidently equivalent to “accusing Israel of war crimes.”

    Like Nutcutter said, there are no good guys in this conflict, and it’s naive to think that ANY of the players in this drama have pure-as-driven-snow motives.

  25. 25
    tzs says:

    The question is: at what point does “careless disregard” slop over into “willful negligence”?

    Methinks Israel doesn’t care what they hit. They’ll shrug their shoulders, mutter “sorry about the inconvenience” and continue on their merry way.

  26. 26
    IU1995 says:

    Andrew Says:

    Bombing UN outposts is actually in chapter 10, section 7 of the Protocols. It might not look like it, but it’s part of the Jews’ plan to control all of the world’s gold.

    July 26th, 2006 at 9:33 am

    HA! HA! HA! HA! CHOKE! COUGH! HA! HA! HA! HA!

    Sounds like somebody watched South Park’s Hurricane Katrina spoof!

    Best Post of the Day!

  27. 27
    Andrew says:

    If Hezbollah is operating around a UN base, should they be protected from attack?

    How come no one has accused Israel of deliberately bombing their own troops who die in friendly fire incidents?

    Why would Israel attack a UN base now, as opposed to last week?

    Why is the UN base there, and what purpose do the UN soldiers serve?

    Why wasn’t there a furor over a UN soldier who was shot by Hezbollah (and subsequently evacuated to Israel and treated)?

    I am perfectly willing to consider that the attack on the UN was purposeful, but I haven’t seen any evidence that it was, and I think that these are all legitimate questions that should be answered before blaming Israel for murdering the UN troops.

  28. 28
    Mr Furious says:

    Like Nutcutter said, there are no good guys in this conflict, and it’s naive to think that ANY of the players in this drama have pure-as-driven-snow motives.

    Sorry Krista, UN observers, families in vans and relief convoys fall at least under “neutral” if not “good” guys, and Israel is bombing and killing the hell out of all of them.

  29. 29
    jaime says:

    Did Israel have a drink and a quail dinner after shooting the U.N. in a face and before calling the President?

  30. 30
    Andrew says:

    Sorry Krista, UN observers, families in vans and relief convoys fall at least under “neutral” if not “good” guys, and Israel is bombing and killing the hell out of all of them.

    Well, that’s just stupid as shit.

    Even if you think Israel is targeting UN observers and civilians, they are obviously not “killing the hell out of all of them” because, quite frankly, not that many have died.

    There are hundreds of UN troops and at least 10s of thousands of civilians still in South Lebanon, and if Israel wanted to “[kill] the hell out of all of them,” they could and thousands would be dead already.

    Stupid hyperbole.

  31. 31
    Steve says:

    You’d think there would be plenty of fertile ground for discussion on this topic without the conversation coming around to “How dare John Cole blog about THIS?!?” but I guess it’s in the Balloon Juice by-laws that someone has to go there.

  32. 32
    Pb says:

    Mr Furious,

    UN observers, families in vans and relief convoys fall at least under “neutral” if not “good” guys, and Israel is bombing and killing the hell out of all of them.

    But… but… what if there were Hezbollah members secretly hiding in those UN outposts / family vans / ambulances / relief convoys?!

  33. 33
    Par R says:

    I am perfectly willing to consider that the attack on the UN was purposeful, but I haven’t seen any evidence that it was, and I think that these are all legitimate questions that should be answered before blaming Israel for murdering the UN troops.

    Agreed. This is certainly a more thoughtful statement then most of those appearing in this thread. Almost everyone else is assuming that Israel intentionally bombed the UN post, an assumption that is at odds with other reports from the scene, setting aside the report by CNN, the US affiliate of AL-Jazeera.

  34. 34
    D. Mason says:

    This post is a perfect example of why the middle east is so fucked up today. Israel gets a pass for all the fucked up things they do while arab nations can’t sneeze without being accused of provoking a war. Honestly now, if this had been a lebanese bomb that destroyed this outpost there would be no question as to whether or not it was deliberate, despite the UN being there to help them. I’m not pretending that lebanon is a snow white dove or anything, but I’m sick of everyone else pretending that Israel is. People in America bend over backwards to absolve Israel of any wrongdoing despite the fact that the Israeli government are some of the worst human rights violators in the world today. That was before they started bombing vans full of fleeing families. Personally, I don’t put any level of evil or depravity past the Israeli government. To me they’re no different than their neighbors, just a different flavor of psychopath, and the whole bunch of em deserve each other.

    The incident itself scream deliberate, I mean, the phone calls, the precise nature of the bombs, the fact that Annan was at a sit down with Condi and the PM of lebanon. Imagine if those 3 had actually worked something out, where would Israel have been then? huh? These UN employees were there to help the lebanese people and Israel has a pretty serious jones for anything that might give the lebanese some relief. Not only that but the level of atrocity being reported in Lebanon right now is so disghusting that they might not mind a few less prying eyes in the area. Is it such a stretch to think they did this on purpose? Not for me it isn’t.

    Go ahead, call me an anti-semite. Saying it doesn’t make it true, just like saying Israel is the victim in all of this doesn’t make that true either. It takes two to tango and this little dance has been going on for most of recorded history. Noone involved is innocent.

  35. 35
    RSA says:

    Sorry Krista, UN observers, families in vans and relief convoys fall at least under “neutral” if not “good” guys, and Israel is bombing and killing the hell out of all of them.

    I’ve been arguing with someone in a different forum who insists that because of the tacit support of most(?) Lebanese for Hezbollah, the displaced Lebanese are only “civilians” who are either too stupid to get out of the way or complicit with terrorists. That is, “civilians” in scare quotes–presumably they’d be real civilians only if they held the proper views. (Cue Dershowitz.)

  36. 36
    Tom says:

    No wonder Koffi was so quick to blame Israel. Best defense is a good offense.

    Haifa, Israel (CNSNews.com) – The four United Nations peacekeepers killed in an Israeli attack on their outpost were required to stay at that post “until they were ordered by the [U.N.] secretary general to withdraw,” said a member of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization on Wednesday.
    But the peacekeepers apparently never received such an order, despite the fierce cross-border fighting that erupted in southern Lebanon two weeks ago.

  37. 37
    Pb says:

    Andrew,

    Well, that’s just stupid as shit.

    Even if you think Israel is targeting UN observers and civilians, they are obviously not “killing the hell out of all of them” because, quite frankly, not that many have died.

    There are hundreds of UN troops and at least 10s of thousands of civilians still in South Lebanon, and if Israel wanted to “[kill] the hell out of all of them,” they could and thousands would be dead already.

    Stupid hyperbole.

    Of course, we won’t know what the final death toll is unless and until relief efforts get underway and workers start getting into villages, clearing away the rubble, and rescuing people (or tagging the bodies). Then again, if the people who would be starting those relief efforts get killed first, then we *really* won’t know what the death toll is. So I guess that’d be the first question–is it possible, given the number and nature of the strikes we’ve seen thus far, that “thousands” could be dead already? I don’t know, but I have heard the accounts of Lebanese civilians who have fled their (now destroyed) villages, often losing family members or entire families in the rubble and the chaos.

  38. 38
    Dedgeorge says:

    “…The USS Liberty is a great example of the fog of war. …”

    FOG OF WAR??????

    The first sighting of the Liberty — she was sailing in international waters — by an Israeli pilot resulted in a message from the pilot that the ship was similar to a US ship. Close-in recon by Isreali forces clearly showed the Liberty was flying a US flag.

    Israeli forces tracked Liberty by numerous overflights.

    After EIGHT HOURS of tracking by the Israelis, Isreali fighters attacked the Liberty by strafing the decks and targeting the defensive machine guns mounted on the deck PLUS the radio antenae, and then jammed the communications frequencies severely limiting the Liberty’s ability to summon help.

    As the Isreali jets left, Israeli torpedo boats approached the Liberty, cruised around it observing it’s condition and firing upob the decks so that the wounded sailors on the deck could not be rescuced.

    The Israelis then launched five torpedos,one of which struck the Liberty causing the deaths of 26 sailors. The radio operators on the LIberty were able to cobble together a working radio by cannabilizing other radios that had been wrecked by the strafing and called the Sixth Fleet reporting that they were being attacked by Israeli forces.

    A US fight was launched and a message to the US pilots stated that the rules of engagement were
    suspended — efectively meaning “Shoot To Kill”. This was sent on a clear channel — un-encrypted- so that the Israelis were sure to hear it.

    After the mesage was received the torpedo boats stopped circling the Liberty, shooting at it, and backed off. The boats THEN (and only then) radioed the Liberty asking if it needed assistance.

    FOG OF WAR???!!!???

    Go to : http://www.ussliberty.org and read accounts by the sailors who were on the Liberty when it was attacked.

    AND http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm lays out the complaintt filed by the survivors, charging Israel with war crimes.

    Either Israel was lying to the world about what happened OR they have the most incompetant military intelligence structure the world hss ever seen….

    This “We didn’t know. We made a mistake. We’re sorry” BS Makes Israel look like a six year old brat hiding behind Mama’s skirts — Just like the brat, Israel knowws that, no matter what the do, nothing will be done to stop them. (Ever heard of Rachael Cory??)

    AND — BTW — I am not anti-semitic or anti-Israel. I recognize Israel’s right to exist and support it about 80% the time. BUT when Israel, through it’s actions, increases (even by the slightest degree) the threat to the US, my family and myself — I KNOW that it is time to either slap Israel down for it’s behavior which increases the probable threat or cut off all aid (especially the three to five Billion yearly military aid) and cast it to the wind..

  39. 39
    Ancient Purple says:

    You’d think there would be plenty of fertile ground for discussion on this topic without the conversation coming around to “How dare John Cole blog about THIS?!?” but I guess it’s in the Balloon Juice by-laws that someone has to go there.

    And yet you are here to say “How dare the commenters comment about THIS?”

    /golfclap

  40. 40
    Steve says:

    And yet you are here to say “How dare the commenters comment about THIS?”

    Let he who has not gone meta himself cast the first stone.

  41. 41
    John S. says:

    D. Mason-

    Excellent post. I think you hit the nail right on the head. And listen, I’m Jewish, so if agreeing with you makes me an anti-semite, too, then so be it.

    The bottom line is that it makes me sick to see Israel behave in some of the ways they do. It seems as if NOBODY on the world stage is willing to take the high road anymore – in any conflict. This does not surprise me, though, since much of the world take their cues from the US, and taking the high road isn’t something we seem too keen on in Bush’s America.

    If anyone thinks that Israel is a helpless victim in this situation without any blood on their hands, you had better think again. Unless you’re on of our conservative commentators, in which case you probably think America doesn’t have any blood on its hands, either.

  42. 42
    Punchy says:

    Andrew, I’ll bite:

    If Hezbollah is operating around a UN base, should they be protected from attack?

    Holy strawman. Is this the case? Do you have a link to show this?

    How come no one has accused Israel of deliberately bombing their own troops who die in friendly fire incidents?

    WTF? Who would accuse a country of purposely bombing their own? Wha?

    Why would Israel attack a UN base now, as opposed to last week?

    I dunno…all the talk about a cease-fire and UN troops to enforce it…which Israel is adamantly opposed to…

    Why is the UN base there, and what purpose do the UN soldiers serve?

    This has no bearing on them being bombed. The UN is neutral. (uh oh…here come all the anti-UN haters…)

    Why wasn’t there a furor over a UN soldier who was shot by Hezbollah (and subsequently evacuated to Israel and treated)?

    Maybe b/c he didn’t call Hezbollah 10 times first, claiming the bullets were too close, thus making it quite obvious that it was indeed an error.

    I cannot believe that a country can be notified TEN times that they’re too close, and yet they STILL bomb the crap out of it. Israel simply doesn’t care. About anyone.

  43. 43
    Nutcutter says:

    “How dare John Cole blog about THIS?!

    You are the master of propping up the subtle strawman.

    Nobody said “how dare” John do anything.

    What I said was, given the world of shit here, why get exercised about this trivial thing?

    I stand by my post, and I reject your stupid characterization of it.

  44. 44
    Nutcutter says:

    Israel simply doesn’t care. About anyone.

    Careful. You are inches away from being labeled “anti-semitic” here. Remember that God Is On Their Side.

    Both sides in this shitstorm consider themselves sacrosanct.

    And the fun part is, we have a US government that thinks the same way ….

    No wonder these people think the end time is coming. How much of this horseshit would it take to bring it about?

  45. 45
    The Pirate says:

    I don’t see how you can possibly make a case for the “Israel intentionally bombed the UN” theory. What possible motivation could you attribute to them aside from Snidely Whiplash mustache-twirling evil?

    That said, Israel certainly flouts many of the larger principles advanced by the United Nations…such as self-determination, international cooperation, and generally not bombing the everloving fuck out of civilians.

  46. 46
    Steve says:

    Nobody said “how dare” John do anything.

    What I said was, given the world of shit here, why get exercised about this trivial thing?

    It hardly matters, and I’m surprised you even got offended by my tiny dig. But don’t you think it’s a little silly to pretend there was no outrage aimed at John in your original post?

    Nutcutter Says:

    In the horror and madness of this situation for the last week and a half, this is what gets you riled up?

    There are no words.

  47. 47
    Gregory says:

    There are hundreds of UN troops and at least 10s of thousands of civilians still in South Lebanon, and if Israel wanted to “[kill] the hell out of all of them,” they could and thousands would be dead already.

    Long time lurker, first time commenter. Pointing to the civilians, aid workers, UN workers, etc., that Israel hasn’t killed (yet) is a pretty piss-poor justificiation for the ones Israel actually killed.

  48. 48
    John S. says:

    Israel simply doesn’t care. About anyone.

    Israel most certainly does care about someone – Israelis.

    And like every other country in the world, Israel places a much higher premium on the welfare of its citizens than it does on any foreigners. This is pretty standard fare (just look at the media coverage of the the tsunami versus the coverage of Katrina) and shouldn’t come as a surprise.

  49. 49
    Punchy says:

    I don’t see how you can possibly make a case for the “Israel intentionally bombed the UN” theory

    As stated before, it’s probably not the case that Israel tuned their missles onto the UN location. Instead, they just bombed the area with complete disregard for who was there, and disregard for who could be hit. Does that make it intentional? No. Are they at fault? Many would say yes.

  50. 50
    Pb says:

    The Pirate,

    I don’t see how you can possibly make a case for the “Israel intentionally bombed the UN” theory.

    Ok, let’s go with the silly hypothetical scenario here. Let’s say that you’re my next door neighbor. Your kids are out in the back shooting off bb’s–presumably at a target? Every so often one of those bb’s comes dangerously close to the hamster cage I have out back. Now your kids know I have a hamster back there because he’s been there forever, and I’ve told you before to be careful about it. Every time a bb almost hits my hamster, I call you and tell you to tell your kids to cut it out because they could shoot my hamster. I call you ten times over a period of six hours, once after every near miss. The last time, the hamster takes a direct hit and dies. Now is that “apparently deliberate”? Or is it just gross negligence beyond the bounds of all reason on your part? And remember, we aren’t really talking about hamsters here, or about kids. I expect better from the IDF.

  51. 51
    D. Mason says:

    I don’t see how you can possibly make a case for the “Israel intentionally bombed the UN” theory.

    You need new glasses.

  52. 52
    Nutcutter says:

    But don’t you think it’s a little silly to pretend there was no outrage aimed at John in your original post?

    This is the best troll you can come up with today, asshole?

    Why don’t you write one of your useless fucking lawyerly essays about why the Koffi statement is, in fact, so important and upsetting. You know, compared to the death, the destruction, the humanitarian crisis, the world being pushed a little closer to the brink of more death and destruction, the unfathomable US policy here, the sixty years of shit in the middle east, the asshole running Hezbollah, the tragedy of delusional religious radicalism, and on and on. Compare and contrast.

    Go ahead, you think it’s so fucking worthwhile, knock yourself out.

    Or, since you have nothing to day, sit there and make clucking noises with your tongue like a horse’s ass.

    Whatever.

  53. 53
    Steve says:

    I don’t see how you can possibly make a case for the “Israel intentionally bombed the UN” theory. What possible motivation could you attribute to them aside from Snidely Whiplash mustache-twirling evil?

    I could come up with a million, although it would be pure speculation on my part.

    It’s entirely possible that it could be a “deliberate act” in the sense that the troops on the scene meant to do it, but not in the sense that the leadership of Israel personally requested it to happen.

    As others have noted, Israel certainly has reason to hold a grudge against the UN, considering that some days that organization seems to exist solely for the purpose of condemning Israeli actions. I don’t vouch for the accuracy of this story, but see here for an example of why some on the Israeli right think UN peacekeeping troops are a force for evil.

    Also, there’s a school of thought that says Israel is trying to reestablish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, a process that isn’t pretty by any measure. It would make sense to scare the UN forces off as part of that process.

    Again, I’m seriously not taking a position one way or the other on what actually happened here, but it’s not hard to postulate rational motives for an intentional attack.

  54. 54
    Nutcutter says:

    I’m seriously not taking a position one way or the other on what actually happened here

    How did you manage to keep this post down to under 20000 words?

  55. 55
    Tsulagi says:

    Maybe Annan too quickly simply relayed what he may have been told from U.N. observers on the ground. Before this incident, some had already been wounded by Israeli fire a little too close to their positions. They may have felt it was deliberate. You tend to think that way when things are blowing up around you.

    Kind of doubt it was deliberate as Israel is trying hard to justify continued bombing by saying they are so precise in their targeting. Any oopsies get press and counter that argument.

    Then again, did Olmert meet with Bush before this Lebanon blowup? I think Bush is just one big walking stupid virus. Olmert may have been infected.

  56. 56
    Ancient Purple says:

    But don’t you think it’s a little silly to pretend there was no outrage aimed at John in your original post?

    Why pretend when it is the truth. I wasn’t “outraged” at all. Not for a moment. And I didn’t see Nutcutter’s comments as being outraged either.

    What I did was scratch my head and think, “Of all the things that are going on today, this is what has John’s knickers in a twist?”

  57. 57
    Punchy says:

    It would make sense to scare the UN forces off as part of that process.

    Understatement of the year. Next time I want to scare off some kids, I’ll just kill ’em instead. I will say, it’s bound to be effective.

  58. 58
    Rusty Shackleford says:

    Nutcutter Says:

    …Remember that God Is On Their Side.

    July 26th, 2006 at 10:57 am

    It’s the Party of God (Hezbollah) vs The Chosen People (Israel)

    Won’t God just make up his freakin’ mind already?

  59. 59
    Pb says:

    Tsulagi,

    Kind of doubt it was deliberate as Israel is trying hard to justify continued bombing by saying they are so precise in their targeting.

    If they’re so precise in their targeting, that would instead imply that it was deliberate, actually. Along with the “at least 10 ambulances” they’ve allegedly targeted so far.

  60. 60
    Steve says:

    Understatement of the year. Next time I want to scare off some kids, I’ll just kill ‘em instead. I will say, it’s bound to be effective.

    Yeah, well, by the fact that the UN forces had 10 chances to call and ask that the bombing be stopped, we can conclude that Israel wasn’t simply out to murder them from the get-go. It’s possible, for example, that their goal was to unleash a lot of near misses to get the UN to conclude “it’s not safe around here, let’s get outta here!”

    Also, I hope I was clear that Israel’s hypothetical motivation wouldn’t simply be to drive off this single guardpost, but to get rid of the UN peacekeeping forces altogether. To deliberately kill some of them to scare the rest off would be an act of terrorism, of course, but it’s not unheard of for people to concludde that such actions are justified, sick as it is.

    My only point was that there is a range of possible motivations that are more complex than “hehe, let’s murder some people because we can!”

  61. 61
    Anderson says:

    Jesus, Cole, read up a little before going off on Annan, who apparently made his statement based on a helluva lot more info than your post was based on.

    If you punch me and I say “quit hitting me” and you hit me 9 more times, is that an accident? –Hey, let’s not actually test that out, okay?

  62. 62
    Andrew says:

    Holy strawman. Is this the case? Do you have a link to show this?

    The UNIFIL report says that an observer was hit by small arms fire from Hezbollah. This clearly implies that Hezbollah is operating in the area of the base, within small arms range — a few hundred feet, perhaps a thousand or two, versus artillery or aerial bombing range — dozens of miles.

    If you posit that Israel is not able to target Hezbollah when they operate near a UN base, you have effectively created terrorist safe havens.

    And if Israel did intend to “send a message” to the UN, why did they bomb the area around the base repeatedly, as opposed to just destroying it immediately? A fixed base location would be easy for guided bombs to hit the first try or the second. Do you mean to imply that Israel bombed the area around the base repeatedly, solely as cover for the intended destruction of the base?

    Again, if Hezbollah is still operating in the area after repeated bombardment, and the UN convinces Israel to stop bombing and shelling, then a safe haven for terrorists has been created.

    If the result of the UN presence is to create a safe haven for terrorist operations, then they must withdraw or engage Hezbullah militarily, or they are accomplices to the attacks on Israel.

  63. 63
    Steve says:

    Why don’t you write one of your useless fucking lawyerly essays about why the Koffi statement is, in fact, so important and upsetting. You know, compared to the death, the destruction, the humanitarian crisis, the world being pushed a little closer to the brink of more death and destruction, the unfathomable US policy here, the sixty years of shit in the middle east, the asshole running Hezbollah, the tragedy of delusional religious radicalism, and on and on. Compare and contrast.

    Keep telling yourself that you’re the sole occupant of the moral high ground, that you’re the only one who sees this situation with complete moral clarity, that you’re the only one who gets that burning children to death is evil no matter the reasons. Keep berating the rest of us about how our condemnations aren’t as pure and holy as yours. And of course, keep swearing as much as possible to make sure everyone understands just how upset you are by all the killing and destruction, unlike the rest of us of course.

    Dude, at the end of the day, you’re just writing comments on a blog called Balloon Juice like the rest of us are. Lay off the self-righteousness and the lashing out at anyone who perceives the slightest bit of nuance or room for discussion of some issue. It’s like I’m being lectured by Joe Lieberman here.

  64. 64
    D. Mason says:

    It’s possible, for example, that their goal was to unleash a lot of near misses to get the UN to conclude “it’s not safe around here, let’s get outta here!”

    So what you’re saying is that if I dont like you being in my neighbors backyard it’s cool for me to throw “near-miss” rocks at your head even though you ask me to stop(you WOULD ask me to stop right?). And furthermore you’re saying that if one of em hits your head you will consider it to be an accident (since I wasn’t trying to actually hit your head, only throwing rocks dangerously close)and we can still be homies, right? I’m just trying to get your position straight here.

  65. 65
    Nutcutter says:

    If you posit that Israel is not able to target Hezbollah when they operate near a UN base, you have effectively created terrorist safe havens.

    Could you possibly be any more absurd?

    Let me get this straight: All the terrorist has to do is set up shop near some civilians or peacekeeping forces, and the WOT crowd will start throwing ordnance in there and kill the civilians and the peacekeepers.

    Brilliant! Terrorism was never easier, then. You don’t have to fire a shot or strap on a blastpack, you just wave your terrorist flag around and the idiots on the other side will do the dirty work for you.

    The “non terrorists” will sit there and blow up vans full of kids and positions manned by unarmed observers and then say “how unfortunate” when it is brought to their attention. Just like the bloggers here do. Tsk, tsk.

    Oh, and Damn Those Terrorists for standing near that peacekeeper. They Hate Us For Our Freedom.

    What a wacky world of upside down bullshit you are living in … or spoofing, who can tell?

  66. 66
    D. Mason says:

    Do you mean to imply that Israel bombed the area around the base repeatedly, solely as cover for the intended destruction of the base?

    Well, it wouldn’t be the first time that an agressive government did such a thing. It’s not like those bombs are costing Israel anything. The American taxpayer is picking up the tab for this bullshit so why would Israel be concearned about wasting bombs?

  67. 67
    Sam Hutcheson says:

    It takes two to tango and this little dance has been going on for most of recorded history.

    Interestingly enough, no. There really wasn’t a world-historical, on-going Arab-Jewish war prior to, oh, about 1948. Before that, most all of the Semitic peoples lived together pretty nicely in that particular stretch of desert.

  68. 68
    Pb says:

    Nutcutter,

    Let me get this straight: All the terrorist has to do is set up shop near some civilians or peacekeeping forces, and the WOT crowd will start throwing ordnance in there and kill the civilians and the peacekeepers.

    Brilliant! Terrorism was never easier, then. You don’t have to fire a shot or strap on a blastpack, you just wave your terrorist flag around and the idiots on the other side will do the dirty work for you.

    Yep; I made a similar point in response to a similar argument in a previous thread, and the response I got was essentially that, by their actions, Hezbollah has provoked and is responsible for the Israeli military response. That is to say, if Hezbollah’s goal was for Israel to bomb Lebanese civilians, then they’ve accomplished it, and therefore, Hezbollah is to blame. If they want Israel to bomb any other civilians, why, all they have to do is hide out somewhere near some other civilians, and attack Israel! Hezbollah doesn’t even need an army of their own, really. All they have to do now is hide near something they want destroyed, and taunt Israel. The IDF is their army now. Maybe someone from Hezbollah called in and said, “we’re hiding in all the ambulances, and the UN outposts, and the villages, and the family minivans!” Who knows, they’re clever like that.

  69. 69
    Punchy says:

    Andrew–

    Let me proffer this question for you (and whoever else): Is there a location that Hezbollah may be hiding in that would be unacceptable for Israel to bomb? Because it sounds from your statement that the answer to that is “no”.

    So 2 Hezbollah members in a nursing home…bomb it? 3 H members and a grenade launcher in a elementary school, and you say bomb it? A coupla H members in a mosque full of innocents and you say “bomb it”? What’s the limit? Is everything fair game?

    …’Cause we dont want no terrorist “safe havens”!!

  70. 70
    Steve says:

    The UNIFIL report says that an observer was hit by small arms fire from Hezbollah. This clearly implies that Hezbollah is operating in the area of the base, within small arms range—a few hundred feet, perhaps a thousand or two, versus artillery or aerial bombing range—dozens of miles.

    Yeah, well, actually, the UNIFIL report says that an observer was hit by Hezbollah fire in the Marun al Ras area, which looks to be at least 20 miles from the U.N. post at Khiyam which was attacked, judging by this map. In other words, you’re talking about two entirely different U.N. bases.

  71. 71
    Nutcutter says:

    ’Cause we dont want no terrorist “safe havens”!!

    And you can’t question the logic … lest ….

    a) You are called anti-semitic

    b) You are accused of coddling terrorists

    Thus does Peace become War, and vice versa. Orwell himself couldn’t write the script better.

    Rice: “We don’t want to rush into a cease fire.”

    No matter how long I live, I will never really believe that I heard an American diplomat say that out loud in public.

  72. 72
    Steve says:

    That is to say, if Hezbollah’s goal was for Israel to bomb Lebanese civilians, then they’ve accomplished it, and therefore, Hezbollah is to blame.

    Well, that’s exactly right. The problem is that the wingnuts sitting in their armchairs say “From here, it’s obvious that the root cause of the whole thing is Hezbollah, why can’t the people getting bombed see that it’s all about Hezbollah?” Sure, it’s wrong to use human shields, and Israel surely doesn’t have to take the extreme position of saying “oh well, Hezbollah has civilians around yet again, guess there’s nothing we can do,” but the problem with the theories being espoused by some commentors here is that they can literally be applied to justify any bombing by Israel whatsoever. Cause basically, either you accept there’s a line that shouldn’t be crossed in pursuit of Hezbollah, in which case you should take a shot at defining that line, or else you’re basically fine with turning Lebanon into a sheet of glass in order to make sure all the terrorists are dead.

    However, while I’m with you up to a point, I’m not sure I understand your position on what Israel actually ought to do. If they want to strike against Hezbollah, but Hezbollah takes pains to ensure that civilians are never far away, how do you think Israel should conduct itself?

  73. 73
    Steve says:

    So what you’re saying is that if I dont like you being in my neighbors backyard it’s cool for me to throw “near-miss” rocks at your head even though you ask me to stop(you WOULD ask me to stop right?). And furthermore you’re saying that if one of em hits your head you will consider it to be an accident (since I wasn’t trying to actually hit your head, only throwing rocks dangerously close)and we can still be homies, right? I’m just trying to get your position straight here.

    No, I’m not saying it’s “cool” at all. I think I said about a dozen times that I wasn’t trying to justify Israel’s actions, I was simply trying to describe what their motives might be. Because someone had tried to argue that there would be no possible motivation for Israel to attack the U.N. base other than cartoony evil, and therefore we should accept that it wasn’t an intentional act.

    I’m glad you are trying to get my position straight. Are we straight now?

  74. 74
    jaime says:

    setting aside the report by CNN, the US affiliate of AL-Jazeera.

    All news you don’t like is enemy propaganda? I guess in your worl ParR, it isn’t news unless it’s directly reported by Karen Ryan, or being delivered by Jeff Gannon while he gives you head.

  75. 75
    Nutcutter says:

    I’m not sure I understand your position on what Israel actually ought to do

    Information that will come in handy in case you ever decide to start your own country.

  76. 76
    Andrew says:

    Ah Steve, quite right. Thanks for the correction.

    I confused the reports. It is actually the July 23rd report that suggests that there were Hezbullah operations from near the UN base in Khiyam (unless, of course, you believe Israel is simply trying to intimidate the UN). The other report is simply further evidence that Hezbullah operates near UN bases.

  77. 77
    Punchy says:

    Look at what Tony Snow said about Rice’s failure to get a cease-fire (if you’re eating, swallow first…otherwise you’ll be wiping off your monitor):

    “What do you mean they broke down? They came up with an agreement that talked about an urgent ceasefire,” said White House spokesman Tony Snow.

    “I think it’s important to recognize that if you don’t have a specified clock date for a ceasefire, that’s not a failure, that’s a recognition of reality.”

    Wow. This guy is pure comedy. He needs a microphone and two nites at the Chuckle Hut.

  78. 78
    D. Mason says:

    how do you think Israel should conduct itself?

    Like civilised human beings? I mean, you have set up a very big “if”. I mean, when Israel told people to evacuate then used the highway as a shooting gallery while they tried to do so can you really say it was because hezbollah had taken pains to be sure they would be there? No, Israel set up a massacre and carried it out. Were hezbollah hiding in the ambulances? I kind of doubt it but Israel saw fit to bomb them anyway.

    You can say that no target should be off limits because terrorists would just use those areas as a safe haven but to date it seems like a thin exscuse for wanton killing to me. When terrorists are actually using and elementary school for cover then discuss the ins and outs of bombing it, but blanket bombing of neighborhoods and escape routes is not fighting terror, it IS terror.

  79. 79
    Pb says:

    Steve,

    However, while I’m with you up to a point, I’m not sure I understand your position on what Israel actually ought to do.

    Mostly it’s just common sense (because I’m no military strategist), but I’ve gone through a long list in my head of what Israel ought to do or should have done. Obviously, they aren’t interested. In their defense, some of my suggestions might end up resulting in more Israeli casualties (and far less civilian casualties); then again, others wouldn’t, and my approach might be better for Israel in the long run–maybe much better.

    The first thing they should have done was *talk to Lebanon*. Maybe they could have negotiated something–to go after Hezbollah, or to keep civilians out of harm’s way, or what have you. Then they should have started with either a ground assault with cover from the air, or targeted strikes on Hezbollah launch sites (with ground troops to drop in as well). They could have talked to Lebanon about blockading roads around Southern Lebanon, or set up blockades. And most importantly–here’s the big one–they could have tried *not bombing civilians and civilian targets* for a while.

    Feel free to come up with your own, I’m sure I left out a few things.

  80. 80
    Tsulagi says:

    Pb,

    If they’re so precise in their targeting, that would instead imply that it was deliberate, actually. Along with the “at least 10 ambulances” they’ve allegedly targeted so far.

    Yeah, when I first heard the Annan statement I thought he could make an argument being technically correct because Israel was so insistent it wasn’t making any mistakes. Maybe the Bush stupid/no responsibility virus at play with the Israelis as when our dipshit couldn’t give an answer when asked if he had ever made a single mistake during his entire presidency.

    The 10 ambulances in the article you linked to? Obviously overzealous targeting mistakes by the pilots. In that article a U.N. humanitarian affairs chief on the ground also pleaded for Hezbollah to “stop this cowardly blending … among women and children.” Still, even if those Israeli pilots think Hezbollah is using ambulances to move men and weapons, they should pass on the target until they see what is actually coming in or out of those ambulances.

    However, still don’t think it was actually pre-meditated deliberate. In Iraq, some of our units have lost more to F-16s than to the bad guys. Some boots refer to the Air Force as our terrorist organization. Dark humor. But don’t think our pilots deliberately target our soldiers.

  81. 81
    Par R says:

    Good to see you’re still alive, “jaime.” I had heard that you have been banned from the locker room in all baseball parks because of your “little problem.” True??

  82. 82
    Nutcutter says:

    I’m not sure I understand your position on what Israel actually ought to do.

    Well, it should decide that relatively minor border skirmish resulting in a tank blown up by a mine, a half dozen or so dead soldiers, and a couple captured soldiers, is worth a border war with going on 500 dead people including probably a hundred or more kids on the other side, fleeing families blown up in their cars, and the world thrown into crisis mode, all so that they can harumph and get George Bush the Alcoholic to say that they “have a right to defend themselves” and then have our Secretary of State bounce from Mediterranean photo op to Mediterranean photo op talking about the critical need NOT TO RUSH INTO A CEASE FIRE.

    That’s what they should do. Unless you have a better idea, of course.

  83. 83
    Perry Como says:

    I had heard that you have been banned from the locker room in all baseball parks because of your “little problem.” True??

    Were you missing him?

  84. 84
  85. 85
    Nutcutter says:

    All we’re missing at this point is the Bush-Rice photo op and “Condi, you’re doin a heckuva job.”

    Secretary Rice will now take over the planning for hurricane preparedness.

    “There have been so many big storms that we evacuated for, and then they went somewhere else. We don’t want to rush into anything until we know we can get a lasting evacuation.”

    Under Rice’s direction, FEMA’s new slogan: No Premature Evacuation! We’re not going to Cut and Run in the face of hurricanes.

  86. 86
    jaime says:

    “jaime” is my actual name. No need to put it in quotations, Alias McAnonymoustein. Tell me, Par R, does Jeff Gannon/Guckert really get to the angry bottom of all the issues?

  87. 87
    Steve says:

    Abu Aardvark:

    I don’t know anyone who will be surprised that the Rome conference failed – it seems to have been designed to fail, to give the US the chance to appear to be “doing something” while giving Israel the time it wants to continue its offensive. But this policy is so transparent, such an obvious stalling mechanism, that it is probably making things even worse for the United States and for Israel: when you are faking it, you’re supposed to at least try to maintain the pretence so that others can at least pretend to believe you. The call for an immediate ceasefire has become more or less universal now, other than from the United States and Israel: even the pro-American Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, which initially blamed Hezbollah for the crisis, are now loudly demanding an immediate ceasefire.

    America is totally alone on this. And more than most Americans might realize, America is being blamed for Israel’s actions. The shift in Arab public discourse over the last week has been palpable. For the first few days, the split between the Saudi media and the “al-Jazeera public” which I wrote about at the time. Then for a few days, horror at the humanitarian situation, fury with the Arab states for their impotence, speculation about the endgame, and full-throated condemnation of Israeli aggression. But for the last few days, the main trend has been unmistakable: an increasing focus on the United States as the villain of the piece. (That the Israeli bombing of Beirut stopped just long enough for Condoleeza Rice’s photo op certainly didn’t help.)

    Back when the Dubai ports deal was a big issue, I remember laughing and laughing at Bush’s argument that we had to go through with this deal because otherwise the Arab world would come to distrust America. Five years of not caring one bit how the world, particularly the Arab world, looks at us, and Bush wanted us to believe that suddenly it was a big concern for him? It was such a ridiculous argument that even some of the Bushbots didn’t buy it.

    It’s amazing to me that not caring what the world thinks of us is a winning electoral position, but it certainly seems to be – and there’s obviously no denying that Bush openly ran on that position. Taking other countries’ opinions into account is no different from giving them a veto over our national security. And so on.

    It’s ridiculous that we really seem determined to go it alone in this complex modern world, but that’s the government we’ve got, so hang in there.

  88. 88
    Par R says:

    I wonder if “jaime” was indulging in a little unconscious anti-Semitism when he referred to me as follows:

    “jaime” is my actual name. No need to put it in quotations, Alias McAnonymoustein.

    On the other hand, I don’t think there was anything unconscious about it at all.

  89. 89
    Steve says:

    Marc Lynch continues:

    Perhaps this negative focus on America was inevitable, given Iraq and the war on terror and al-Jazeera?

    No. This wan’t inevitable. Real American leadership, such as quickly restraining the Israeli offensive and taking the lead in ceasefire negotiations, could have created a Suez moment and dramatically increased American influence and prestige (especially if the Saudis had delivered Iran in a ceasefire agreement, as I’ve heard that Saudi officials believed that they could). But by disappearing for the first days of the war and then resurfacing only to provide a megaphone for Israeli arguments and to prevent international efforts at achieving a ceasefire, the Bush administration put America at the center of the storm of blame. I think that the Lebanon war will go down in history as one of the greatest missed opportunities in recent American diplomatic history – not because we failed to go after Iran, or whatever the bobbleheads are ranting about these days, but because we failed to rise to the occasion and exercise real global leadership in the national interest.

  90. 90
    Nutcutter says:

    It’s amazing to me that not caring what the world thinks of us is a winning electoral position, but it certainly seems to be

    You just assimilate more slowly than most people.

    This government doesn’t care what judges think. It doesn’t care about congressional oversight. It doesn’t mind being at odds with the Consitution, or law. It won by a sliver and said it had “political capital.” It’s official policy is “Fuck You” which is expressed as “You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.” It cares nothing about declaring cultural and policy and tax war on its own citizens.

    Why would it care what the world thinks?

    It doesn’t even care what Americans think.

  91. 91
    Dave Ruddell says:

    Well since this might degenerate into a USS Liberty fight, there might as well be some more info posted. Here is the wikipedia page, and here is a page that addresses many of the points made by those who think that the attack was deliberate.

  92. 92
    jaime says:

    unconscious anti-Semitism

    Yep. Hate the Jews, because of my sheer dislike of gaberdine. And I hate Christians, too. Solely for their love of Christ.

  93. 93
    Steve says:

    You just assimilate more slowly than most people.

    I wasn’t trying to suggest that I just came to this conclusion.

    I think it’s the Bush voters who were slower to assimilate what it all adds up to.

  94. 94
    RSA says:

    It’s entirely possible that it could be a “deliberate act” in the sense that the troops on the scene meant to do it, but not in the sense that the leadership of Israel personally requested it to happen.

    Whatever one’s belief in the scenario above, it reminds me of the arguments that Rumsfeld et al. were responsible for Abu Ghraib. That is, clearly abuses can happen at a low level in the military; it’s a more subtle issue whether responsibility travels up the chain of command. If no one is reprimanded for the bombing of the UN observer post (or if the soldiers involved are described as simply confused, incompetent, or perhaps bad apples), we’ll have a clearer answer.

  95. 95
    srv says:

    setting aside the report by CNN, the US affiliate of AL-Jazeera.

    Al-Jazeera broadcasts more interviews with Israeli gov’t officials each month than Fox does.

  96. 96
    jaime says:

    Al-Jazeera broadcasts more interviews with Israeli gov’t officials each month than Fox does.

    PAR R: *plugging ears* “lalalalalalalalalLIBERALBIASlalalalalalalalalalalalala”

  97. 97
    jg says:

    Many years have been spent training a segment of the population to have an almost Pavlovian response to the words and arguments put forth by a left winger. The result is th eright winger has a more intense desire to vote righty when the lefty speaks. With this training in place all the rights leadership has to do is sit back and watch as issues, real and manufactured, pop up which creates an environment that makes the left winger speak. This drives right wingers to the polls and we have more right wing leadership. Amazingly enough even this issue can be used as a left vs right issue. I’ll bet that in a few years even American Idol will break down on party lines.

  98. 98
    jg says:

    Amazingly enough even this issue can be used as a left vs right issue.

    ‘This issue’, being the Israel/Hezbollah clusterfuck thats going on.

  99. 99
    DougJ says:

    Right, John, the real problem here is Kofi Annan. Sometimes, though, I think it is more Michael Moore or Ward Churchill’s fault.

    What do you guys think? Whose most responsible for the conflict in Lebanon: Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, Kofi Annan, Cindy Sheehan, or the Jane Hamshers of the left.

  100. 100
    Ross says:

    From the BBC report:

    The UN report says each time the UN contacted Israeli forces, they were assured the firing would stop.

    This happened ten times, and they ended up destroying it anyway. The other Mr. Cole gives his take on the incident:

    When you have in mind war crimes, it is better not to have neutral observers in the region.

    It’s bleak, but I think it accords with the reality of what’s happened so far.

  101. 101
  102. 102
    DougJ says:

    I hope the UN apologizes for placing their workers under the Israeli bombs, the same way that guy that walked in front of Cheney’s guns apologized to Cheney.

  103. 103
    Punchy says:

    Whose most responsible for the conflict in Lebanon

    Michael Moore. He’s fat. If he really wanted to end this conflict, he could just eat Hezbollah. But he hasn’t. Which means he’s siding with the terrorists.

  104. 104
    DougJ says:

    The Jane Hamshers of the left are objectively pro-terrorist.

  105. 105
    DougJ says:

    It’s been a while since John wrote something this stupid. The Schumer comments thing was just a little silly, mostly it was just fun to give him a hard time about it.

    This post is off in Malkin/Pamela territory.

  106. 106

    I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Israel deliberately targeted the UN post.

    Israel’s government is pretty “cocky”, for lack of a better term.

    They do what they want, and we just bend over and take it like the little bitches that we are.

  107. 107
    jaime says:

    Sometimes, though, I think it is more Michael Moore or Ward Churchill’s fault.

    Let’s not forget Hitlery. She publically came out in favor of Israel, so that means she is pro-Hezbollah. It doesn’t matter what she says, what matters is what Rush says she said. It’s her terrorist support that caused all this.

  108. 108
    Perry Como says:

    Hitlery was just being objectively pro-objective.

  109. 109
    Nutcutter says:

    I wasn’t trying to suggest that I just came to this conclusion.

    I was being funny.

  110. 110
    Ancient Purple says:

    Whose most responsible for the conflict in Lebanon:

    It is Louisiana Gov. Blanco’s fault. After all, she never declared a state of emergency in Lebanon.

  111. 111
    Krista says:

    You people are all getting distracted from the real issue. What kind of plan would the Dems have had? With a crazy screamer like Dean in charge of the whole operation, how can anybody think that they’d know what to do?

  112. 112
    DougJ says:

    This is a blast from the past, but I’ve got to think Aaron Broussard had a hand in this. Maybe he lied to the Israelis about the location of the UN workers the same way he lied to Tim Russert about the exact moment at which his friend’s grandmother died.

  113. 113
    DougJ says:

    I can’t help but think none of this would have happened if the NYT hadn’t taken those pictures of Donald Rumsfeld’s birdhouse. That emboldened the UN to set up shop within the range of the Israeli’s bombs.

    You know, this almost seems like a sort of suicide attack to me. I hope the Israelis bulldoze the UN workers’ homes so that they don’t become shrines for Islamic extremists.

  114. 114
    jaime says:

    Well, I keep going back to the PJ Media ad on the left side of the web page. I really think now it’s Paris Hilton’s fault. She is one of the top 3 worst people for America, and not for her unfortunately out of focus night vision porn, but because of her Buchanan-like Fortress America ideology.

  115. 115
    Nutcutter says:

    Obviously overzealous targeting mistakes by the pilots.

    If they are so cavalier and uncaring about what they shoot at, why do they keep shipping those targeting videos from the weapons out to all the news outlets?

    Aren’t they proud of what they are doing? If they aren’t proud, why all the home movies?

    If they are shooting first and figuring out what they shot later, what the fuck are they so proud of?

    “Look, we can actually hit a moving target!”

    Whoop-tee-fucking-doo. Would it be too much trouble to ascertain first whether the moving target is a van with a fleeing family in it?

  116. 116
    Anderson says:

    setting aside the report by CNN, the US affiliate of AL-Jazeera.

    What a fucking moron.

  117. 117
    Darrell says:

    These quotes pretty much sum up the majority opinion of “progressives”

    The Disenfranchised Voter Says:

    I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Israel deliberately targeted the UN post.

    Israel’s government is pretty “cocky”, for lack of a better term.

    They do what they want, and we just bend over and take it like the little bitches that we are.

    and

    DougJ Says:

    I hope the UN apologizes for placing their workers under the Israeli bombs, the same way that guy that walked in front of Cheney’s guns apologized to Cheney.

    and this

    When you have in mind war crimes, it is better not to have neutral observers in the region.

    Not only are most liberals quick to declare Israel guilty of “intentional” targetting of UN posts without solid evidence supporting that accusation, many other liberals accuse Israel of deliberate “war crimes”. Not saying all ‘reality based’ liberals feel that way, but most apparently do. It’s who you sorry sacks of shit truly are.

  118. 118
    Darrell says:

    Israel certainly seems to be operating with callous disregard for what they hit.

    Bingo

    .

    Welcome to the ‘reality based’ community!

  119. 119
    jaime says:

    Not only are most liberals quick to declare

    Most asshole fake conservatives are quick to decide what liberals think.

    You must have scrubbed the fact that there were several liberal Congressmen that boycotted Maliki’s speech to congress because of his failure to condemn Hezbollah’s actions from your rolodex.

    I guess in your world, Darrell, if you ignore the facts you have carte blanche to make shit up to substitute as facts.

  120. 120
    Steve says:

    Do Darrell’s posts amount to anything more than “I disagree with these quotes, therefore liberals suck”?

  121. 121
    jaime says:

    I think Darrell is trying to be slick about queering the thread. Soon we will be arguing about something completely tangential of Darrell’s choosing.

  122. 122
    srv says:

    If they are shooting first and figuring out what they shot later, what the fuck are they so proud of?

    Pilots love air video. But they never look at the ground video. I was at a post-Gulf 1 event with 30+ USAF pilots (active and retired). One of the members had a son and son-in-law in the conflict. One was an F-16 pilot, and he played the cockpit camera video. The audience cheered with every bomb strike. The other was a SAR (search and rescue) medic. He played his video of all the ground truth. Very much a gore film.

    The pilots all squirmed in their seats.

  123. 123
    Nutcutter says:

    Israel certainly seems to be operating with callous disregard for what they hit.

    Oh no, as long as they refer to the charred children and their screaming mothers as “unfortunate collateral” then the rule is, they are off the hook.

    That’s right out of the BJ bylaws, I think.

    See, when God Is On Your Side and you are Fighting Terrorists who Are Afraid of Democracy, then “unfortunate collateral” is just the “price you have to pay.”

    Well, YOU don’t have to pay it, the dead people and their families do, but anyway.

  124. 124
    Jim Allen says:

    Well, look who’s here! I’ve been waiting for LarryDarrell&Darrell’s own special way of fucking up a thread, and here he is, right on time!

  125. 125
    Darrell says:

    Truth is, MOST liberals cannot discuss Israel without using one-way condemnations of Israel, with no condemnation of the bloodthirsty vermin Israel is fighting against.. or if they do, it’s usually a bullshit “both sides are wrong” type of dishonest moral equivalancy. Isreal is fighting a DEFENSIVE war against terrorists who intentionally target civilians, and who want to kill all Jews (and other infidels).

    No one is saying Israel has carte blanche to turn Lebanon into glass in retaliation for being attacked. But the left has demonstrated once again, how whenever violent conflicts involve Israel, most all condemnations flow only in 1 direction. Fucking aholes

  126. 126
    Nutcutter says:

    Do Darrell’s posts amount to anything more than “I disagree with these quotes, therefore liberals suck”?

    I’ve only been here a year and a half.

    But, no.

  127. 127
    Darrell says:

    Steve Says:

    Do Darrell’s posts amount to anything more than “I disagree with these quotes, therefore liberals suck”?

    Yes, how ‘controversial’ of me to disagree with the prevailing sentiment among liberals that “Israel is intentionally committing war crimes”

  128. 128
    Nutcutter says:

    No one is saying Israel has carte blanche to turn Lebanon into glass

    You’ve turned into a caricature of yourself, Darrell.

    Think of your legacy.

  129. 129
    Nutcutter says:

    See, when God Darrell Is On Your Side and you are Fighting Terrorists who Are Afraid of Democracy, then “unfortunate collateral” is just the “price you have to pay.”

    I made a slight adjustment since this is now going to become a Darrell thread.

    Okay, go ahead.

  130. 130
    Mr Furious says:

    “callous disregard” = “intentional war crimes”.

    Glad we got that straight, Darrell.

    You goddamn shithead.

  131. 131
    jaime says:

    sentiment among liberals that “Israel is intentionally committing war crimes”

    I guess it is conservative sentiment that Lebanese can be killed because they are all objectively pro-Hezbollah. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be living in Beirut.

  132. 132
    Jim Allen says:

    Truth is, MOST liberals cannot discuss Israel without using one-way condemnations of Israel, with no condemnation of the bloodthirsty vermin Israel is fighting against.. or if they do, it’s usually a bullshit “both sides are wrong” type of dishonest moral equivalancy. Isreal is fighting a DEFENSIVE war against terrorists who intentionally target civilians, and who want to kill all Jews (and other infidels).

    No one is saying Israel has carte blanche to turn Lebanon into glass in retaliation for being attacked. But the left has demonstrated once again, how whenever violent conflicts involve Israel, most all condemnations flow only in 1 direction. Fucking aholes

    I am continually amazed at how much jackassery can spew from one idiot’s keyboard. Your streak of consecutive stupid postings continues, unbroken!

    And you’re still an asshat.

  133. 133
    Darrell says:

    Mr Furious Says:

    “callous disregard” = “intentional war crimes”.

    Glad we got that straight, Darrell.

    Callous disregard of civilian life WOULD BE a war crime. But liberal icon Juan Cole says outright the sentiment of most liberals:

    The Israelis denied that they hit the base deliberately, but Kofi would know. Why do it? When you have in mind war crimes, it is better not to have neutral observers in the region.

    Ah yes, the ever so nuanced and thoughtful leftists

  134. 134
    jaime says:

    Darrell’s brain is set to “ignore”.

    How come liberal congressman were the only ones boycotting the pro-Hezbollah Maliki, Darrell? You gonna answer?

  135. 135
    Darrell says:

    I am continually amazed at how much jackassery can spew from one idiot’s keyboard

    My bad for quoting so many of you liberal jackasses verbatim.. Word for fucking word. How dare anyone point out what so many liberals actually say and believe

  136. 136
    Steve says:

    Yes, how ‘controversial’ of me to disagree with the prevailing sentiment among liberals that “Israel is intentionally committing war crimes”

    Who brought “controversial” into the discussion?

    You’ve asserted, without any evidence, that “most” liberals believe X, Y, and Z and that they are the “prevailing sentiment” among liberals.

    You’ve also asserted, without discussion or analysis, that you disagree with X, Y, and Z and think they are nutty positions to take.

    Doesn’t the conversation end at this point?

  137. 137
    Jim Allen says:

    Darrell’s brain is set to “ignore”.

    I reject your base assumption. There is no evidence to support its existence.

  138. 138
    Darrell says:

    Israel certainly seems to be operating with callous disregard for what they hit.

    Bingo

    .

    Leftists POTD?

  139. 139
    BIRDZILLA says:

    So whats that idiot KOFFI ANNAN blabbring about after all there are plenty of terrorist sponsoring countries that belong to the UN maybe its time to boot ANNAN and the whole stinkin UN off of our shores

  140. 140
    Darrell says:

    You’ve asserted, without any evidence, that “most” liberals believe

    Steve, I’ve quoted close to half dozen leftists verbatim.. quotes which represent the majority sentiment here and on other leftist blogs. What a lying sack of shit you are for saying that I asserted this “without any evidence” when the highlighted quotes in my posts are there for all to see.

  141. 141
    jaime says:

    Darrell…still waiting. Cowards cut and run.

  142. 142
    Darrell says:

    No, Israel set up a massacre and carried it out. Were hezbollah hiding in the ambulances? I kind of doubt it but Israel saw fit to bomb them anyway.

    another worthy nominee for leftist POTD?

  143. 143
    jaime says:

    Steve, I’ve quoted close to half dozen leftists verbatim..

    Based on that, then it should be assumed that since Debbie Schlussel said that most Lebanese/ Americans are in league with Hezbollah, that that’s what you believe?

  144. 144
    Ancient Purple says:

    Remember, kids:

    In Darrell’s world, a half dozen equals all.

    In Darrell’s world.

  145. 145
    Steve says:

    What a lying sack of shit you are for saying that I asserted this “without any evidence” when the highlighted quotes in my posts are there for all to see.

    I know liberals are a dying breed, but I still don’t see how a half-dozen comments tell us what “most” liberals think.

    Glenn Greenwald presented earlier a sampling drawn from 100 comments he reviewed at LGF regarding the Israel-UN controversy:

    5- I would not put it against the Israelites, nor hold it against them, to have targeted this position based on the revelation, yesterday, that Indian UN ‘peacekeepers’ were complicent in the kidnapping/murder of Israelites, earlier.

    20 – Too bad Kofi wasn’t there, too.

    22 – So what is Koffi going to do about it even if they did? I understand the paper cuts from a strongly worded letter can really hurt if desert sand gets in them. We are all at war with the UN, time to admit it.

    37- I’m finding it hard to feel bad for these so-called peacekeepers. Most of them blindly shilled for Hezbollah while attacking Israel.

    I do not believe that Israel intentionally targeted them, but even if they did, their anti-Israeli propaganda made them a fair target in this war. Much like the trial and execution of people like Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Rose. Anything that would help bolster Hezobllah’s morale has to be seen as a weapon.

    38 – I know it sounds a bit harsh, but I wish that it were deliberate, and that Israel came right out and said so.

    All the UN seems to do is rape children, enable terrorists and act openly hostile towards Israel, If I’m Israel, I say any UN ‘Peacekeeping’ teams in the region will also be subject to attack.

    63 – On the other hand, who could blame Israel for not shedding great big tears for the blue-helmeted terror enablers?

    70 – I never wish death on anybody (well, most anybody) and it is a tragedy that two people died but…

    I be laughing my ass off if somebody launched one right in Kofi’s office while he was groping his secretary.

    Are these comments representative of how “most” right-wingers feel about the issue? I’m just asking if that’s a fair conclusion to draw.

  146. 146
    Jim Allen says:

    Steve, I’ve quoted close to half dozen leftists verbatim.. quotes which represent the majority sentiment here and on other leftist blogs. What a lying sack of shit you are for saying that I asserted this “without any evidence” when the highlighted quotes in my posts are there for all to see.

    The Lou Gehrig of idiocy. The Iron Man of Asshats. Absolutely fabulous.

  147. 147
    LITBMueller says:

    Another thing to consider re the “mistake” argument.

    The UNIFIL guys were reportedly hit by a precision guided munition. There are two main types: there’s the laser guided type, which requires someone on the ground to actually “paint” the target, and there is the GPS type, where the pilot selects the target using GPS, and satellite data guides the bomb down.

    I suspect the bomb in this case was a JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) carried by an IDF F-16. These are guidance systems that are attached to conventional munitions and use GPS guidance.

    The military likes GPS and JDAM: it is the most accuate guided weapon system of all. If a JDAM was used, considering the UNIFIL position was well known, the chance of this being an accident, in terms of mathematics, is pretty slim.

  148. 148
    jaime says:

    And YOU STILL are avoiding the fact that LIBERAL congressmen were the only ones boycotting the pro-Hezbollah Al-Maliki. Where does that fit into your “all liberals believe X,Y,Z” narrative?

    Why are you so fucking cowardly, Darrell?

  149. 149
    Punchy says:

    You people are all getting distracted from the real issue.

    No shit…Lance Bass is GAY.

    (/heart pounding, sweating, slack-jawed)

  150. 150
    Darrell says:

    Are these comments representative of how “most” right-wingers feel about the issue?

    Let me tell you, I’ll take those cherry picked comments over the left’s prevailing sentiment “Israel intentionally massacres innocents” any day.

  151. 151
    Perry Como says:

    Why are you so fucking cowardly, Darrell?

    Honesty is not a statist’s policy.

  152. 152
    chopper says:

    darrell’s gotten into the rhubarb again.

    hey darrell, most jews in america tend to vote what way politically? liberal, you say?

    well, then i guess most american jews must be israel-haters. as well as most israelis, who are quite liberal (israel is a socialist country, after all).

    i don’t understand how you can live your life with such idealogical blinders on. but, if trying to make sweeping generalizations to apply your own personal hatred to whoever you disagree with helps you to sleep at night, by all means. i don’t want you to nod off when you’re pumping my gas.

  153. 153
    Jim Allen says:

    Let me tell you, I’ll take those cherry picked comments over the left’s prevailing sentiment “Israel intentionally massacres innocents” any day.

    You know, sport, if you get out of the basement once in a while, get some sun and lay off the Cheez Doodles, your face will start to clear up.

  154. 154
    Dedgeorge says:

    “…What kind of plan would the Dems have had? With a crazy screamer like Dean in charge of the whole operation, how can anybody think that they’d know what to do?…”

    DEAN!!!???

    WTF are talking about –Oh, Wait, I Know — you are just a troll spreading buzzwords around to enrage the Reptilian Brained Republicans and/or neocons reading this blog….

    Dems would first of all, open communications with Lebanon, Syria, Isreal and Hezbollah (using back channels, if necessary) and act as independant peace broker.

    Next, Secretary of State Bill Clinton would PERSONALLY fly to the Middle East IMMEDIATELY for face to face talks. The Dems would NOT wait around in Washington twiddling collective thumbs while waiting for Condi’s favorite dress to come back from the drycleaners.

    They would insist on an immediate cease fire and NEVER state (as Condi effectively did) that the US does not want to rush into peace.

    They would ask to convene an emergency Security Council session in the UN to lay the ground work for an expanded UN Observer force in Lebanon.

    The dems would tell Israel that it has 48 hours to withdraw from Lebanese territory and, if it did not, Israel could expect a massive diminuation of men and material still in Lebanon.

    The Dems would tell Israel that, since it broke the infrastructure of Lebanon, Israel will have to repair it with funds raised by Israel implementing a Lebanon Incursion Tax… If not, the US will cut off future aid to Israel and call in immediately the loans which the US has made to Israel.

    Hezballoh would be told that they could continue as a humanitarian aid agency but that the weaponry which it accumulated would be destroyed by the UN AND the US

    In short, Dems would provide leadership in the world based upon the positive activities of the US and NOT try to force everybody else to follow the US by waging Bush’s penis at countries he dosen’t like…

    Now — just what is the Republican’s plan — More of the same incompetant folderol that Bush continues to foist upon the the American People???

  155. 155
    Steve says:

    Let me tell you, I’ll take those cherry picked comments over the left’s prevailing sentiment “Israel intentionally massacres innocents” any day.

    Your ability to detect cherry-picking seems to vary according to whose ox is being gored.

    When you say the left’s “prevailing sentiment” is that Israel intentionally massacres innocents, tell me, how many millions of liberals are you saying believe that statement? 5 million? 10 million? 20 million?

    Better get cracking because it’s going to be hard to prove your point with one quote or even six quotes.

  156. 156
    jaime says:

    Every time I post:

    And YOU STILL are avoiding the fact that LIBERAL congressmen were the only ones boycotting the pro-Hezbollah Al-Maliki. Where does that fit into your “all liberals believe X,Y,Z” narrative?

    And you refuse to answer, everone on this blog will know what a coward you are, Darrell.

  157. 157
    jaime says:

    Dedgeorge: Yeah, but what would be the Democrats plan? Hmmm?

    Punchy: I figured Lance Bass was gay years ago. It’s like when I told all the girls in middle school that George Michael was gay. I certaintly showed them.

  158. 158
    Darrell says:

    chopper Says:

    darrell’s gotten into the rhubarb again.

    hey darrell, most jews in america tend to vote what way politically? liberal, you say?

    well, then i guess most american jews must be israel-haters. as well as most israelis

    A number of Jews are in fact stupid and naive to the extreme (“how desperate the Palestinians must be to blow themselves up in a pizza parlor” etc type of idiocy). thankfully, most Jews have enough sense to understand that Israel must defend herself.

    A question for liberal Jewish supporters of Israel – Why is it that you condemn the US so harshly for aggressive interrogation techniques, but don’t say a fucking word about Israel, who goes much further in their interrogations? just curious how you reconcile that moral inconsistency

  159. 159
    jaime says:

    You don’t get to ank questions until you answer this:

    And YOU STILL are avoiding the fact that LIBERAL congressmen were the only ones boycotting the pro-Hezbollah Al-Maliki. Where does that fit into your “all liberals believe X,Y,Z” narrative?

    Don’t run away, chickenshit.

  160. 160
    Jim Allen says:

    A question for liberal Jewish supporters of Israel – Why is it that you condemn the US so harshly for aggressive interrogation techniques, but don’t say a fucking word about Israel, who goes much further in their interrogations? just curious how you reconcile that moral inconsistency

    Most likely because I’m a citizen of the US (and said interrogation is done by my government) and not a citizen of Israel.

    I suppose you approve of harsh interrogation methods no matter who does them, huh? Get you all excited, does it?

  161. 161
    Steve says:

    A question for liberal Jewish supporters of Israel – Why is it that you condemn the US so harshly for aggressive interrogation techniques, but don’t say a fucking word about Israel, who goes much further in their interrogations? just curious how you reconcile that moral inconsistency

    It’s mostly because of people like you who would scream about anti-Semitism if I criticized Israel’s policies. And, oh, it might have something to do with the fact that I’m an American, and I feel a closer kinship with America’s policies and more of an ability to do something about them.

    If a bunch of liberal protestors said “we shouldn’t be so close with Israel, they torture people!” the prevailing right-wing sentiment would be “look at the Jew-haters.”

  162. 162
    Darrell says:

    I suppose you approve of harsh interrogation methods no matter who does them, huh?

    I support handing the terrorists their Korans with gloves, 24 hour access to Al-Jazeera tv, and providing delish and nutritional muslim-approved meals whenever they want

  163. 163
    Nutcutter says:

    What do y’all think, now that Darrell’s here, that we take this thread and go all seed catalog on him?

    Think of the fun.

    “You lefty scum and your useless seed catalogs!”

    etc

  164. 164
    Perry Como says:

    A number of Jews are in fact stupid

    Anti-Semite. Darrell just proved that the Right is anti-Semitic. He said, and I quote, “A number of Jews are in fact stupid.” Look at anger spewed from the anit-Semitic Right.

  165. 165
    Nutcutter says:

    Crowder Peas – California Blackeye – (75 Days)

    Description
    Pod: 7-8″

    Comment

    Fresh or dried, heavy yielder, use green in the Summer, dried in the Winter, needs warm days and nights to develop, sweet flavor

    { Add to Cart }

  166. 166
    jaime says:

    And YOU STILL are avoiding the fact that LIBERAL congressmen were the only ones boycotting the pro-Hezbollah Al-Maliki. Where does that fit into your “all liberals believe X,Y,Z” narrative?

    Remeber this? Cluck Cluck Cluck.

  167. 167
    Perry Como says:

    I wonder what Par R’s take is on the objective anti-Semitism from the Right?

  168. 168
    Darrell says:

    It’s mostly because of people like you who would scream about anti-Semitism if I criticized Israel’s policies

    Steve, I’ve pointed this out to you before, and I’ll do it again now – you truly feel more comfortable responding to cartoonish stereotypes of conservatives rather than actual conservatives. In this case, show me 1 example where I have accused someone in these threads of anti-semitism unfairly for criticizing Israel? Since that is the case, you pull out of your ass the false claim that conservatives “like me” would accuse you of anti-semitism without basis.

    This is a prime example of your tendency, and the tendency of most leftists, do deal with cartoonish stereotypes, rather than deal with reality. It’s dishonest as hell, but it’s who you are.

  169. 169
    Ancient Purple says:

    I support handing the terrorists their Korans with gloves, 24 hour access to Al-Jazeera tv, and providing delish and nutritional muslim-approved meals whenever they want

    So, did you buy the hooch on your own, or did you get it from Stormy?

  170. 170
    Darrell says:

    Steve wrote:

    It’s mostly because of people like you who would scream about anti-Semitism if I criticized Israel’s policies

    But right on cue, Perry Como demonstrates that it’s the leftists, not conservatives, who are more prone to throw out that smear without basis

    Anti-Semite. Darrell just proved that the Right is anti-Semitic. He said, and I quote, “A number of Jews are in fact stupid.” Look at anger spewed from the anit-Semitic Right.

    Do you see what aholes you are? probably not

  171. 171
    D. Mason says:

    Anti-Semite. Darrell just proved that the Right is anti-Semitic. He said, and I quote, “A number of Jews are in fact stupid.” Look at anger spewed from the anit-Semitic Right.

    Won’t be long now before he’s suggesting we start breaking in the Halliburton concentration camps.

  172. 172
    jaime says:

    My question:

    And YOU STILL are avoiding the fact that LIBERAL congressmen were the only ones boycotting the pro-Hezbollah Al-Maliki. Where does that fit into your “all liberals believe X,Y,Z” narrative?

    Darrell’s Response:

  173. 173
    Perry Como says:

    These quotes pretty much sum up the majority opinion of “progressives”

    Not only are most liberals quick to declare Israel guilty of “intentional” targetting of UN posts without solid evidence supporting that accusation, many other liberals accuse Israel of deliberate “war crimes”. Not saying all ‘reality based’ liberals feel that way, but most apparently do. It’s who you sorry sacks of shit truly are.

    I’d point out the irony, but nanny-statists wouldn’t understand.

  174. 174
    chopper says:

    A number of Jews are in fact stupid and naive to the extreme

    there you have it, “jews are dumb.” i’m going to assume that this represents the entire right-wing in this country.

    thankfully, most Jews have enough sense to understand that Israel must defend herself.

    but most jews are liberal! if liberals, as you say, are so anti-israel, how does this make sense at all?

    A question for liberal Jewish supporters of Israel – Why is it that you condemn the US so harshly for aggressive interrogation techniques, but don’t say a fucking word about Israel, who goes much further in their interrogations? just curious how you reconcile that moral inconsistency

    you must not know many liberal jews who support israel. my liberal jewish israeli girlfriend is usually just as pissed at the boneheaded things israel’s government does as she is at the bush administration. of course, if you start talking about the palestinian situation as if the palestinians are no worse than israel, or question israel’s right to exist, you’ll get a kick in the teeth.

  175. 175
    jaime says:

    But right on cue, Perry Como demonstrates that it’s the leftists, not conservatives, who are more prone to throw out that smear without basis

    You are, what criminals would call, an easy mark.

  176. 176
    Nutcutter says:

    He said, and I quote, “A number of Jews are in fact stupid.”

    Wait just a danged minute.

    If a Jew says something stupid, “A number of Jews are in fact stupid?”

    But if a Liberal says something stupid, “All liberals are stupid?”

    Why are we cutting Jews a deal here? And what about Liberal Jews? All stupid? By way of Liberalness, or by way of their Jewishness?

    Is it possible to be a liberal Jew, and a stupid liberal, but a smart Jew?

    WTF? Is there an operator’s manual for this?

  177. 177
    Pb says:

    Darrell,

    and nutritional muslim-approved meals whenever they want

    Try the lemon chicken–it comes with two types of fruit!

  178. 178
    Perry Como says:

    Won’t be long now before he’s suggesting we start breaking in the Halliburton concentration camps.

    Be quiet you Leftist, Looney, Liberal. If you disagree with the largest expansion of Federal government size and power since FDR then you are objectively pro-terrorist.

  179. 179
    Perry Como says:

    You are, what criminals would call, an easy mark.

    I’m working up to the point where I can convince Darrell that I’m a Nigerian prince.

  180. 180
    Darrell says:

    If a bunch of liberal protestors said “we shouldn’t be so close with Israel, they torture people!”

    I specifically directed the question to liberal Jewish supporters of Israel, not all liberals. And how un-nuanced of you to suggest that the only possible action on the part of these liberals would be along the lines of protesting “we shouldn’t be so close to Israel”, when in fact there are many more nuanced, morally consistent positions they could take.

    For example, when condemning the US for aggressive interrogation of terrorists, liberal supporters of Israel might also acknowledge for once that Israel’s interrogation techniques go much further across the line than ours.

  181. 181
    Nutcutter says:

    I’m working up to the point where I can convince Darrell that I’m a Nigerian prince.

    Funniest line of the day.

  182. 182
    jaime says:

    Maybe another asshole wingnut can help me out since Darrell is actively avoiding a question he can’t and won’t answer. If liberals are objectively anti-Israel as evidenced my a subjective reading of a couple of blog posts, how do you square that up with LIBERAL Democrats being the only ones to boycott Al-Maliki for not denouncing Hezbollah’s actions?

    A wingnut logic divided against itself cannot stand.

  183. 183
    jaime says:

    I’m working up to the point where I can convince Darrell that I’m a Nigerian prince

    Off topic:

    My buddy’s got this show http://www.spamscamscam.com/ based off of his correspondence of scamming Nigerian scammers.

  184. 184
    Perry Como says:

    I found it! I was wondering where that abortion of a phrase, “objectively pro-“, came from.

  185. 185
    chriskoz says:

    Darrell says:

    Steve, I’ve pointed this out to you before, and I’ll do it again now – you truly feel more comfortable responding to cartoonish stereotypes of conservatives rather than actual conservatives.

    Now this is funny… Comming from the fool who is ONLY able to respond to cartoonish stereotypes of liberals/progressives rather than actual liberals/progressives.

  186. 186
    db says:

    As said before:

    APPARENTLY

    is the key word.

    Anan did not say “definitely” deliberate.

    Keep in mind that Anan is the head of an organization with many member nations. If some cross-eyed pilot kills some soldiers from those member nations in your organization (the observers were from Canada, Finland, China, and Austria), would you say, “Oh, that’s okay – aim better next time.”??

    Anan has to be mindful of the nations who lost soldiers by an “apparently” stupid bomb.

  187. 187
    Darrell says:

    how do you square that up with LIBERAL Democrats being the only ones to boycott Al-Maliki for not denouncing Hezbollah’s actions?

    I hadn’t heard that. Do you have links? I do know that leftist Code Pink crashed and tried to interrupt Al-Maliki’s congressional speech.

  188. 188
    Nutcutter says:

    Darrell says: ” ”

    Crowder Peas – Tennessee White – (65 Days)

    Description
    Pods: 6.5″

    Comment

    Dark green pod at maturity, produces a lavender color flower, will have a light straw colored crowder pea

    { Add to Cart }

  189. 189
    Perry Como says:

    “I’d like to ask Maliki, when it comes to terrorism, which side is he on?” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who had already criticized new Iraqi government over the suggestion that some insurgents who fired on U.S. troops could ultimately be granted amnesty.

    “If he can’t denounce Hezbollah, which is a group that even the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians don’t like … what kind of ally is this? I’m very upset about where Maliki is,” Schumer said.

    http://1010wins.com/pages/61319.php

    Moonbats.

  190. 190
    VidaLoca says:

    Somewhat off topic, but on the topic of endgame:

    “Could U.S. Troops End Up in Lebanon?”

    There’s much discussion of putting a multinational, NATO-led force in southern Lebanon as part of a ceasefire agreement in the Israel–Lebanon conflict, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, according to a story in the Washington Post, has said that she does “not think that it is anticipated that U.S. ground forces . . . are expected for that force.” However, a well-connected former CIA officer has told me that the Bush Administration is in fact considering exactly such a deployment.

    [/snip]

    According to the former official, Israel and the United States are currently discussing a large American role in exactly such a “multinational” deployment, and some top administration officials, along with senior civilians at the Pentagon, are receptive to the idea.

    The scenario of an American deployment appears to come straight out of the neoconservative playbook: send U.S. forces into the Middle East, regardless of what our own military leaders suggest, in order to “stabilize” the region. The chances of success, as we have seen in Iraq, are remote. So what should be done? My source said the situation is so volatile at the moment that the only smart policy is to get an immediate ceasefire and worry about the terms of a lasting truce afterwards.

  191. 191
    jaime says:

    I hadn’t heard that. Do you have links?

    You’ve gone from purposefully ignore to purposefully ignorant. You know exactly what I’m referring to.

  192. 192
    Par R says:

    Since it appears that this thread has already gone off its wheels in strange and various directions, how about a quote from yesterday’s New York Press about the good junior Senator from Massachusetts:

    “[Senator John Kerry] could fit comfortably as an extra in a Kevin Smith or John Waters film. In Smith’s new and riotous Clerks II, for example, Kerry would’ve been perfectly believable as the strange fellow who makes a living performing ‘inter-species erotica,’ like blowing a donkey and then having his way with the animal from the rear.”

    And, “jamie,” please don’t get too excited and hurt yourself in visualizing this.

  193. 193
    VidaLoca says:

    Schumer should be upset about Maliki. If he can’t denounce Hezbollah, who can he denounce? We paid a hell of a lot of good money for this Maliki unit, and this is the performance we get?

    Buncha goddam ungrateful wogs, the whole lot of em.

    Does Maliki come with a warranty?

  194. 194

    Interesting post.

    Glad Darrell was here to give everybody some entertainment.

  195. 195
    Perry Como says:

    Does Maliki come with a warranty?

    Yes, but Iran is underwriting it.

  196. 196
    jaime says:

    Who is this “jamie”?

    Are you still pissed becuase you’re bigot asshole compatriot Brian got booted?

  197. 197
    Darrell says:

    Another leftist speaks out on Israel’s “genocide” in Lebanon. How nuanced

  198. 198
    jaime says:

    Yes…the great Ed Cone blog.

    Will you just go away.

  199. 199
    Nutcutter says:

    Another leftist speaks out on Israel’s “genocide” in Lebanon. How nuanced

    Nobody is paying any attention to you, Darrell. Isn’t it time for you to go to work at Dairy Queen?

  200. 200
    Perry Como says:

    Another leftist speaks out on Israel’s “genocide” in Lebanon. How nuanced

    See, this is what I like about Darrell. It doesn’t matter how many times you mock, troll, or downright abuse him, he just doesn’t get it. Keeps chuggin’ along, head down, blinders strapped to the sides of his head.

    :must: :beat: :libruhls:

  201. 201
    Par R says:

    VidaLoca says the following in reference to Iraqi PM, Nouri Al-Maliki:

    Buncha goddam ungrateful wogs, the whole lot of em.

    In most parts of the civilized world, that would be considered as an unmitigated racial slur made by a bigot.

  202. 202
    dagon says:

    ed cone is a leftists?

    peace

  203. 203
    Darrell says:

    See, this is what I like about Darrell. It doesn’t matter how many times you mock, troll, or downright abuse him, he just doesn’t get it.

    Explain for us Perry.. what exactly don’t I “get”? That leftist shitstains are accusing Israel of intentionally carrying out “massacres” of innocents in Lebanon with their “indiscriminate” bombing raids? Please enlighten us jackass

  204. 204
    Perry Como says:

    In most parts of the civilized world, that would be considered as an unmitigated racial slur made by a bigot.

    Political correctness? How very conservative of you.

  205. 205
    jaime says:

    Ed Cone? Old pitcher for the Mets and Yankees? That’s David Cone. Who’s Ed Cone?

  206. 206
    Pb says:

    jaime,

    Yes…the great Ed Cone blog.

    OH SNAP, Ed Cone weighed in on it? Dayumn! Hey, has Shelley The Republican said anything about it yet?

  207. 207
    Nutcutter says:

    That leftist shitstains are accusing Israel of

    Maybe if you tried all caps?

  208. 208
    Perry Como says:

    That leftist shitstains are accusing

    That’s *majority* of leftists to you. And you should really do something about that nasty anti-Semitic attitude you have. It may help the rest of the majority of the rightists.

  209. 209
    jaime says:

    Explain for us Perry.. what exactly don’t I “get”?

    That you have been ask to respond to a question repeatedly and everyone can see what a coward you are.

  210. 210
    DougJ says:

    And what about Liberal Jews?

    There’s so few of them — only 80% of Jewish Americans voted for Kerry in 2004. The anti-Semitism charges that are flying around these days are nuts. Lieberman surrogates are labelling everyone who opposes Lieberman an anti-Semite, even though Joe is less popular among Jewish CT Dems than he is among CT Dems as a whole. The whole debate is stupid.

  211. 211
    Tom says:

    via: lgf

    Retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie was interviewed on CBC radio, and had some very interesting news about the UN observer post hit by Israeli shells; the Canadian peacekeeper killed there had previously emailed Mackenzie telling him that Hizballah was using their post as cover.

    We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it.

    ya think?

  212. 212
    DougJ says:

    I’m pretty much agnostic on the what’s going on in Lebanon, though I don’t think Israel is playing its cards that well. But I’m afraid it is not wholly inaccurate to say that “Israel of intentionally carrying out “massacres” of innocents in Lebanon with their “indiscriminate” bombing raids?” Civilians are dying in Lebanon. Period. Why would you pretend that they’re not?

  213. 213
    Nutcutter says:

    Hizballah was using their post as cover.

    Well, effective today, when a bank robber grabs a customer’s child as hostage and cover, the procedure will be to aim at the child’s head. We can’t have bank robbers using children as cover. That would be letting the bank robbers win.

  214. 214
    Steve says:

    Steve, I’ve pointed this out to you before, and I’ll do it again now – you truly feel more comfortable responding to cartoonish stereotypes of conservatives rather than actual conservatives. In this case, show me 1 example where I have accused someone in these threads of anti-semitism unfairly for criticizing Israel? Since that is the case, you pull out of your ass the false claim that conservatives “like me” would accuse you of anti-semitism without basis.

    Wait, let’s be clear.

    You show us “nearly a half-dozen” quotes from liberals and assert that they represent the “prevailing view” of “most” liberals.

    But you point me to ONE example of a right-winger who hasn’t made the anti-Semitism smear yet, and you expect me to retract my blanket accusation? Not so fast, my friend!

    If you truly think my statement was so out of line, I encourage you to read any of the Israel threads to watch wingnuts like Par and Stormy throw around accusations of anti-Semitism like so much confetti. To them and so many other right-wingers, the lengthy and lethal history of hatred for my people is just another Internet flame to be thrown around casually at those with whom they disagree. But it’s good to see you condemn the practice of accusing wide swaths of the political left of anti-Semitism – er, you do condemn it, don’t you?

  215. 215
    Perry Como says:

    That would be letting the bank robbers win.

    I think that statement qualifies you as being objectively anti-bank robber.

  216. 216
    Nutcutter says:

    I think that statement qualifies you as being objectively anti-bank robber.

    God is on my side.

    We don’t cut and run from bank robbers.

  217. 217
    DougJ says:

    Steve, I’ve pointed this out to you before, and I’ll do it again now – you truly feel more comfortable responding to cartoonish stereotypes of conservatives rather than actual conservatives.

    Could someone explain the difference between these two? My feeling is that the cartoonish stereotypes seem a bit more reasonable in general. They don’t generally advocate sending journalists to the gas chamber, nuking Iran, starting WWIV, etc. They just say “stay the course” and “mission accomplished” a lot — but so do the real conservatives.

    Seriosly, someone explain how real conservatives are different from cartoon conservatives. Take any crazy thing I’ve said on this blog and I’ll find you something similar just as crazy or even crazier that a prominent conservative has said.

  218. 218
    Pb says:

    Shoot the hostage, baby! It’s the Keanu Reeves Doctrine!

  219. 219
    Nutcutter says:

    the lengthy and lethal history of hatred for my people

    There’s lengthy and lethal hatred for trolls?

    C’mon man, that’s pretty paranoid, isn’t it?

  220. 220
    Steve says:

    My feeling is that the cartoonish stereotypes seem a bit more reasonable in general.

    Well, I doubt anyone is more of an authority on cartoonish stereotypes than you are. I agree that the genuine article tends to be more outrageous than anything you could dream up. For example, I bet you never thought of calling Bill Clinton a latent homosexual before.

  221. 221
    Pb says:

    DougJ,

    Could someone explain the difference between these two?

    Sure. The difference is, real conservatives are serious, while cartoon conservatives aren’t. This makes cartoon conservatives very funny sometimes, and real conservatives very, very scary and dangerous.

  222. 222
    DougJ says:

    This makes cartoon conservatives very funny sometimes, and real conservatives very, very scary and dangerous.

    In fairness, real conservatives are very funny sometimes, too. What about that woman who wrote the rebuttal to the Onion article? That was funny, in my book.

  223. 223
    chopper says:

    Explain for us Perry.. what exactly don’t I “get”?

    what i don’t get is how someone whose posts mostly consist of sweeping gereralizations of ‘the left’ chasitises someone else for making a generalization of ‘the right’. where i come from, that’s called ‘rank hypocrisy’. i don’t know what they call it where darrell comes from. probably ‘par for the course’.

  224. 224
    Perry Como says:

    That was funny, in my book.

    Yeah, but there’s a difference between laughing at someone and laughing with someone. Take Darrell.

  225. 225
    Perry Como says:

    chopper Says:

    what i don’t get is how someone whose posts mostly consist of sweeping gereralizations of ‘the left’ chasitises someone else for making a generalization of ‘the right’

    Yeah, Darrell doesn’t get it either.

  226. 226
    Nutcutter says:

    i don’t know what they call it where darrell comes from

    Darrell’s from Texas, right? That explains most of it.

    Story circulating from the “One Percent Doctrine” about Bush and his approach to basketball when he was in school.

    Basically, it was smashmouth, forearm to teeth, whenever the ref wasn’t looking.

    Funny … he’s the same way now. Hmmm.

  227. 227
    Darrell says:

    If you truly think my statement was so out of line, I encourage you to read any of the Israel threads to watch wingnuts like Par and Stormy throw around accusations of anti-Semitism like so much confetti

    To put your comment in context, you claimed that conservatives would accuse you of anti-semitism for any criticism of Israel, no matter how reasonable. Sorry, but that’s bullshit and you know it.

    It’s fair to say that most liberal supporters of Israel are probably shocked by so many of the comments coming from their fellow leftists (intentional “massacres”, “war crimes by Israel”, “genocide in Lebanon” etc.). These aren’t isolated examples.. I believe it’s a majority of liberals who place most of the blame and criticsm on Israel.

    I also don’t think it’s anti-semitism, as I think most of these same whacked liberals would condemn the US if we acted similarly.. while saying little or nothing about the terrorists. It’s a liberal mental disorder, but not necessarily anti-semitism

  228. 228
    chopper says:

    Well, effective today, when a bank robber grabs a customer’s child as hostage and cover, the procedure will be to aim at the child’s head. We can’t have bank robbers using children as cover. That would be letting the bank robbers win.

    but hezbollah aren’t like bank robbers. bank robbers take money and go. these guys are lobbing missiles into israel. it’s more like an escaped murderer who grabs a child as hostage and starts wildly shooting at people in public. hiding behind civilians while trying to kill other civilians.

    what should the cops do, let him stand there shooting at people?

    or should they say excuse me sir, would you please drop the kid and leave the area, preferably to some open place away from the public so we can shoot you? oh, and don’t think that this mealy response in any way encourages the thought that this kind of hostage-taking no-goodnickism will get you anywhere!

    it probably sounds better if the police are dressed like foppish french aristocrats.

    point is, these people hide behind civilians which means that pretty much any response will kill civilians. which means that the only way to avoid killing civilians is to not respond at all, which means more rocket attacks in israel, more kidnappings and more terrorists who do whatever they want without fear of reprisal.

  229. 229
    Perry Como says:

    I believe it’s a majority of liberals…
    most of these same whacked liberals…
    It’s a liberal mental disorder…

    See, it never sinks in. How are you and the rest of the Right handling your anti-Semitism, Darrell?

  230. 230
    chopper says:

    maybe darrell is jewish, which would explain why he’s so stupid and naive.

    oy gotenyu!

  231. 231
    Perry Como says:

    Oh, so he’s a self-hating Jew.

  232. 232
    chopper says:

    so i guess that means everyone hates him, including himself.

  233. 233

    Well, effective today, when a bank robber grabs a customer’s child as hostage and cover, the procedure will be to aim at the child’s head. We can’t have bank robbers using children as cover.

    I wasn’t aware that the UN was sending children in as peacekeepers?

    I wonder if Bolton is aware of this? Maybe he could say something about this to Annan and get them to stop.

  234. 234
    Perry Como says:

    I wonder if Bolton is aware of this?

    Bolton should just send his mustache in to solve the conflict.

  235. 235

    To put your comment in context, you claimed that conservatives would accuse you of anti-semitism for any criticism of Israel, no matter how reasonable. Sorry, but that’s bullshit and you know it.

    Why is it bullshit? That’s what you’ve been doing in all of these threads, isn’t it? When have you not done this? Maybe you could point to that as evidence.

    It’s kind of a bizarre world you live in.

    Just curious. Who do you think they mean when right-wing conservative Christians start complaining about the Hollywood Elite?

    You know the Elite… Streinsand, Spielberg, Eisner, etc.

    I wonder what do they mean when they say hollywood elite?

    Let’s ask William Donahue, President of the Catholic League as quoted on Scarborough Country

    Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It‘s not a secret, OK? And I‘m not afraid to say it. That‘s why they hate this movie. It‘s about Jesus Christ, and it‘s about truth. It‘s about the messiah.

    Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost.

    You have got secular Jews. You have got embittered ex-Catholics, including a lot of ex-Catholic priests who hate the Catholic Church, wacko Protestants in the same group, and these people are in the margins. Frankly, Michael Moore represents a cult movie. Mel Gibson represents the mainstream of America.

    Interesting.

  236. 236
    Pb says:

    To be fair, William Donahue did later think better of those comments–specifically his use of the word ‘controlled’. He doesn’t want people to get the wrong idea, he doesn’t think there’s some kind of vast, shadowy Jewish Conspiracy ‘controlling’ things out there.

    But other than that, he stands by the rest of the crazy.

  237. 237
    Darrell says:

    Why is it bullshit? That’s what you’ve been doing in all of these threads, isn’t it? When have you not done this? Maybe you could point to that as evidence.

    Be happy to. I think the following post is fucked up and I said as much:

    No, Israel set up a massacre and carried it out. Were hezbollah hiding in the ambulances? I kind of doubt it but Israel saw fit to bomb them anyway.

    I’ve got a real problem with these too, and I said so:

    Israel certainly seems to be operating with callous disregard for what they hit.

    Bingo

    And there’s MUCH more where that came from. In other words TOS, since you’re too fucking stupid to see it, I am pointing to UNHINGED, UNFAIR fucked up smears on Israel made by leftists on this thread and elsewhere.

    Now jackass, show me where I accused anyone of anti-semitism for reasonable criticsm of Israel. Can’t do it? God you’re a dumbass

  238. 238

    To be fair, William Donahue did later think better of those comments—specifically his use of the word ‘controlled’. He doesn’t want people to get the wrong idea, he doesn’t think there’s some kind of vast, shadowy Jewish Conspiracy ‘controlling’ things out there.

    A lot of people think better of their comments after they’ve been caught saying them. No surprise there.

  239. 239
    Darrell says:

    Just curious. Who do you think they mean when right-wing conservative Christians start complaining about the Hollywood Elite?

    Yeah, that notorious jew hater Michael Medved uses the same “Hollywood elite” term all the time. Oh wait, he’s jewish..

  240. 240

    And there’s MUCH more where that came from. In other words TOS, since you’re too fucking stupid to see it, I am pointing to UNHINGED, UNFAIR fucked up smears on Israel made by leftists on this thread and elsewhere.

    Perhaps, but the reason you do so is to defend the UNHINGED, UNFAIR fucked up smears from the right.

    That’s what you did in the thread last week, and it appears to be what you are doing now.

    There’s no other explanation for the reason why you link to bizarre unrelated third party quotes.

  241. 241
    Darrell says:

    A lot of people think better of their comments after they’ve been caught saying them. No surprise there.

    Except unlike you, they have honor and admit their mistakes. You on the other hand, make false accusations out of ignorance, and when proven wrong you just disappear, never admitting how fucked up and wrong your accusations were.

  242. 242
  243. 243

    Yeah, that notorious jew hater Michael Medved uses the same “Hollywood elite” term all the time. Oh wait, he’s jewish..

    So does Joe Lieberman.

    But what did Donohue say? That Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews.

    What does Jewish have to do with anything out in Hollywood? Why is this important to note? You tell me.

  244. 244
    chopper says:

    Except unlike you, they have honor and admit their mistakes. You on the other hand, make false accusations out of ignorance, and when proven wrong you just disappear, never admitting how fucked up and wrong your accusations were.

    pot, meet kettle. kettle, pot. oh, you two know each other? you go way back, you say? well i’ll be.

  245. 245
    Darrell says:

    That’s what you did in the thread last week, and it appears to be what you are doing now.

    Speaking of last week, you were arguing with scs, telling her how ignorant she was about the timeframe she said Michael Schiavo received money from a lawsuit. You were extremely aggressive and insulting in your comments toward her. When the actual timeline was provided, which showed you were COMPLETELY WRONG, you just ignored it and went on. You know why? Because you’re a dishonest sack of shit. How else to explain it? You do it all the time. You’re doing it again right now

  246. 246

    Except unlike you, they have honor and admit their mistakes. You on the other hand, make false accusations out of ignorance, and when proven wrong you just disappear, never admitting how fucked up and wrong your accusations were.

    That’s a classic case of projection.

    I don’t say anything I don’t mean, and you’ve never proven me to be wrong.

  247. 247

    Speaking of last week, you were arguing with scs, telling her how ignorant she was about the timeframe she said Michael Schiavo received money from a lawsuit.

    It wasn’t the timeframe which was at issue.

    It was your interpretation of the motives.

  248. 248
    Darrell says:

    What does Jewish have to do with anything out in Hollywood?

    I never noted it. Neither have most other conservatives. Sure, ‘Hollywood elite’ is used a lot by conservatives, but the Jewish angle in regards to Hollywood is almost never brought up (most actors aren’t Jewish, are they?), and it’s dishonest as hell of you to pretend otherwise

  249. 249
    Darrell says:

    It wasn’t the timeframe which was at issue.

    It was your interpretation of the motives.

    You disputed the timeline and called her ignorant you lying sack of shit. As I pointed out already, when proven wrong, you disappear, and lie your ass off about it. This thread is another example.

  250. 250
    DougJ says:

    Oh, so he’s a self-hating Jew.

    If Darrell had the good sense to hate himself I’d be impressed.

  251. 251
    Darrell says:

    Perhaps, but the reason you do so is to defend the UNHINGED, UNFAIR fucked up smears from the right.

    Where on this thread did I defend a unhinged, unfair “smear” from the right? Show us, or STFU. You just make shit up left and right, don’t you? And then when called on it, you pretend that you’re not really a lowlife

  252. 252

    Damn, where’s that other thread where Darrell spent the entire time basically defending an outrageous point? It was something to do with Israel, and it was like Medved or someone claiming all leftists were antisemitic. Now I can’t find it.

    When I pointed out that was what he was doing, he suddenly got all offended.

  253. 253
    Ancient Purple says:

    Except unlike you, they have honor and admit their mistakes.

    William Donohue has honor?

    Now THAT is the Knee-Slapper-Of-the-Day (KSOD).

  254. 254
    chopper says:

    this is the bit where darrell deflects criticism of his own shortcomings by bringing up some other bit where someone else was wrong. thereby taking the attention off of his own sh1t-sackery.

  255. 255
    jaime says:

    when proven wrong, you disappear, and lie your ass off about it. This thread is another example.

    Is this the same Darrell who’s been avoiding this:

    And YOU STILL are avoiding the fact that LIBERAL congressmen were the only ones boycotting the pro-Hezbollah Al-Maliki. Where does that fit into your “all liberals believe X,Y,Z” narrative?

    I’ve shoved your nose in this like a dog that shit the carpet, and you have ignored it because it doesn’t mesh with your ‘Liberals are objectively Anti-Israel’ bullshit.

    YOU, Darrell, have “disappeared” after being proven wrong. Oh, yeah. Now you’ve pretended to not have heard about it and asked for a link, and when given one you, Darrell, not only pretend no one ever did so, but attack someone for DISAPPEARING…so I ask again you intellectual chickenshit:

    And YOU STILL are avoiding the fact that LIBERAL congressmen were the only ones boycotting the pro-Hezbollah Al-Maliki. Where does that fit into your “all liberals believe X,Y,Z” narrative?

  256. 256

    I never noted it. Neither have most other conservatives. Sure, ‘Hollywood elite’ is used a lot by conservatives, but the Jewish angle in regards to Hollywood is almost never brought up (most actors aren’t Jewish, are they?), and it’s dishonest as hell of you to pretend otherwise

    Strange. That’s not what William Donahue said. He said Hollywood was controlled by secular Jews, and that they like anal sex and abortions and all kinds of nasty things.

    And why is it whenever right wingers talk about the Hollywood Elite, it’s always Barbara Streisand, etc? Hell, South Park did a whole episode on the right wingers fixation with Streisand’s supposed desire to rule the world. I just saw it a few weeks ago in the reruns.

    Come on Darrell… It’s out there, you know it’s out there. Your buddies with these guys. Defend what they had to say.

  257. 257
    Nutcutter says:

    what should the cops do, let him stand there shooting at people?

    Yeah, uh…. after reading your post, I conclude that my analogy was over your head.

    So … never mind.

  258. 258

    And YOU STILL are avoiding the fact that LIBERAL congressmen were the only ones boycotting the pro-Hezbollah Al-Maliki. Where does that fit into your “all liberals believe X,Y,Z” narrative?

    Yeah, why won’t Al-Maliki come out in condemnation of Hezbollah if he is so against terrorists?

    Answer us Darrell, we are begging for your wisdom on the issue.

  259. 259
    jaime says:

    It’s not appropriate in this day and age for right wingers to complain about the Jews in Hollywood…or the ACL-JEW or the Jew York Times.

    “Secular” is now their code word.

  260. 260
    jaime says:

    Yeah, why won’t Al-Maliki come out in condemnation of Hezbollah if he is so against terrorists?

    His brain is melting down over the fact that only Liberal Democrats have condemned his statements and demanded a boycott. Let him try one question at a time.

  261. 261
    Darrell says:

    Strange. That’s not what William Donahue said. He said Hollywood was controlled by secular Jews

    Strange. Leftist Ward Churchill said the 9/11 victims were “little Eichmans”. So therefore he speaks for all liberals, right? Kind of like some head of the “Catholic League”, who may be a Democrat for we know, somehow speaks for all conservatives. Do you see what an idiot you are TOS? Has it finally dawned on you yet?

  262. 262
    Darrell says:

    Hell, South Park did a whole episode on the right wingers fixation with Streisand’s supposed desire to rule the world.

    I love it.. that episode in your fucked up mind represents “right winger” fixation with Streisand, rather mocking the fact she is an incoherent moonbat who believes in everything you believe.

  263. 263
    DougJ says:

    In fairness to Darrell, we can’t hold him responsible for Donohue’s comments.

    What’s your take on Bill Donohue out of curiosity Darrell?

  264. 264
    Perry Como says:

    DougJ Says:

    Sometimes, though, I think it is more Michael Moore or Ward Churchill’s fault.

    Darrell Says:

    Leftist Ward Churchill said the 9/11 victims were “little Eichmans”.

    Ward Churchill FTW!

  265. 265
    Darrell says:

    His brain is melting down over the fact that only Liberal Democrats have condemned his statements and demanded a boycott.

    Hey, it was liberal Dems who crashed and interrupted his speech. Can you admit that? And I’m not surprised that insincere liberal Dems might “condemn” someone for pure political gain. Frankly, I think Al-Maliki needs to be called out for not condemning Hezbollah.

  266. 266
    jaime says:

    #1) Darrell:

    And YOU STILL are avoiding the fact that LIBERAL congressmen were the only ones boycotting the pro-Hezbollah Al-Maliki. Where does that fit into your “all liberals believe X,Y,Z” narrative?

    #2)

    Leftist Ward Churchill said the 9/11 victims were “little Eichmans”. So therefore he speaks for all liberals, right?

    That’s what your saying when you link to ED FUCKING CONE. You do realize, you are arguing two opposite points at one time, right?

  267. 267
    Darrell says:

    The same liberal Dems who want to condemn Al-Maliki over his not condemning Hezbollah, are the exact same Dems who scream like little bitches over the “disproportionate” response from Israel.

  268. 268
    Zifnab says:

    In fairness to Darrell, we can’t hold him responsible for Donohue’s comments.

    Like hell we can’t.

  269. 269
    Zifnab says:

    It’s also worth asking, if there are so many anti-semetic liberals, why didn’t I see any Republican Jewish Congressmen boycotting the Iraqi Prime Minister in solidarity for his refusal to condemn Hezbollah for its terrorist actions?

  270. 270
    jaime says:

    Hey, it was liberal Dems who crashed and interrupted his speech. Can you admit that?

    Are you referring to the Code Pink woman who isn’t a member of Congress protesting the war in Iraq? What does that have to do with Democrats call for a boycott? I can admit that grass is green, too.

    And I’m not surprised that insincere liberal Dems might “condemn” someone for pure political gain

    Wow. Let me refer you to my Hitlery being Objectively-Pro Objective post from earlier in the day.

    Frankly, I think Al-Maliki needs to be called out for not condemning Hezbollah.

    Since not a single Republican joined the Democratic call for a boycott, then the Republicans Must be anti-Israel.

  271. 271
    Darrell says:

    That’s what your saying when you link to ED FUCKING CONE

    Had you bothered to read it, it was nothing to do with Ed cone, but how Randi Rhodes of Air America was ranting about Israel carrying out “genocide” in Lebanon. That was the what the link was about, not about Ed Cone himself.

  272. 272
    jaime says:

    It’s also worth asking, if there are so many anti-semetic liberals, why didn’t I see any Republican Jewish Congressmen boycotting the Iraqi Prime Minister in solidarity for his refusal to condemn Hezbollah for its terrorist actions?

    It took me hours to get Darrell to respond to the first question. I think he’s all googled out.

  273. 273
    jaime says:

    It’s also worth asking, if there are so many anti-semetic liberals, why didn’t I see any Republican Jewish Congressmen boycotting the Iraqi Prime Minister in solidarity for his refusal to condemn Hezbollah for its terrorist actions?

    It took me hours to get Darrell to respond to the first question. I think he’s all googled out.

  274. 274
    Darrell says:

    Zifnab Says:

    It’s also worth asking, if there are so many anti-semetic liberals

    Excuse me shit for brains, but can you please point us to any posts here which suggest there are “so many” anti-semitic liberals? I’ll wait for your reply

  275. 275
    Darrell says:

    Since not a single Republican joined the Democratic call for a boycott

    Again, these are the same liberal Dems who are screaming about Israel’s “disproportionate” response, demanding Israel cease fire and begin negotiations headed by the UN. Sorry for doubting their sincerity.

  276. 276
    Perry Como says:

    It’s also worth asking, if there are so many anti-semetic liberals, why didn’t I see any Republican Jewish Congressmen boycotting the Iraqi Prime Minister

    They are trying to set up a meeting with the Republican Black Caucus.

  277. 277
    jaime says:

    I POSTED THIS AT 2 HOURS AGO…

    I think Darrell is trying to be slick about queering the thread. Soon we will be arguing about something completely tangential of Darrell’s choosing.

    Now the thread is about him and how his accusing people of most liberals being anti-Israeli is different than most liberals being anti-Semitic.

  278. 278
    Nutcutter says:

    In fairness to Darrell

    Sorry. If we are fair to Darrell, the terrorists win.

  279. 279
    jaime says:

    Again, these are the same liberal Dems who are screaming about Israel’s “disproportionate” response, demanding Israel cease fire and begin negotiations headed by the UN.

    Prove it.

  280. 280
    chriskoz says:

    Darrell says:

    The same liberal Dems who want to condemn Al-Maliki over his not condemning Hezbollah, are the exact same Dems who scream like little bitches over the “disproportionate” response from Israel.

    I guess in Darrelland it is impossible to condemn terrorists and still believe that the response to those same terrorists could be considered “disproportionate” at the same time.

    In Darrelland any response to a terrorist is acceptable. I would assume that means “glassing” an entire country. (cuz otherwise the terrorists win) If you think that would be a “disproportionate” response, then you MUST be pro-terrorist. (And objectively so)

    Darrel… once again I must call you a fool.

  281. 281
    Darrell says:

    Now the thread is about him and how his accusing people of most liberals being anti-Israeli is different than most liberals being anti-Semitic.

    Please see my 5:00pm post and then come back and apologize to everyone for being such a whiny stupid little bitch.

  282. 282
    Nutcutter says:

    but how Randi Rhodes of Air America

    Could you please take your commentary to some other blog where somebody cares about this? I have never listened to Air America.

    Write sometime and tell us how it’s going.

    Goodbye.

  283. 283
    VidaLoca says:

    Darrell,

    Frankly, I think Al-Maliki needs to be called out for not condemning Hezbollah.

    Al-Maliki is head (barely) of a coalition that functions (barely) as the government of Iraq. They don’t agree on much but what they do agree on is being against Israel. In that context, for Al-Maliki to come down on Israel’s side would be political (if not literal personal) suicide; and could bring down the government (insofar as it is a government) as well. In other words you might as well take some small comfort in the fact that he said what he did.

    The same liberal Dems who want to condemn Al-Maliki over his not condemning Hezbollah, are the exact same Dems who scream like little bitches over the “disproportionate” response from Israel.

    Not that it matters much, but are you sure this is true? Schumer, possibly several others have been critical of Al-Maliki — but where have they criticized “disproportionate” response from Israel?

  284. 284
    Nutcutter says:

    stupid little bitch.

    Stupid little bitch?

    This is what good Christian Republicans are calling people these days?

    When did this start?

    Why are you a misogynist?

  285. 285
    Perry Como says:

    Why are you a is the majority of the Right misogynist(ic)?

    Now in DarrellSpeak(TM)!

  286. 286
    tBone says:

    How about a little “outside the box” thinking? I say we send Darrell to the Israeli-Lebanon border with a megaphone. In 15 or 20 minutes, he’ll have both sides so pissed at him that they’ll forget all about fighting each other. If you don’t think it would work, witness the turn this thread took when he showed up.

  287. 287
    Perry Como says:

    If you don’t think it would work, witness the turn this thread took when he showed up.

    I think my Bolton mustache idea was better. How will Hezbollah be able to fire rockets at Israel if they have to wade through the Mustache-of-Doooooom?

  288. 288
    Darrell says:

    Not that it matters much, but are you sure this is true? Schumer, possibly several others have been critical of Al-Maliki

    Liberal Dems, by and large, have been condmening Israel’s response, in many cases accusing Israel of “massacres”, “indiscriminate” bomings, and “genocide”. Conservatives, in contrast (ala Bolton), have been by and large the strongest defenders of Israel’s response. Trying to spin the lib Dems position into anything but whining over Israel’s response strikes me as deeply dishonest. I’ve asked “jaime” for links regarding the boycott of Al-Maliki hours ago, but he hasn’t provided anything.. so it’s difficult to respond to his unsubstantiated rants

  289. 289
    Nutcutter says:

    In 15 or 20 minutes, he’ll have both sides so pissed at him that they’ll forget all about fighting each other.

    They’ll take turns firing rockets at him and then he’ll — literally — be toast.

    Then what? The return of TallDave? A contest to pick a new goat? Where is this headed?

  290. 290
    Darrell says:

    In Darrelland any response to a terrorist is acceptable. I would assume that means “glassing” an entire country

    Let’s see, you leftists set up your straw men, then knock them down and declare victory. Isn’t that fun. Clue: Don’t “assume” what I think about glassing Lebanon, especially when your ‘assumption’ is not very reality based.

  291. 291
    jaime says:

    I’ve asked “jaime” for links regarding the boycott of Al-Maliki hours ago, but he hasn’t provided anything.. so it’s difficult to respond to his unsubstantiated rants

    Are you fucking Kidding me, Asshole?

    Perry posted a link not 5 minutes after you asked for one…search the thread again and then come back to me with that, you fucking piece of shit.

  292. 292
    chopper says:

    Yeah, uh…. after reading your post, I conclude that my analogy was over your head.

    i guess ‘over your head’ has been redefined to mean the same thing as ‘not that great’.

    hezbollah are not anywhere close to the same as the bank robbers you use in your analogy.

    the idea isn’t that hiding among civilians won’t be tolerated lest ‘the terrorists win’ as in your analogy, the idea is not to let these people get away with the things that they do merely because they hide among civilians. otherwise we pretty much have to let them get away with those things for as long as they want as long as they continue to do so.

    in the case of bank robbers who take hostages, we deal with them and in some cases let them get away because the hostage is more important than the money they stole. but hezbollah is kidnapping, and killing israeli civilians first and foremost.

  293. 293
    Nutcutter says:

    Liberal Dems, by and large, have been condmening Israel’s response, in many cases accusing Israel of “massacres”, “indiscriminate” bomings, and “genocide”.

    Really? Nobody has been harder on them than I have, and I haven’t used any of those words.

    Are you sure you are on the right website? Did you mean to log into Jack LaLanne’s Power Juicer and hit “Balloon-Juice(er)” instead?

  294. 294
    Nutcutter says:

    hezbollah are not anywhere close to the same as the bank robbers you use in your analogy.

    Like I said, never mind.

    You win, I lose.

    Point to you.

    Okay?

  295. 295
    Perry Como says:

    Are you fucking Kidding me, Asshole?

    Perry posted a link not 5 minutes after you asked for one…

    See, now you are being a dishonest Leftist Looney Liberal. Darrell said “jaime” didn’t post a link. How typical of the Left.

  296. 296
    chopper says:

    Strange. Leftist Ward Churchill said the 9/11 victims were “little Eichmans”. So therefore he speaks for all liberals, right? Kind of like some head of the “Catholic League”, who may be a Democrat for we know, somehow speaks for all conservatives. Do you see what an idiot you are TOS? Has it finally dawned on you yet?

    LOL, i love it. someone uses a parallel situation to point out how stupid it is when you lump all liberals together based on what one or a few says by pointing out that by the same logic one can lump all conservatives together as well, and instead of your miniscule brain putting two and two together it gets a stack overflow and flips out.

  297. 297
    VidaLoca says:

    Liberal Dems, by and large, have been condmening Israel’s response, in many cases accusing Israel of “massacres”, “indiscriminate” bomings, and “genocide”.

    “Liberal Dems” as in Senate/House/State office holders? Party leadership? Who among them have been condemning Israel? It’s been appearing to me that the political establishment has been supporting Israel across the board.

    If you mean left-wing bloggers, that’s a much stronger argument. But left-wing blogers != Dems.

  298. 298
    chopper says:

    Like I said, never mind.

    You win, I lose.

    Point to you.

    Okay?

    uh, whatever you say, pp.

  299. 299
    chopper says:

    If you mean left-wing bloggers, that’s a much stronger argument. But left-wing blogers != Dems.

    especially since his example of the forthright conservative response was bolton. not exactly a rightie blogger, i figure.

  300. 300
    jaime says:

    If you mean left-wing bloggers, that’s a much stronger argument. But left-wing blogers != Dems.

    Well, the ones I read…Eschaton, Americablog, and Firedoglake aren’t blogging about Israel. But I guess the Almighty Ed Cone is THE authoritative voice of the Left.

    Should we be called the “Ed Cone’s of the Left” now?

  301. 301
    tBone says:

    I think my Bolton mustache idea was better. How will Hezbollah be able to fire rockets at Israel if they have to wade through the Mustache-of-Doooooom?

    Why not send them both? Bolton’s moustache can shelter Ambassador Darrell.

    There. Perry and I have fixed the Middle East. Let this be a lesson to the rest of you – try focusing on the solutions instead of the problems.

  302. 302
    Darrell says:

    Perry posted a link not 5 minutes after you asked for one…search the thread again and then come back to me with that, you fucking piece of shit.

    So Perry Como posts a link with no explanation, and I’m supposed to understand via telepathy that he is your spokesman?

    Tell us shitstain, did Ted Kennedy boycott Al Maliki? did John Kerry or Chuckie Schumer boycott? How about Barbara Boxer? Because they are the most liberal senators in the entire country. So tell us, who are these noble liberal Dem “leaders” who took such a principled stand against terrorism? Since you have made such a collosal deal over this, please tell us.

  303. 303
    J. King says:

    I expect Mr. Annan was not thinking diplomatically when he made that remark. I expect he was reacting from his gut, not his logic. Since we in the United States despise diplomacy so heartily, surely we can sympathize with his reaction.

  304. 304
    Perry Como says:

    Why not send them both? Bolton’s moustache can shelter Ambassador Darrell.

    There. Perry and I have fixed the Middle East.

    Brilliant. Too bad we don’t have a pic of Darrell. I could shop him in, astride Bolton’s mustache, with the Mighty Microphone of Honesty.

  305. 305
    chopper says:

    Why not send them both? Bolton’s moustache can shelter Ambassador Darrell.

    until darrell hears a bomb and wets himself. that stuff doesn’t come out of mustaches easily. you need that enzyme-based stuff they sell at pet stores.

  306. 306
    chopper says:

    I expect Mr. Annan was not thinking diplomatically when he made that remark. I expect he was reacting from his gut, not his logic. Since we in the United States despise diplomacy so heartily, surely we can sympathize with his reaction.

    i guess that makes him a ‘major league as$hole’.

  307. 307
    Ancient Purple says:

    Here are your damn links to the boycott, Darrell:

    Boycott link.

    Link Two.

    Turn on your voice reader if you have problems with the big words. You know, the ones with more than three letters.

  308. 308
    Nutcutter says:

    So Perry Como posts a link with no explanation

    But remember, it’s not the real Perry Como.

    He’s actually Eddie Fisher.

  309. 309
    chriskoz says:

    Darrell says:

    In Darrelland any response to a terrorist is acceptable. I would assume that means “glassing” an entire country

    Let’s see, you leftists set up your straw men, then knock them down and declare victory. Isn’t that fun. Clue: Don’t “assume” what I think about glassing Lebanon, especially when your ‘assumption’ is not very reality based.

    So then you WOULD claim the response was “disproportionate” if nukes were to start falling on Lebanon?

    If so… then good for you. You have made a very big step today. You have realized that it IS possible to claim the actions of both sides of a conflict as wrong. And therefore you may move from “fool” to simply “confused”.

    If not… then my point still stands and you are still a fool.

    BTW, how did you determine that I was a “leftist”? Was it because I simply disagree with you? (I’m getting the impression you just pulled that label out of your ass with no facts to back it up) And where exactly did I “declare victory”? And then you want to snark at me about “Straw men”. I take it back… you are moved from “fool” to “idiot”.

  310. 310
    Ancient Purple says:

    did John Kerry or Chuckie Schumer boycott?

    Schumer did indeed boycott, idiot.

  311. 311
    jaime says:

    So Perry Como posts a link with no explanation, and I’m supposed to understand via telepathy that he is your spokesman?

    Tell us shitstain, did Ted Kennedy boycott Al Maliki? did John Kerry or Chuckie Schumer boycott?

    I refuse to argue with an ignorant piece of shit. Try some googling and then get back to me. Once you’ve educated yourself, you’ll realize that you’re making a complete ass of yourself.

  312. 312
    Nutcutter says:

    I guess nobody told Darrell that the Neocons are actually a bunch of liberals on crack?

  313. 313
    Nutcutter says:

    Oh wait, DougJ and I spent a whole day trying to tell him that, and he fought it like his life depended on it.

  314. 314
    jaime says:

    If you would only provide the link Darrell was asking for, Ancien Purple. I mean, could a super liberal like CHUCK SCHUMER possibly call to boycott Maliki?

  315. 315
    Nutcutter says:

    Once you’ve educated yourself, you’ll realize that you’re making a complete ass of yourself.

    That’s WAY too hypothetical. Darrell, educating himself?

    I think you misspelled “fellating.”

  316. 316
    Darrell says:

    If so… then good for you. You have made a very big step today.

    That is to say, you acknowledge that what I actually believe is likely very different than the cartoonish stereotype which you previously asserted

    You have realized that it IS possible to claim the actions of both sides of a conflict as wrong

    I never said Israel was perfect. But I don’t buy into this “both sides are wrong” moral equivalency either.. which fails to acknowledge that one side in this fight is a bunch of bloodthirsty terrorist scum who target civilians and want to kill all jews.. the same side which attacked Israel which started this fight. Israel is fighting a DEFENSIVE war, and I’m sick of the dishonest moral equivalency that comes almost entirely from the left. The condemnations from the left flow almost entirely in 1 direction.

  317. 317
    Nutcutter says:

    I never said Israel was perfect. But I don’t buy into this “both sides are wrong

    So it’s okay with you if they burn kids in front of their mothers, as long as they have good intentions?

  318. 318
    Darrell says:

    Schumer did indeed boycott, idiot.

    I ask “jaime”, who began obsessing over this issue hours ago for a link which he never provided. The one source he did direct me to made no mention of Schumer boycotting. But I’m the “idiot”. Got it.

  319. 319
    Nutcutter says:

    I guess I’m confused. Alfalfa Darrell says that kids are too precious to be sent camping with gays. But if a country sets fire to them with rockets, in front of their mothers, it’s okay.

    Clear it up, would you, Darrell?

  320. 320
    Darrell says:

    So it’s okay with you if they burn kids in front of their mothers, as long as they have good intentions?

    Tell us “Nutcutter”, in what fantasy world could Israel defend herself against terrorist attackers who target and hide among civilians, without killing civilians in course of defending herself against these attackers?

    Is the sky blue in that world?

  321. 321
    Nutcutter says:

    in what fantasy world could Israel defend herself against terrorist attackers who target and hide among civilians,

    Well, for starters, one in which a morally responsible government refrains from throwing bombs and rockets into an area where civilians are trying to flee from their bombs and rockets.

    I am not aware that the van with the incinerated family I saw on CNN was occupied by any “terrorists.” It seems as if the bombardments are either careless, or indiscriminate, or both.

    So complete is the hubris of the assholes who commit these atrocities, that I haven’t even seen an apology or an expression of grief from them.

    However, at least on BJ poster called it “unfortunate colateral damage” so by BJ rule, it’s okay.

    But I don’t live by BJ rule, and I consider it to be basically murder. And I consider you to be a supporter of murder.

  322. 322
    chopper says:

    The condemnations from the left flow almost entirely in 1 direction.

    except for all the leftists who support israel. like the liberal jews, who…oh, wait, they’re just stupid and naive. never mind.

    i mean, i totally support israel, and her right to defend herself. but overdoing it is overdoing it, no matter who you are and who you’re fighting. blowing up civilian ambulances and bombing UN obsevation posts is bad no matter how bad your enemies are. you shouldn’t ignore those things because hezbollah are a bunch of assholes. and pointing out that israel is overdoing it (even most of my israeli friends, who of course support israel, are pissed about the current situation) doesn’t make you anti-israel at all.

    shit, i believe that there’s more disdain for israel on the left than the right. for two reasons: first, israel has blown a lot of shit up over the years, and leftists are not fans of war. two, there are a lot of rightists out there that think that israel and the arabs fuckin shit up in the ME will lead to the apocalypse and they just can’t wait to watch billions of people, jews and all, suffer and die in some fantasy orgy of blood and gore.

    but that doesn’t mean that the left as a whole hates on israel. fuck no.

  323. 323
    Krista says:

    Jesus wept…are you guys still going? I’ve cleaned my apartment and picked 4 boxes of raspberries and 4 boxes of blueberries since I last checked in…

  324. 324
    tBone says:

    I could shop him in, astride Bolton’s mustache, with the Mighty Microphone of Honesty.

    I hear the MMH can repel dishonest Leftists out to a 1-mile radius. It can go up to 10 with the optional jackalope generator module.

  325. 325
    Darrell says:

    J. King Says:

    I expect Mr. Annan was not thinking diplomatically when he made that remark. I expect he was reacting from his gut, not his logic. Since we in the United States despise diplomacy so heartily, surely we can sympathize with his reaction.

    So far, ‘diplomacy’ with murderous scum has resulted in 800,000 massacred in Rwanda, genocide in Sudan, Srebrenica, and oh yeah, the Infitada after the Oslo accords diplomacy. How could anyone argue against diplomacy with a track record like that?

    Israel should be running toward a UN negotiated “peace” treaty with Hezbollah, right? I’m sure that would turn out great.

  326. 326
    Nutcutter says:

    Jesus wept…are you guys still going?

    Well, right now we’re working a Darrell thread.

    Darrell is … uh …. cooperating nicely.

  327. 327
    Nutcutter says:

    Israel should be running toward a UN negotiated “peace” treaty

    Oh no, Israel should be gearing up for another sixty years of useless fucking war. Why not? The last sixty were a huge success.

  328. 328
    Darrell says:

    except for all the leftists who support israel. like the liberal jews, who…oh, wait, they’re just stupid and naive. never mind

    That’s fair. You’re right some liberals do support Israel. Most liberals though appear to condemn only Israel, or play the bullshit “both sides are equally wrong” crap.

  329. 329
    Krista says:

    So far, ‘diplomacy’ with murderous scum has resulted in 800,000 massacred in Rwanda,

    Um, that wasn’t “diplomacy”, sweetpea. That was the entire world turning their backs. Bit of a difference, there.

  330. 330
    Mr Furious says:

    Waaay upthread, I am the one that said this,

    Israel certainly seems to be operating with callous disregard for what they hit.

    To which somebody else replied…

    Bingo

    All I meant with that comment is simply that it does not appear Israel is really exercizing much caution or restraint in the bombing runs. Blasting UN outposts, ambulances and clearly marked relief convoys. They are either not being careful, or don’t give a shit what they nail.

    That’s it. I did not accuse Israel of war crimes or anything else. Though they are, in my opinion, practicing collective punishment on the civilian populace.

    Later, I sarcastically said that “callous” = “war crimes”. Naturally that dense fucking Darrell took it literally.

    Sorry, I don’t see the unhinged or unfair smears anywhere in there.

  331. 331
    Darrell says:

    two, there are a lot of rightists out there that think that israel and the arabs fuckin shit up in the ME will lead to the apocalypse and they just can’t wait to watch billions of people, jews and all, suffer and die in some fantasy orgy of blood and gore

    Charitably assuming some of this is hyperbole, do you leftists actually believe, at least on some level, that the right is hoping for some sort of apololyptic war in the ME to fullfill their ghoulish fantasies?

    Because if that’s the case, a lot of you leftists need to put down your bongs and join reality.. cause right now, you are truly fucked up. Seriously.

  332. 332
    Krista says:

    All I meant with that comment is simply that it does not appear Israel is really exercizing much caution or restraint in the bombing runs.

    Furious, as far as some people are concerned, however, that comment is completely equivalent to you accusing Israel of deliberately targeting civilian populations and peacekeepers. If you don’t think that these bombings are regrettable accidents, and ONLY regrettable accidents, in no way due to any form of negligence on Israel’s part, then lo and behold, you’re an anti-Semite.

    In other words, you’re either with them or you’re against them.

    Sound familiar?

  333. 333
    John S. says:

    Israel is fighting a DEFENSIVE war

    In Lebanon?

    Brought to you by the good folks at Spumco® who brought us America’s Defensive War in Iraq™.

    Quite the mind you’ve got there, Darrell.

  334. 334
    Pb says:

    Darrell,

    So far, ‘diplomacy’ with murderous scum has resulted in

    And if you think that’s bad, you should look up the track records of other popular tactics, beliefs, groups, philosophies, etc.–Islam, Judaism, Christianity, terrorism, war, despotism, communism, and democracy. Although it’d probably be more instructive to try to measure the successes as well–if you’re just looking for blood, you will find it.

  335. 335
    Darrell says:

    Um, that wasn’t “diplomacy”, sweetpea. That was the entire world turning their backs

    Actually, the UN was actively ‘diplomatically’ trying to negotiate peace between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda at the time of the massacre. They even had many UN “peacekeepers” there to enforce the diplomacy at the time of the massacre (they fled, and the French actually armed Hutus). The point is, diplomacy in many cases can cause more death and destruction than fighting back. How’s the UN ‘diplomacy’ working with Sudan now?

  336. 336
    tBone says:

    do you leftists actually believe, at least on some level, that the right is hoping for some sort of apololyptic war in the ME to fullfill their ghoulish fantasies?

    No, I don’t think the right as a whole is hoping for that. Some of the nuttier elements of the right? Sure. They’re not shy about saying it, either.

  337. 337
    Pb says:

    Ah yes, the great Diplomacy Massacre of ’06, I remember it well… </W.C. Fields>

  338. 338
    Darrell says:

    Some of the nuttier elements of the right? Sure. They’re not shy about saying it, either.

    I’ve read such a thing from any right leaning source, and that includes Free Republic, LGF or Powerline. Please do provide us a link next time you read a conservative gleefully making the case for a ME apocolypse so he can get off watching the death and destruction.

    Sounds like a leftist invented caricature of the right to me.. with no basis in reality.

  339. 339
    VidaLoca says:

    Israel should be running toward a UN negotiated “peace” treaty with Hezbollah, right?

    Considering some of the alternatives, that’s about the best outcome we can hope for at the moment.

    I’m sure that would turn out great.

    Oh, I’m not. Most likely in a few months or years we’ll be back in exactly the same place we are now if we’re lucky enough to get a cease-fire and a truce. For the past 60 years the cease-fires in that part of the world have just been holding periods until the next war and I don’t think that will change. The only thing I see changing in the near term is this country may one day be run by a set of politicians who are somewhat more capable than the current batch.

  340. 340
    Pb says:

    Darrell,

    Please do provide us a link next time you read a conservative gleefully making the case for a ME apocolypse so he can get off watching the death and destruction.

    Will do… I’m sure it won’t take very long. :)

  341. 341
    chriskoz says:

    Darrell (the idiot) says:

    But I don’t buy into this “both sides are wrong” moral equivalency either

    Are you assuming I would claim they are morally equivalent? I certainly hope not after your ever so righteous comment on what I was assuming about you. (BTW- what I said was intentionally meant to be extreme to demonstrate a point. I certainly didn’t think you would be foolish enough to actually believe it. A point obviously lost to your advanced case of idiocy)

    My entire point was that it actually is possible to condemn both sides and not be some sort of dishonest politician looking for “pure political gain” or something like that. That does NOT mean the actions are morally equivalent.

    If Israeli nukes were to start falling, Israel would definitely be the big moral looser. (But as it stands now… IMHO… Israel is only morally bankrupt compared to the morally repugnant Hezbollah.)

    Now once again… How did you determine I was a “leftist”? Did you assume something about my beliefs?

    And where did I “declare victory”?

    (Not that I really expect any honest or well thought out answers from you)

  342. 342
    jaime says:

    do you leftists actually believe, at least on some level, that the right is hoping for some sort of apololyptic war in the ME to fullfill their ghoulish fantasies?

    Revelations is a Ghoulish Fantasy? Why do you hate Jesus and Christians?

  343. 343
    Darrell says:

    John S. Says:

    Israel is fighting a DEFENSIVE war

    In Lebanon?

    Note the incredulity from liberal whackjob John S at the suggestion that Israel is fighting a “defensive” war. How preposterous! Truth is, to many leftists, ‘militaristic’ Israel could never fight a defensive war. John S post is one of countless examples of this view.

  344. 344
    Krista says:

    Actually, the UN was actively ‘diplomatically’ trying to negotiate peace between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda at the time of the massacre.

    True.

    They even had many UN “peacekeepers” there to enforce the diplomacy at the time of the massacre (they fled, and the French actually armed Hutus).

    They didn’t all flee. You’re trying to make them sound like cowards, when as a matter of fact, many of them stayed and did the best they could to keep the innocents alive against overwhelming odds. I’d appreciate it if you would acknowledge that.

    The point is, diplomacy in many cases can cause more death and destruction than fighting back. How’s the UN ‘diplomacy’ working with Sudan now?

    The point is, diplomacy done well can save lives. Diplomacy done poorly can cost them. But to write off diplomacy as an option tells me some pretty frightening things about your worldview.

  345. 345
    VidaLoca says:

    I’ve read such a thing from any right leaning source, and that includes Free Republic, LGF or Powerline. Please do provide us a link next time you read a conservative gleefully making the case for a ME apocolypse so he can get off watching the death and destruction.

    Sounds like a leftist invented caricature of the right to me.. with no basis in reality.

    Sadly, no. The good folks at RaptureReady.com have your bases in reality (if you can call it that) all covered:

    Middle East war will explode not long after Christ’s church is taken home to God’s heavenly house. That is not to say that meanwhile there will not be military conflicts in the Mid-East region. The explosive potential for armed conflict is constantly present. At the moment, for example, Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons, while its leaders call for Israel’s total annihilation. The Hamas terrorists are now in “legal” control of the drive toward a Palestinian state. The escalating violence of Syrian-backed Hezbollah and Israel’s determination to end the terrorist organization’s murderous activities against Israel’s people threaten an expanded conflict in the region. That the violence could ignite a much wider conflagration is the fear of diplomats within the international community.

    But no matter when war becomes full-blown on Earth, all Christians who have lived or died during the Church Age will, immediately following the Rapture, enjoy peace, joy and fulfillment beyond any that can be imagined this side of heaven. That peace will be true and everlasting!

  346. 346
    tBone says:

    Please do provide us a link next time you read a conservative gleefully making the case for a ME apocolypse so he can get off watching the death and destruction.

    Ask and ye shall receive:

    “Glory Bumps”
    Pure Unfiltered Craziness

    That’s about 30 seconds of Googling. I’m sure there’s plenty more out there.

  347. 347
    Pb says:

    Note how Darrell cleverly manages to not address the two words he actually quoted from John S., and then, using this non-argument, constructs from it a fresh strawman pointed at “many leftists”. Such artistry!

  348. 348
    Nutcutter says:

    Israel is fighting a “defensive” war.

    Firing a rocket at a van carrying a fleeing family and burning the kids in front of their mother is a defensive war?

    It’s murder, because it was unnecessary. I don’t care if they think they are fighting Satan himself.

    What would Satan do? Trick fools into shooting at kids, I reckon. If Satan wouldn’t do that, then what exactly IS evil, anyway?

    You condone the murder of kids, but won’t let kids go camping with people you don’t like. What a fucking whacko you are.

  349. 349
    tBone says:

    BTW, Darrell, just to forestall the inevitable jackalope release – I in no way think the Rapture Ready folks represent mainstream conservatism. But to pretend that there isn’t a nutty element on the right that’s salivating for the End Times is just silly.

  350. 350
    Darrell says:

    If you don’t think that these bombings are regrettable accidents, and ONLY regrettable accidents

    Krista, that reasonable characterization is MILES away from your initial claim that Israel was “indiscriminitely” bombing Lebanon.. which is likely how you really feel. It has been alleged that ambulances have transported aid to Hezbollah, just as Palestinians have used ambulances to transport terrorists and arms, so don’t be so quick to assume that bombing of “ambulances” necessarily is a bad thing. It might have been.. or not. Point is, you don’t know.

  351. 351
    Nutcutter says:

    many of them stayed and did the best they could t

    Yes, one of them, Scottish or Irish by his accent (I’m chagrined to say, I couldn’t be sure which) … was still serving this morning when interviewed on NBC. Unarmed, and quite professional.

  352. 352
    Darrell says:

    But to pretend that there isn’t a nutty element on the right that’s salivating for the End Times is just silly.

    I agree that there exists some nutty “End times” types on the right which number the same or less than the number of leftists who agree with Ward Churchill’s ‘little Eichmanns’ comments.

  353. 353
    tBone says:

    If you don’t think that these bombings are regrettable accidents, and ONLY regrettable accidents

    Krista, that reasonable characterization is MILES away from your initial claim that Israel was “indiscriminitely” bombing Lebanon.. which is likely how you really feel.

    Er . . . might want to read her whole post again, Darrell, because I think you missed some important context there.

  354. 354
    Krista says:

    Krista, that reasonable characterization is MILES away from your initial claim that Israel was “indiscriminitely” bombing Lebanon

    My claims don’t usually have spelling errors. :)

    In regards to the ambulances, however, did Israel know — were they 100% certain — that those ambulances were transporting aid to Hezbollah? I have to be quick to assume that the bombing of ambulances IS a bad thing, because unless 100% sure, the risk is being taken of bombing innocents who are sick or injured. And I don’t care what country you are — that’s just NOT the right thing to do.

  355. 355
    chriskoz says:

    Darrell (the idiot) says:

    So far, ‘diplomacy’ with murderous scum has resulted in 800,000 massacred in Rwanda, genocide in Sudan, Srebrenica, and oh yeah, the Infitada after the Oslo accords diplomacy. How could anyone argue against diplomacy with a track record like that?

    Rigggght… those deaths are the fault of “diplomacy”. It’s couldn’t be that the “murderous scum” are to blame.

    What would be your solution Darrell? More fighting and wars? (Note: I’m asking… not assuming) Cuz, that seems to me to be a great plan for more deaths. (But, maybe you got a crystal ball that says otherwise.)

    Those deaths occurred despite “diplomacy”. Not as a result of it.

    Darrel… are you shooting for your “moron” badge today?

  356. 356
    tBone says:

    I agree that there exists some nutty “End times” types on the right which number the same or less than the number of leftists who agree with Ward Churchill’s ‘little Eichmanns’ comments.

    So, you had to throw in the gratuitous dig at leftists, complete with your patented DarrellTistics method of counting – but hey, you actually agreed that there are some nutty types on the right. I’ll take what I can get.

  357. 357
    Darrell says:

    Er . . . might want to read her whole post again, Darrell, because I think you missed some important context there

    In a comment Krista made on another thread, she initially posted that Israel was “indiscriminately” bombing Israel. I believe TOS or Andrew pointed out to her at that time that her characterization was rather extreme and unfair. I don’t believe anyone has disagreed with the assertion that criticism of Israel’s response should not = anti-semetism or hatred of Israel. No one has said that to her or anyone else that I have read, so to frame the debate in those terms is a strawman.

    We don’t know how many of those killed are “innocent” and how many were terrorists or terrorist supporters, or family members of Hezbollah jihadists living with terrorists, or innocents killed by Hezbollah. There can be no doubt that innocents have died, but I object to the blame being placed all, or mostly on Israel’s shoulders.

  358. 358
    chriskoz says:

    Darrell (the idiot) says:

    just as Palestinians have used ambulances to transport terrorists and arms, so don’t be so quick to assume that bombing of “ambulances” necessarily is a bad thing. It might have been.. or not. Point is, you don’t know.

    “ambulances” have also been known to be used for carrying sick and wounded civilians. So… bombing of “ambulances” MAY actually kill innocents. (which IS a bad thing) Point is, they were bombed even though it doesn’t appear that is was known who/what was being carried.

  359. 359
    Pb says:

    Ok, so I think I’ve given Darrell enough time to waffle and not research about what he hasn’t seen. So here’s the latest Rapture flame-fest over on Free Republic–all 200+ posts of it, and all of two days ago or so. Read it and weep, Darrell, better luck next time!

  360. 360
    Darrell says:

    What would be your solution Darrell? More fighting and wars?

    I think when Hezbollah rockets rain down on Israel, the Israelis should go to the UN in order to diplomatically “give peace a chance”.

    Just curious, do you have a ‘Visualize World Peace’ bumper sticker on your car?

  361. 361
    Pb says:

    “ambulances” have also been known to be used for carrying sick and wounded civilians. So… bombing of “ambulances” MAY actually kill innocents. (which IS a bad thing) Point is, they were bombed even though it doesn’t appear that is was known who/what was being carried.

    Yes, but after they were bombed, we got a chance to find out–they were carrying wounded civilians, and generally they were already wounded from a previous attack. It’s a civilian casualty twofer, really. :(

  362. 362
    chriskoz says:

    Darrell (the idiot) says:

    I agree that there exists some nutty “End times” types on the right which number the same or less than the number of leftists who agree with Ward Churchill’s ‘little Eichmanns’ comments

    Proof please.

    Cuz, I see way more from the “rapture” crowd then I ever saw concerning Ward Churchill.

    But, surely you wouldn’t make the above statement without being able to back it up. (google fight maybe?)

  363. 363
    Darrell says:

    Pb Says:

    Ok, so I think I’ve given Darrell enough time to waffle and not research about what he hasn’t seen. So here’s the latest Rapture flame-fest over on Free Republic—all 200+ posts of it

    I perused the thread and didn’t see a single post displaying any glee in ME destruction. Most of the right wing ‘extremists’ were slamming or criticizing the End Timers. This post is typical

    End-time prophesy is like global-warming. You can find a “pattern” anywhere pieced together out of anything.

  364. 364
    Krista says:

    In a comment Krista made on another thread, she initially posted that Israel was “indiscriminately” bombing Israel. I believe TOS or Andrew pointed out to her at that time that her characterization was rather extreme and unfair.

    Yes, I did say that it appeared that way, and after having debated the issue with Andrew, agreed to wait a bit and review the situation further before making such a definitive statement.

    And I don’t think that all of the blame should be placed on Israel’s shoulders. I’m not going to hold them blameless either, however — they are still responsible for how they choose to react. I will ask you in all seriousness, however — do you think they deserve ANY blame for the deaths in Lebanon, specifically for the UN peacekeeper deaths?

  365. 365
    VidaLoca says:

    do you leftists actually believe, at least on some level, that the right is hoping for some sort of apololyptic war in the ME to fullfill their ghoulish fantasies?

    OK, here’s William Kristol, Godfather of neoconservatism:

    For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.

    The right response is renewed strength–in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions–and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.

  366. 366
    chriskoz says:

    Nope… you loose…

    Rapture vs. Ward Churchill

    Too bad

  367. 367
    Nutcutter says:

    I think when Hezbollah rockets rain down on Israel

    Did the war start because rockets were raining down on Israel?

    I think it started because of a border skirmish that had about half a dozen casualties and two captured troops.

    Israel began a large-scale operation in Gaza on June 28, three days after Hamas-lined militants tunneled under the border and attacked an Israeli army base at a Gaza crossing, killing two soldiers and capturing a third.

    That’s Forbes, the well known liberal rag.

    There was no rain of rockets when Israel begain its massive attacks on Lebanon.

    You’re a liar and you are supporting murder.

    You’re also a bigot and a homophobe.

  368. 368
    Darrell says:

    Yes, but after they were bombed, we got a chance to find out—they were carrying wounded civilians

    Just curious how you “know” that they were civilians, rather than Hezbollah jihadists or jihadist supporters?

  369. 369
    Ancient Purple says:

    I ask “jaime”, who began obsessing over this issue hours ago for a link which he never provided. The one source he did direct me to made no mention of Schumer boycotting. But I’m the “idiot”. Got it.

    Yes, you are the idiot. Why? Because you don’t really care about the facts. Instead, you are more interested in oneupmanship.

    Bully for you, Darrell. You arguably win at oneupmanship, but you fail at grasping important things.

    Idiot.

  370. 370
    Andrew says:

    Okay, I glanced at the freeper thread but I can’t determine whether I should be happy that armageddon will happen soon or sad that it won’t happen soon. I don’t see any other options.

  371. 371
    Nutcutter says:

    Just curious how you “know” that they were civilians

    We’ve already been through this several days ago, liar.

    Are you saying that an 8-year old and a 13-month old are terrorists, who just happened to be hiding in a van with the rest of their family, a van that was rushing AWAY from the hostilities to safer ground, when struck by a rocket?

    You’re a goddammed liar and you are supporting murder.

  372. 372
    tBone says:

    I don’t believe anyone has disagreed with the assertion that criticism of Israel’s response should not = anti-semetism or hatred of Israel. No one has said that to her or anyone else that I have read, so to frame the debate in those terms is a strawman.

    Actually, I think I misinterpreted what you were getting at. I missed the back story and thought you had misunderstood what Krista was saying with the “regrettable accidents, and ONLY regrettable accidents” thing. My bad.

  373. 373
    Darrell says:

    Proof please.

    Cuz, I see way more from the “rapture” crowd then I ever saw concerning Ward Churchill.

    Oh I don’t know about that. There are many, many leftist vermin in this country

  374. 374
    Krista says:

    Just curious how you “know” that they were civilians, rather than Hezbollah jihadists or jihadist supporters?

    Well, the Red Cross isn’t too impressed, evidently.

    The rocket, Deebe said, had wounded six ambulance workers and three civilians – an 11- year-old boy, an elderly woman and a man.

    “One of the rockets hit right in the middle of the big red cross that was painted on top of the ambulance. This is a clear violation of humanitarian law, of international law,” he said.

    An 11-year old boy and an old woman. What kind of threat could they have possibly been that would have justified blowing them up?

  375. 375
    Pb says:

    Darrell,

    I perused the thread and didn’t see a single post displaying any glee in ME destruction. Most of the right wing ‘extremists’ were slamming or criticizing the End Timers.

    Well it was in the religion section, so it was about half high-brow religious discussion, and half end-times flamewar, but it seems like a lot of the Christians in that thread *do* believe in the rapture–there’s definitely a disconnect between the political and the religious wings of the party there.

    At that time God will remove the veil from their eyes and unleash a torrent of grace upon them that no man can resist and at the same time unleash a torrent of wrath upon the world that no man can escape.

    Do your Jewish friends know that you are praying for them to be rounded up and isolated on one piece of real estate, so that 2/3 of them can be conveniently slaughtered?

    Gotta love it.

  376. 376
    Punchy says:

    Hey look!

    After the blast, Israel agreed to give UNIFIL safe passage for two armored personnel carriers to evacuate the position, Lute said. They arrived at 9:30 p.m. “and found the shelter collapsed and major damage to the rest of the position,” she said.

    Despite negotiating safe passage, those APCs also came under Israeli attack, she said, adding that the attacks continued Wednesday when an artillery round hit about 10 yards from UNIFIL headquarters in the town of Naqoura.

    I’ve said it before, and say it again. Israel is now openly and purposely doing whatever the fuck it wants, b/c it knows the US will back it NO MATTER WHAT. I cannot imagine what Israel must do (drop a nuke?) to actually get a rebuke from our gov’t. Fucking incredible…

  377. 377
    Krista says:

    C’mon Darrell — do you really, honestly, truthfully think that Israel is completely and utterly blameless here? That they haven’t been in the least bit negligent, or careless, or callous? That every single civilian death in Lebanon was completely justified because they might have been jihadist supporters, or because a Hezbollah fighter might have been standing a little too close to them? Even good countries can act very ugly under times of strain. Both your country and mine have had some very ugly points in their respective histories. Condemning the actions of a country’s government does not equal despising the country, or its people.

  378. 378
    Nutcutter says:

    A Lebanese family shares a hospital room in Beirut. An Israeli rocket hit their shelter in the southern Lebanon town of Blida, amputating the legs of Ahmad Kalil Ali, left, and leaving his daughters Aya, 3, second from left, Oula, 1, and his wife, Karam, also wounded

    CNN caption.

    Four children

    Be sure to watch the video, Darrell. You should enjoy it immensely, it’s about burned kids.

    When I hear the mother of the kids sobbing, I think of you, Darrell. I see you writing your filth here and I hear the sobs.

    You stink.

  379. 379
    DougJ says:

    They make fucking movies about the rapture — the “Left Behind” series. As well they should. When the rapture comes, I’ll be in heaven with Jesus and you jack asses will still be arguing about petty shit down here. And I’ll be laughing at your sorry asses all the way to the pearly gates.

    When they start making movies about Ward Churchill — say, the “Little Eichman” series — than we can have a series debate about rapturians versus Churchillians.

  380. 380
    Nutcutter says:

    The Israeli bombardment has failed to stop guerrilla rocket fire, even while killing hundreds, driving up to 750,000 people from their homes and causing billion of dollars in damage.

    MSNBC/NBC News today.

    Looks like Israel’s action here is about as successful as its sixty-year Arab-Israeli war has been, Darrell. Or as successful as its 20-year occupation of Lebanon was, Darrell.

    Israel leads the world in waging a modern Perpetual War On Terror.

    No wonder you stupid righties have fucked up the war, you can’t even pick yourselves a decent example of how to do it. Or was permanent useless war what you had in mind?

  381. 381
    Krista says:

    Anyway, it’s past my bedtime, kids. (I’m two hours ahead of the timestamp.)

    ‘Night, all.

  382. 382
  383. 383
    Nutcutter says:

    So Darrell, these idiots in Israel have been playing the put-upon victim for sixty years in permawar. They occupy a country for 20 years and the only thing they have to show for it is a thriving Hezbollah. They gin up this useless war over a border skirmish and so far have killed around 500 people, the mostly civilians, and a third children, according to mainstream reports. If the stories are even partly true, their wonderweapons are causing them to wage war on ambulances and family vans trying to get away from them.

    These losers can’t seem to get out of their own fucking way. War on terror? More like a permanent round of self-inflicted damage and then the usual whining.

    War on terror? It looks to me like modern Islamic terror is the direct result of the decades of clusterfuck these nuts have flung down on the Middle East.

    Why do you blindly and foolishly support them again? Is this sorry record what you aspire to for your own country now?

  384. 384
    Steve says:

    What a bloodbath you guys turned this thread into.

    I naively continue to believe that Israel is the good guys in the Middle East, but you have to be absolutely retarded to claim that Israel is fighting a “defensive war” at this point. That’s not spin. That’s not a talking point. It’s just idiotic.

    Hezbollah kidnaps two soldiers, and Israel gets a free pass? They can literally do ANYTHING in response, and it’s “defensive”? What a fucked up view of the world.

    I am upset with Israel’s response because, quite frankly, I think it’s a stupid and counterproductive thing to do. They had the moral high ground for a time in this conflict. They even had countries like Saudi Arabia speaking out against Hezbollah, they could have had a lot of support for disarming and neutering Hezbollah for good. And they flat-out blew it.

    It’s not that the “peace only comes from war” crowd is cheering Israel on without any kind of attempt to step back and assess the reality of the situation. It’s that they never learn. Once again, a surgical goal that looks so easy to neocons on paper will end up as nothing but a giant mess, because that’s the way wars tend to end up. They learned nothing from Iraq, they’re not going to learn now.

  385. 385
    Nutcutter says:

    Aw, Steve. You are going to make Darrell vewy vewy uncomfortabew.

    Darrell plays a One Note Samba. GWOT. Israel can’t be wrong. Bush always right. Liberals are scum. Lefties are appeasers. Blah blah blah.

    Problem is, Darrell has hitched his wagon to everything on earth that is a fucking loser. Bush and his GWOT? Loser. Iraq is lost, it’s in civil war and there is nothng we can do about it. The entire Meddle East “policy” is collapsing around him.

    Israel? Sixty years of chest thumping and bellicose outrage have produced … the makings of sixty more years of shit, at this rate. Observers in the Arab world are writing that this fucked up Lebanon campaign has completely turned the entire Arab world view completely and profoundly against the US. They watch this horror show, see Arabs being fucked over, see the impotent US pumping arms and encouragement to their hated foe, pretending to be on a peace mission, unable even to ask for, much less get, a timely and useful cease fire that might mitigate the loss of lives and dignity and political stability for Lebanon.

    Complete and utter fuck up. Israel has provided the world with hours of video adequately demonstrating that they can’t do much of anything except blast away at innocent people and displace 750,000 people over a minor border skirmish.

    And theeeeeeeeeeeere’s Darrell, carrying the water for this unholy alliance and pimping even more death, violence, lies and bullshit.

    Your cruelty to Darrell knows no bounds. How can you sleep at night? The man is — as far as we know — human. He can weep real tears. Now he faces this ignominy.

    I can’t watch. It’s too horrible.

  386. 386

    There are many, many leftist vermin in this country

    The more often Darrell posts some ridiculous story about army recruiters being chased by school children…

    the more I’m starting to question the bravery of our army recruiters. I mean here the are trying to convince men and women to join the army and fight in a war overseas, and yet when faced with a small group of angry school kids, they run?

    Maybe this isn’t what you intended, Darrell, but that is how it’s being perceived.

  387. 387
    chriskoz says:

    Darrell (the idiot) says:

    Just curious, do you have a ‘Visualize World Peace’ bumper sticker on your car?

    Nope. Which is too bad, since that would dovetail nicely into your assumed position that I am a “leftist”. How did you arrive at that assumption again? Maybe missed your very enlightened answer somewhere in this thread. Or maybe you just didn’t respond since it shows you to be the hypocrite you are.

    Darrell (the idiot) then says:

    Proof please.
    Cuz, I see way more from the “rapture” crowd then I ever saw concerning Ward Churchill.

    Oh I don’t know about that. There are many, many leftist vermin in this country

    Which of course is nothing even resembling proof of the rather dubious claim:

    I agree that there exists some nutty “End times” types on the right which number the same or less than the number of leftists who agree with Ward Churchill’s ‘little Eichmanns’ comments.

    Which is what I asked for proof on.

    Darrell, you made some wild ass claim and when asked to back it up, you post a link to a completely irrelevant image. (Unless you are claiming that Ward one of those folks in the image. Which still wouldn’t count as proof of your claim) And really, I can’t say that I expected any better from you.

    So, I’m going to go ahead and award you that “moron” badge you’ve worked so hard for. At this rate you’ll make “clinically brain dead” by the end of the thread.

    But cheer up… at least your guy won this fight: Darrell the Moron Vs. Ward Churchill

    BTW- I totally disagree with folks who hamper or harass recruiters. So… how does that fit into your “leftist” assumptions about me?

  388. 388
    Nutcutter says:

    At this rate you’ll make “clinically brain dead” by the end of the thread.

    If we declare Darrell to be in a Permanent Vegetative State — meaning condition, and not, say, Oklahoma — would scs then come to his rescue?

    Just wondering.

  389. 389
    Darrell says:

    Hezbollah kidnaps two soldiers, and Israel gets a free pass? They can literally do ANYTHING in response, and it’s “defensive”? What a fucked up view of the world.

    Yeah Steve, that’s such an honest and accurate characterization of my position, since I’ve been saying it’s ok to ‘glass’ Lebanon and all. Oh wait, I never said or suggested that, so…whatev

    Israel has been taking attacks from Hezbollah for years now. They are RESPONDING to the latest attacks from Hezbollah jihadists, trying to stop future rocket attacks aimed at Israeli citizens.. and I haven’t seen much acknowledgement of this fact, certainly not on this thread, that Hezbollah are definitely targeting civilians, because their charter calls for the destruction of Israel and all. Israel is in fact, fighting a DEFENSIVE war. That they are trying to destroy enemy positions inside Lebanon, Hezbollah positions which launch attacks within Israel, does not change the fact that Israel’s actions are defensive.

    I am upset with Israel’s response because, quite frankly, I think it’s a stupid and counterproductive thing to do.

    Wow, thanks for the explanation on why Israel’s response is so “stupid and counterproductive”. Oh, let me guess, you “feel” it’s counterproductive so therefore it is, right? You lefties live by emotion, not reality, after all.

    That the Saudis, Egyptians, and other arab nations have condemned Hezbollah is a tribute to Bush diplomacy, although you’ll never find a leftist honest enough to give Bush credit for this unprecedented reaction from those arab nations… because “everyone” knows how that Bush is the dumberest President in history.

    The Israelis need to eradicate and emasculate Hezbollah to the extent that Israelis can survive. That you would condemn them for this, without knowledge of their intelligence or the reality of what is happening on the ground says it all about how ‘reality based’ your position is. A defeated terrorist enemy is Israel’s best ‘diplomatic’ bargaining chip in negotiating real security

  390. 390
    Nutcutter says:

    Israel Faces Tough Foe in Hezbollah

    “Best Arab troops we have ever faced.”

    Why does everything Darrell backs turn into a giant clusterfuck?

  391. 391
    Nutcutter says:

    A defeated terrorist enemy is Israel’s best ‘diplomatic’ bargaining chip in negotiating real security

    Twenty two fucking years and Hezbollah has never been stronger.

    What miracle is going to turn Hezbollah now into a “defeated” enemy when 22 years of Israeli bungling couldn’t do it before?

    Stupid fuck.

  392. 392
    Darrell says:

    Bully for you, Darrell. You arguably win at oneupmanship, but you fail at grasping important things.

    Idiot.

    Except that it always seem to be the LEFTISTS who constantly claim that they gave this conservative or that one a “spanking”, patting each other on their backs how they “kicked ass”. Hell, you jackasses even call yourselves the ‘reality based’ community for chrissakes.

    Look upthread how ‘Perry Como’ tries so desperately to pin a “gotcha” oneupmanship on me for a bullshit antisemitism accusation. No doubt leftists, far, far more than conservatives, are playing the oneupmanship game. The obvious reason is because so many liberals are full of shit.

  393. 393
    Pb says:

    Darrell,

    the reality of what is happening on the ground

    When you acknowledge “the reality of what is happening on the ground” yourself, then we can begin to have a real discussion. Until then, I’ll leave you to your disgustingly ignorant cheerleading atop the unmarked graves of Lebanese civilians beneath the rubble of their former homeland.

  394. 394
    Darrell says:

    Twenty two fucking years and Hezbollah has never been stronger.

    They need to light up those fucking terrorist cockroaches and watch them roast. That the terrorists have gotten stronger, means more must die. Piss on their corpses and wrap them in pigskin. Odd how the left never acknowledges what murderous scum Hezbollah truly is. Always Israel who reacts ‘disproportionately’. Are Hezbollah rocket attacks that are intentionally aimed at civilians considered ‘disproportionate’ response according you lowlifes?

  395. 395
    Nutcutter says:

    They need to light up those fucking terrorist cockroaches and watch them roast. That the terrorists have gotten stronger, means more must die.

    BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! It’s a fucking Darrell meltdown!

    Darrell, Imperial Wizard of Death and Destruction!

    More must die! Watch them roast!

    I think your troll just jumped the shark, dude.

    Your side has a longer losing streak going than the fucking Chicago Cubs.

    Christ, give it up. You’re crazier than “Light up Palestine” Stormy.

  396. 396
    Pb says:

    Incidentally, I’d like to say something about all the idiots who fling accusations of anti-Semitism at the drop of a hat: they aren’t helping anyone, and due to their low standards, they probably have no idea of what actual anti-Semitism looks like. Therefore, I’d like to submit this completely batshit insane, anti-Semitic quote of the day:

    the Jewish religion teaches that Jewish priests properly murdered Jesus Christ and boiled him in hot semen!

    Yes, that is a real quote. Any guesses as to the anti-Semite in question?

  397. 397
    tzs says:

    It looks like the “apparently deliberate” statement originated with the Chinese. They took it out.

    And Darrell, until you can empathize with burned children, please shut your yap, ok? You’re the sort of support Israel doesn’t need at this point.

  398. 398
    Darrell says:

    Yes, that is a real quote. Any guesses as to the anti-Semite in question?

    Google tells me that it’s Cindy Sheehan fan David Duke. Do you have an actual point you’d like to make?

  399. 399
    Steve says:

    That the Saudis, Egyptians, and other arab nations have condemned Hezbollah is a tribute to Bush diplomacy, although you’ll never find a leftist honest enough to give Bush credit for this unprecedented reaction from those arab nations… because “everyone” knows how that Bush is the dumberest President in history.

    I started laughing at this point. I actually woke up my wife. Bastard.

    Odd how the left never acknowledges what murderous scum Hezbollah truly is.

    Never? Well, hardly ever!

    [April 2003] Sen. Bob Graham, the Florida democrat who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee in the last Congress, and is now running for president, says the Bush Administration should be more concerned with Hezbollah than they are with Saddam Hussein.

    “Does Saddam Hussein or Hezbollah represent the greater threat to the United States,” asks Graham. “In my opinion, there’s no question that Hezbollah is that greater threat, and yes, we should go after it first and go after it before we go to war with Iraq.”

    Graham says Hezbollah has a global network of radical Islamic supporters, with enough operatives in the U.S. to pose a terrorist threat here.

    “It has a significant presence of its trained operatives inside the United States waiting for the call to action,” says Graham.

    But if we were to know that classified information, would we be more concerned? Would we be more afraid of Hezbollah than we are today?

    “Well, I’m more concerned and more afraid than if I did not know what the scale of their presence was in the United States,” says Graham, without any hesitation.

    “They are a violent terrorist group. And they have demonstrated throughout their now 25-year history a hatred of the United States and a willingness to kill our people.”

    Believe me, if I thought Israel had a chance in hell at “eliminating” or “disarming” Hezbollah, I’d be the first one to cheer them on. Instead, they’ve taken what was previously an unpopular group within Lebanon and made them into a “heroic” resistance movement like they were when Israel occupied Lebanon. Well played.

  400. 400
    Nutcutter says:

    Any guesses as to the anti-Semite in question?

    Marvin Hamlisch?

  401. 401
    Nutcutter says:

    Do you have an actual point you’d like to make?

    How about the one on the top of your head?

  402. 402
    Darrell says:

    Instead, they’ve taken what was previously an unpopular group within Lebanon and made them into a “heroic” resistance movement like they were when Israel occupied Lebanon

    Except that Israelis haven’t “taken” what Hezbollah was, the Israelis were forced into reacting to actual attacks which killed/are killing Israelis. What would you have them do differently? I’d love to hear from the ‘reality based’ community their specific ideas as to what Israel should be doing differently. So much easier to criticize and condemn, right?

    I started laughing at this point.

    As I predicted when I made the post. What a ‘coincidence’ huh, that these arab governments had never before made such a one-sided condemnation of a terrorist group/govt. entity who had attacked Israel. Isn’t that something? I blame Bush.

  403. 403
    Pb says:

    Darrell,

    Google tells me that it’s Cindy Sheehan fan David Duke. Do you have an actual point you’d like to make?

    I think I already made it, actually, but you’ve just given me a free bonus point: Darrell knows how to Google, everybody! Now he has *no excuse* to not research his inane ramblings!

    I’ll now respectfully give you some time to update yourself on the developments in the world over the past few years. Let me know when you’re current, and then we can all have a real discussion here.

  404. 404
    Nutcutter says:

    As I predicted when I made the post. What a ‘coincidence’ huh, that these arab governments had never before made such a one-sided condemnation of a terrorist group/govt. entity who had attacked Israel. Isn’t that something? I blame Bush.

    Yeah, if there is one thing Arabs have demonstrated, it’s their tendency to take advice from each other and yield to the greater Arab good whenever strong leader such as rich oil barons from Saudi Arabia call for it. Arab history pretty much follows this trend line for a thousand years now.

    Those Saudi oligarchs are barely going to be able to hang onto their own country, much less give instructions to Lebanese radicals on how to handle their own border disputes.

    Bush? He kisses these fat oil pigs on the hand when they come the ranch, Darrell. So far their advice has gotten him a failed presidency and a fucked American presence in the Middle East.

    Again and again, you hump the leg of the biggest losers on earth. The horniest dog I ever had was better behaved than you are.

  405. 405
    Pb says:

    Steve,

    Never? Well, hardly ever!

    Everybody quotes that… And I mean everybody:

    ‘In short, our cases have answered the question as to the availability of mandamus in situations such as this with the refrain: “What never? Well, hardly ever!”‘ — U.S. Supreme Court, ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP. v. DAIFLON, INC., 449 U.S. 33 (1980)

  406. 406
    Perry Como says:

    BTW, Darrell, just to forestall the inevitable jackalope release – I in no way think the Rapture Ready folks represent mainstream conservatism.

    Hugh Hewitt.

    /me goes back to the comments (and jackalopes)

  407. 407
    Steve says:

    As I predicted when I made the post. What a ‘coincidence’ huh, that these arab governments had never before made such a one-sided condemnation of a terrorist group/govt. entity who had attacked Israel. Isn’t that something? I blame Bush.

    Seriously, the fact that you think Bush deserves credit for Arab condemnations of Hezbollah has to be the most hilarious thing I’ve ever heard you say. I mean, I know it’s only cartoony stereotype conservatives who give Bush credit for everything good that happens and refuse to blame him for anything bad that happens, but you’ve transcended even the caricature. Absolutely classic.

  408. 408
    Nutcutter says:

    With the fighting in its third week, however, Israelis are being told that Hezbollah can be weakened but not eradicated, that Israeli forces will not be able to police the border zone themselves, and that Hezbollah’s rockets continue to pose a threat to Israeli towns.

    “The target is not to totally dismantle Hezbollah,” said Public Security Minister Avi Dichter, a former head of Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic security service. “What we are doing now is to try to send a message to Hezbollah.”

    Yaron Ezrahi, a political analyst at Hebrew University, said that “the rhetoric from the political establishment was extremely overheated in the early days” of the confrontation.

    “Now they are trying to calibrate people’s expectations, bring them more in line with what might actually be achieved,” he said.

    Ooops. I guess that 22-year miracle has been put on hold.

    Israel “Adjusts” Expectations

  409. 409
    Nutcutter says:

    Oops. Hezbollah comes out of this shitstorm stronger?

    Maybe unprincipled and politically convenient war is not the way to end sixty years of useless conflict?

    Who knew?

    Darrell backs yet another loser in the GWOW (Global War on Whatever).

  410. 410
    Darrell says:

    Seriously, the fact that you think Bush deserves credit for Arab condemnations of Hezbollah has to be the most hilarious thing I’ve ever heard you say.

    This is why liberals will ALWAYS be a fringe political movement. They have so many ‘sacred cow’ beliefs and issues for which any challenge, no matter how plausible or reasonable, MUST be beaten down and ridiculed because it’s a subject/idea which makes them feel uncomfortable to discuss honestly.

    This knee jerk leftist tendency was in full display with criticism of Jack Murtha. Libs couldn’t handle * gasp * legit criticsm of Murtha, so they reacted hysterically as usual. I’m sure most of you lib misfits already know that you’re phony as hell.

  411. 411
    Nutcutter says:

    International focus on civilian deaths in Lebanon – roughly 10 times the number suffered by Israel – has badly undermined Israel’s case abroad, despite the unwavering support of the US. Its own propaganda efforts have been poor and uncoordinated.

    “Even before we know who will win this campaign we can state with certainty that Israel has suffered a terrible propaganda defeat in Lebanon and the Arab world,” wrote the Ma’ariv columnist Jacky Hugi. “One country cannot destroy another without explaining to the neighbour the logic behind its actions. From being our silent allies the Lebanese have become the victims of our blind pounding.

    Not even Israelis are lining up to drink your brand of Kool Aid at this point, Darrell.

    Maybe you should post to an Israeli blog?

  412. 412
    Nutcutter says:

    This knee jerk leftist tendency was in full display with criticism of Jack Murtha.

    Ah, the last-ditch jackalope.

    Poorly played.

  413. 413
    Pb says:

    But without Jack Murtha, we’d be Murthless!

  414. 414
    Ancient Purple says:

    Look upthread how ‘Perry Como’ tries so desperately to pin a “gotcha” oneupmanship on me for a bullshit antisemitism accusation. No doubt leftists, far, far more than conservatives, are playing the oneupmanship game. The obvious reason is because so many liberals are full of shit.

    The difference being, of course, that Perry Como knew that there were liberal senators boycotting the Iraqi PM’s speech.

    You first all but denied that anyone had boycotted, then you upped the ante by asking if anyone like Schumer boycotted, then you went for oneupmanship because you were played by the facts like a fiddle at a county fair.

    I am sorry that facts are hurtful to you, Darrell.

  415. 415
    Steve says:

    This is why liberals will ALWAYS be a fringe political movement. They have so many ‘sacred cow’ beliefs and issues for which any challenge, no matter how plausible or reasonable, MUST be beaten down and ridiculed because it’s a subject/idea which makes them feel uncomfortable to discuss honestly.

    Every thread you swoop in to identify a half-dozen liberal quotes that are automatically kooky and out of bounds, no discussion necessary. Yet it’s all of us who have the sacred cows.

    Still, this latest comment can’t possibly top giving Bush credit for Arab condemnation of Hezbollah, as far as humor value goes. My God, that was funny.

  416. 416
    jaime says:

    You first all but denied that anyone had boycotted, then you upped the ante by asking if anyone like Schumer boycotted, then you went for oneupmanship because you were played by the facts like a fiddle at a county fair.

    First he ignored the question for hours. Then he complained that I personally didn’t give him a link which would take 5 seconds to google and was already provided by Perry Como. THEN he denied anyone had boycotted. THEN he upped the ante to bitching that Chuck Schumer didn’t boycott.

  417. 417
    Perry Como says:

    This is why liberals will ALWAYS be a fringe political movement.

    Nah. I’ll tell you what will ALWAYS be a fringe political movement. It will be the movement that believes that the less State involvement in our lives, the better. That includes misplaced foreign policy initiatives (and funding $$$) that has decreased our standing in the world.

    It’s a gross simplification, but check out the luminaries from the conservative movement. The Bush administration is the worst of liberalism and conservatism combined (ending up in the statism that you readily support).

    This administration thinks it can solve everything through the government. Have a problem? Increase the scope of government. Have you missed the debt? The DHS?

  418. 418
    Pb says:

    Perry Como,

    And then, check out the next step–follow the money, as it flows out to conservative voters and potential voters, donors, backers, lobbyists, companies, foundations, think-tanks, organizations, PR firms, shell corporations, foreign companies, slush funds, hedge funds, candidates, and congressmen…

    It’s not that they actually have some fervent belief in big government–it’s just that they’re greedily milking it for all it’s worth, for their own enrichment, for as long as they can hold on to the power of the purse.

  419. 419

    Darrell for the last fucking time, I’m not a liberal.

    Oh and fuck you and while we are at it, fuck the Israeli government. I’m sick and tired of people like yourself crying bloody murder when someone criticizes Israel’s government. A government that is full of people who love to point fingers while at the same time loves to press red buttons that launches missles that kill innocent people.

    You may call them collateral damage, I call them humans.

    Our alliance with Israel causes us way too much trouble. We should have reconsidered that alliance a long, long time ago.

    /me Waits to be bombarded with accusations of “anti-semitism”

  420. 420
    Slide. says:

    Irresponsible Rhetoric John says? This from the comments section of Little Green Footballs. The number before the comment is the comment number. This was culled from just the first 100 comments. And they say the left is angry and unhinged?

    5- I would not put it against the Israelites, nor hold it against them, to have targeted this position based on the revelation, yesterday, that Indian UN ‘peacekeepers’ were complicent in the kidnapping/murder of Israelites, earlier.

    20 – Too bad Kofi wasn’t there, too.

    22 – So what is Koffi going to do about it even if they did? I understand the paper cuts from a strongly worded letter can really hurt if desert sand gets in them. We are all at war with the UN, time to admit it.

    37- I’m finding it hard to feel bad for these so-called peacekeepers. Most of them blindly shilled for Hezbollah while attacking Israel.

    I do not believe that Israel intentionally targeted them, but even if they did, their anti-Israeli propaganda made them a fair target in this war. Much like the trial and execution of people like Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Rose. Anything that would help bolster Hezobllah’s morale has to be seen as a weapon.

    38 – I know it sounds a bit harsh, but I wish that it were deliberate, and that Israel came right out and said so.

    All the UN seems to do is rape children, enable terrorists and act openly hostile towards Israel, If I’m Israel, I say any UN ‘Peacekeeping’ teams in the region will also be subject to attack.

    63 – On the other hand, who could blame Israel for not shedding great big tears for the blue-helmeted terror enablers?

    70 – I never wish death on anybody (well, most anybody) and it is a tragedy that two people died but…

    I be laughing my ass off if somebody launched one right in Kofi’s office while he was groping his secretary.

    .

  421. 421
    Nutcutter says:

    Put on a happy face, Darrell.

    America is eating its liver and your failed president still has two more years to fuck things up even worse.

    Face it, the results are in, and the people just don’t like you.

  422. 422
    John S. says:

    Note the incredulity from liberal whackjob John S at the suggestion that Israel is fighting a “defensive” war.

    Note the stupidity from the idiot Darrell who apparently doesn’t understand the difference between the terms OFFENSIVE and DEFENSIVE.

    Explain to us all how invading another country and going on the OFFENSIVE constitutes taking up a DEFENSIVE military position.

    Let’s see that brilliant mind of yours shine.

  423. 423
    John S. says:

    How about that DEFENSIVE WAR!

    Israel began an offensive on Gaza days after Palestinian militants captured an Israeli soldier on June 25. It opened a second front in Lebanon after Hezbollah guerillas abducted two Israeli soldiers on July 12.

    Oops. Note the reluctance of those liberal whackjobs at MSNBC to characterize Israel’s actions as DEFENSIVE.

  424. 424
    John S. says:

    More glorious DEFENSIVE WAR!

    Israel mulls broadening, intensifying offensive

    Israel must unleash massive air strikes against villages in southern Lebanon to clear out Hezbollah gunmen, the justice minister said Thursday, as the Israeli government weighed whether to broaden the military offensive against the Lebanese guerrillas.

    Justice Minister Haim Ramon, who is close to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said Israel interpreted this as a green light to continue its offensive.

    The growing Israeli casualty toll was accompanied by criticism of the military operation. Some politicians warned that Israel could get dragged into a long offensive in Lebanon. Israel withdrew from south Lebanon in 2000 after an 18-year occupation of the area.

    Yes, Darrell is a fucking retard.

  425. 425
    chopper says:

    Charitably assuming some of this is hyperbole, do you leftists actually believe, at least on some level, that the right is hoping for some sort of apololyptic war in the ME to fullfill their ghoulish fantasies?

    not the right as a whole. jesus, i’m not you, i don’t ascribe the sentiments of some people to everyone. christ, that’s just your MO, isn’t it?

    there is a large subset of people on the right that just can’t wait for the ‘end times’ and their support of israel stems mostly from it. they have a good amount of sway with teh republican party, and are a big reason that the right overall is more supportive of israel.

  426. 426
    chopper says:

    darrell:

    here you go.

    We are not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. The 231 legislators (all but five of them Republicans) who received an average 80 percent approval rating or higher from the leading religious-right organizations make up more than 40 percent of the U.S. Congress. (The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian Coalition was Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, who earlier this year quoted from the Book of Amos on the Senate floor: “The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land. Not a famine of bread or of thirst for water, but of hearing the word of the Lord!”) These politicians include some of the most powerful figures in the U.S. government, as well as key environmental decision makers: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Republican Conference Chair Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), Senate Republican Policy Chair Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, and quite possibly President Bush. (Earlier this month, a cover story by Ron Suskind in The New York Times Magazine described how Bush’s faith-based governance has led to, among other things, a disastrous “crusade” in the Middle East and has laid the groundwork for “a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.”)

    And those politicians are just the powerful tip of the iceberg. A 2002 Time/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the Book of Revelation are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks.

  427. 427
    Andrew says:

    Gosh, the UN peacekeepers are hard at work providing cover for Hezbullah.

    It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the vicinity of four UN positions at Alma ash Shab, Tibnin, Brashit, and At Tiri. All UNIFIL positions remain occupied and maintained by the troops.

    At this point, the UN is not doing anything except providing opertional and political cover for Hezbullah. The peacekeepers aren’t keeping any peace, they aren’t disarming anyone, and they aren’t engaging any force on either side.

    Why are they staying?

  428. 428
    The Pirate says:

    Punchy & Pb: Obviously it got hit for some reason, and that reason is just probably that the Israelis don’t give a shit. But that is a far cry from saying the Israelis locked onto the outpost and specifically went in trying to kill UN personnel.

    Fact is there is no evidence to back up the accusations that Israel deliberately and intentionally killed UN personnel. There is plenty of evidence that Israel has a complete disregard for civilian lives and collateral damage, but those are two very different animals.

  429. 429
    John S. says:

    Andrew Says:

    At this point, the UN is not doing anything except providing opertional and political cover for Hezbullah.

    What do you base this statement on, exactly? There is NOTHING in the PDF you linked to that even remotely suggests anything along the lines of your little heperbolic gem.

    Why are they staying?

    Maybe you should have read the PDF you linked to a little more thoroughly:

    UNIFIL conducted one medevac, four humanitarian, and three re-supply convoys yesterday. One Lebanese Army soldier was medically evacuated from a UN position in Ras Naqoura to the UNIFIL Naqoura hospital. One wounded soldier of the Lebanese Joint Security Forces was medically evacuated by UNIFIL from Ramyah to the hospital in Tibnin.

    Yesterday, the IDF handed over to UNIFIL two Lebanese civilians who were caught in the cross fire in the border area. This move was coordinated with the Lebanese authorities. UNIFIL handed them over to the Lebanese
    authorities today.

    Sounds like they are they to do what the UN usually does – provide humanitarian aid.

    Andrew, do you have basic reading comprehension skills, or do you assume that the rest of us don’t?

  430. 430
    Andrew says:

    It’s worse than I thought. It’s sort of weird how the UN remains in place when they are being directly used as human shields by Hezbullah.

    Jan Egeland, the UN’s humanitarian co-ordinator, said “We did repeatedly in recent days say to Israel that this was an exposed position, that Hizbollah militants were 500m away shielding themselves near UN workers and civilians. That’s why it is so inexplicable that what happened happened.”

  431. 431
    Steve says:

    Fact is there is no evidence to back up the accusations that Israel deliberately and intentionally killed UN personnel.

    This is rapidly becoming a pet peeve. Why do people constantly say “there is no evidence” when what they really mean is “there is no conclusive evidence”? Obviously there’s plenty of circumstancial evidence in both directions.

  432. 432

    Gosh, the UN peacekeepers are hard at work providing cover for Hezbullah.

    Ok, similarly with the ridiculous claims that Israel is purposefully going after the UN, this isn’t true either.

    The UN is just there.

    Hezbollah, like most Arab military groups doesn’t recognize generally regarded Rules. As far as they are concerned, standing behind the UN position is a semi-safe zone because if Israel fires at them, they may hit UN people and that’s bad. Thus they hope it discourages Israel from shooting back at them.

    But it’s doubtful the UN people there were purposefully trying to protect Hezbollah.

    Granted, this doesn’t excuse Annan’s call. Which I agree with John on, was inappropriate and reckless.

  433. 433
    Andrew says:

    Yes, obviously the UN is providing humanitarian aid. I would add the actions of the UN relief and rescue workers on the ground are often quite heroic. I don’t blame any of the observers on the ground. I blame the leadership of the UN for the failure of the peacekeeping mission, because it has worsened the crisis on a tactical and strategic level. The mission has failed and indeed, made the situation worse by providing cover to one of the warring parties.

    It’s a bit like a cop helping a shooting victim after they’ve stood by while the criminals arm themselves, and then standing in the way when a responsible cop tries to shoot the criminal.

  434. 434
    Andrew says:

    But it’s doubtful the UN people there were purposefully trying to protect Hezbollah.

    No, I don’t actually think that the UN is there with the intention of providing cover for Hezbullah. I think they’re there largely because of enormous bureaucratic intertia, which is almost more depressing than malicious intent.

    But they ARE providing cover for Hezbullah, regardless of intent, and by doing so, are lengthening the conflict.

  435. 435
    Mr Furious says:

    Krista says:

    “One of the rockets hit right in the middle of the big red cross that was painted on top of the ambulance. This is a clear violation of humanitarian law, of international law,” he said.

    Well, in defense of the Israeli pilot, he was coming in at an angle and the red cross looked like an “X”.

  436. 436

    But they ARE providing cover for Hezbullah, regardless of intent, and by doing so, are lengthening the conflict.

    Absent of them firing on hezbollah militants who get to close to them, what do you suggest?

  437. 437
    Nutcutter says:

    Well, in defense of the Israeli pilot, he was coming in at an angle and the red cross looked like an “X”.

    Also, his orders were to be on the lookout for a dark-skinned driver with a moustache.

  438. 438
    Andrew says:

    Absent of them firing on hezbollah militants who get to close to them, what do you suggest?

    Well, they should do exactly that. Engage Hezbullah militarily, or they should withdraw immediately.

    I believe their continuing presence, providing cover for Hizbullah, will lengthen the conflict, and lead to more civilian deaths than lives they can save through their limited relief operations.

    And that is to say nothing of the fact that they allowed Hezbullah to rearm and install weaponry in civilian areas.

  439. 439
    Steve says:

    I think it would also be handy if those darn civilians would just get out of the way so Israel could get a clean shot at the terrorists.

    Andrew, does it occur to you that if the UN withdraws, the Hezbollah fighters will likely find someone else to use for cover, as opposed to just standing there all alone in a field?

  440. 440
    Nutcutter says:

    I think it would also be handy if those darn civilians would just get out of the way

    Yeah, but the darned thing is, Israel will fire rockets at cars full of them trying to get out of the way.

    Darn it.

  441. 441
    Nutcutter says:

    See, darn it, when you act like it’s the fault of the victim for being too close to the bad guy, and then you shoot the good guy when he is trying to run away from the bad guy, that just sorta spoils your lying evil cocksucker PR campaign, doesn’t it?

    And then messy questions are raised. Was it really that important to shoot at that moment? Does your “right to defend yourself” extend to shooting into a crowd of innocent people?

    BJ has its own answer, of course. But the reality is that the world has its own answer, too, and I am willing to wager that the world’s answer is not the same as the BJ answer.

    Of course the world is not made up of lawyers and people who talk like lawyers and people who write good snark. If it were, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

    Would we? Because if there is one thing that history has shown, especially in the Arab-Israeli wars, lawyerly talk and snark and tough rhetoric are the way to peace.

  442. 442
    Nutcutter says:

    Across the country, including right here in the little podunk village of 4 million called Phoenix, newspaper ads are appearing … appealing for “Support of Israel” in these tough times. “We stand firmly with Israel” and other high-sounding talk, followed by a list of names of people who have “signed” this appeal ….

    Riddle me these two things, please.

    1) If Israel is on high moral ground here, why does it need to wallpaper the country with ads asking for support?

    2) What is the intent of these ads if not to browbeat, and to dissuade from critical examination of the issues involved in the current crisis and to find, wrt to those issues, that all answers point to the rightness of Israel?

    The ads don’t invite people to examine the issues and ask tough questions and judge for themselves what they see.

    The ads call for unqualified and unquestioning support of one side.

    Why? Why is this necessary?

    Why would it — ever — be desirable?

  443. 443
    VidaLoca says:

    Why? Why is this necessary?

    Why would it—ever—be desirable?

    Besides general PR and getting the message out, it’s often used to whip politicians, particularly politicians in key positions. Do you have Congressional Reps or Senators on Foreign Affairs, Defence, or Appropriations Committees?

    The ads don’t invite people to examine the issues and ask tough questions and judge for themselves what they see.

    Um, you’ve seen ads that do do these things? Ads are to tell you what to think, not get you to think!

  444. 444
    Nutcutter says:

    it’s often used to whip politicians

    Exactly. It’s an ongoing, sixty-year campaign to work the refs. And it’s become tiresome, and this campaign in Lebanon has probably been a tipping point in terms of people finally waking up to it.

    you’ve seen ads that do do these things? Ads are to tell you what to think, not get you to think!

    Of course. And that’s why, if people really want a better and safer world, maybe they need to start by telling all the manipulators to shut the fuck up. All of them. The people can generally figure things out, unless they’re deceived and manipulated constantly to the point where they don’t trust any message or messenger any more.

    I’ve been listening to both sides piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining WRT the Arab-Israeli thing for fifty years, and I came in ten years late to the party.

    I’ve had it with these assholes. All of them.

  445. 445
    US Patriot says:

    Lot of verbose people around here, I must say.

    Look, the only way we can end this war in Lebanon and defang Hezbollah is to invade Iran. Iran is the key to Hezbollah’s strength. Take Iran out of the picture, and not only do you improve the situation in Iraq, you improve it in Lebanon, too. Syria will fall in line once they see Iran’s mullah toppled. If Syria knows what’s good for it, that is. If not, I’m sure we can count on Israeli assistance in the invasion and occupation of Syria. Then we can remake the entire region, bringing democracy and womens’ rights and all the other blessings of liberty that you leftists claim to care so much about. From the Dekaa Valley to the Panjshir Valley, let freedom ring!

    Invading Iraq was a necessary first step. But you can’t defeat an evil ideology by taking out just one nation-state. As long as multiple states sponsor terrorism, multiple states will have to be removed from the global chessboard. Once Iran and Syria have been dealt with, who is going to finance and support Hezbollah? And once Hezbollah has been removed from Lebanon, the progress begun during the Cedar Revolution can finally be completed.

    I don’t know why I’m wasting breath telling you people all this. From what I’ve seen, Darrell is the only person talking any sense around here. But hopefully one or two of you liberals aren’t too brainwashed or braindead to be able to sort out reality from illusion once someone takes you by the hand and guides you through it.

  446. 446
    John S. says:

    The ads call for unqualified and unquestioning support of one side.

    Why? Why is this necessary?

    Why would it—ever—be desirable?

    Ask the conservatives who think that a permanent Republican majority is the answer to America’s problems.

    I’m sure they have a good answer for desiring such a thing…

  447. 447

    Well, they should do exactly that. Engage Hezbullah militarily, or they should withdraw immediately.

    Ok, going out and looking at wikipedia and their supposed purpose there.

    They’ve failed to uphold their charter. They should withdrawl.

  448. 448
    chopper says:

    Look, the only way we can end this war in Lebanon and defang Hezbollah is to invade Iran. Iran is the key to Hezbollah’s strength.

    note: snapping fingers will not make troops appear.

  449. 449
    GOP4Me says:

    Look, the only way we can end this war in Lebanon and defang Hezbollah is to invade Iran. Iran is the key to Hezbollah’s strength. Take Iran out of the picture, and not only do you improve the situation in Iraq, you improve it in Lebanon, too. Syria will fall in line once they see Iran’s mullah toppled. If Syria knows what’s good for it, that is. If not, I’m sure we can count on Israeli assistance in the invasion and occupation of Syria. Then we can remake the entire region, bringing democracy and womens’ rights and all the other blessings of liberty that you leftists claim to care so much about. From the Dekaa Valley to the Panjshir Valley, let freedom ring!

    I agree. But unfortunately, the only way to take Iran out of the picture is to nuke them. No one wants to nuke Tehran, and undoubtedly there will be some collateral damage in a nuclear war. But as the old saying goes, you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. And there’s no omelette tastier than the omelette of freedom.

    Someday, omelettes will be known as Freedom Eggs, in honor of the sacrifice made by the Iranian people. Until that day, we must nuke them and occupy them until the Iranian public finances a replica of the Liberty Bell in Tehran. On that day, GWOT will be complete. That is my dream.

  450. 450
    GOP4Me says:

    note: snapping fingers will not make troops appear.

    That’s why God invented hydrogen bombs.

  451. 451
    Andrew says:

    I think it would also be handy if those darn civilians would just get out of the way so Israel could get a clean shot at the terrorists.

    Andrew, does it occur to you that if the UN withdraws, the Hezbollah fighters will likely find someone else to use for cover, as opposed to just standing there all alone in a field?

    Steve, that’s a reasonable question, but I think the answer is pretty simple: you might as not give terrorists extra human shields.

    Also, the fixed positions of the UN bases are providing Hezbullah long term points of cover, because they know that the UN won’t withdraw in the face of shelling. Brave or foolhardy? Most civilians won’t stick around like the UN will.

    And as TOS points out, they have completely failed in their mission. Send them somewhere and spend the money on something useful.

  452. 452
    Anderson says:

    Well, they should do exactly that. Engage Hezbullah militarily, or they should withdraw immediately.

    Yes, I can’t imagine any reason why the UN might need to keep observers in the area:

    Now more Israeli soldiers are on the way, including an armored unit being transferred from Gaza to Lebanon. They have been told civilians have left the region where they will fight.

    “Over here, everybody is the army,” one soldier said. “Everybody is Hezbollah. There’s no kids, women, nothing.”

    Another soldier put it plainly: “We’re going to shoot anything we see.”

    Better not to have any pesky UN observers around when you’re planning to commit war crimes.

    More at Billmon.

  453. 453
    Andrew says:

    Better not to have any pesky UN observers around when you’re planning to commit war crimes.

    Yeah, it would be a shame to commit war crimes in the presence of the UN. If you’re Israeli.

    If you’re Hezbullah, not so much. In fact, if you’re Hezbullah, you can commit war crimes, acts of war, and violations of UN resolutions in the presence of the UN, and occasionally with the help of the UN.

    And the Israelis know that there are always cameras around and that any war crimes will be captured and broadcast to the world.

    Hezbullah is committing war crimes RIGHT NOW. Why aren’t the peacekeepers doing anything to stop them? Are they simply there to report on Israel’s misdeeds?

  454. 454
    Andrew says:

    It’s also weird how everyone here is freaking out about a few hundred dead civilians in Lebanon, and yet, most are pretty happy with the (initial, at least) U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. OMG! Burned babies!

    Thousands of civilians were killed in Afghanistan, many or most by American bombs. Our government setup thousands of civilians to die because a terrorist group operating in their territory attacked us. So how, exactly, was the invasion of Afghanistan justified of the Israeli response is not?

  455. 455

    Around The Sphere July 28, 2006

    Our linkfest from weblogs of VARYING opinions. Opinions in the links don’t necessarily express the viewpoints of TMV or its co-bloggers.

  456. 456
    mabman says:

    But hopefully one or two of you liberals aren’t too brainwashed or braindead to be able to sort out reality from illusion once someone takes you by the hand and guides you through it.

    Well, it certainly won’t be your hand, since you’ll need both of them to pull your head back out of your ass for a reality check.

    The US Army is stretched paper thin covering Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea – and you want to start a new war with Iran? And I thought Rumsfeld was deluded . . .

  457. 457

    I’m tired of this silly debate.

    It is obvious to even the casual observer that we just need to up and leave the ME.

    The main thing holding us back is our dependence on oil. We need a real energy independence movement to occur and that is what will lead us on a path towards possible peace for the US someday.

  458. 458
    John S. says:

    It’s also weird how everyone here is freaking out about a few hundred dead civilians in Lebanon, and yet, most are pretty happy with the (initial, at least) U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. OMG! Burned babies!

    You’ve just cinched up your status as yet another dishonest conservative shill with dreadful reading comprehension and a tin ear.

    Congratulations, Andrew. You’ve just joined the Asses of Weevil. Darrell and MacBuckets will be by to give you your membership card.

  459. 459
    Andrew says:

    Sweet!

    Is the card plastic or just cheap paper?

  460. 460
    John S. says:

    Is the card plastic or just cheap paper?

    Actually, I believed it is made out of the skin of purged liberals and tinted a jolly red with their blood.

  461. 461
    ats says:

    Tom Friedman says he had a cathartic moment when Sharon let the Christian militia slaughter two camps full of Palestinian refugees (in the 1982 war in Lebanon). Friedman said thereafter he ceased believing Israel was the “moral exception among nations.” What, one might well ask, was the NYT doing with such an ideologue on the beat in the first place? And what, we might ask here, would it take to cause the scales to fall from the eyes of Darrell and Andrew if 800,00 refugees are not enough?
    I had my own catharsis on Friedman and his ilk earlier when, in 1972, I sat in line for gas during the “Arab oil embargo.” Newsweek et al covered the huge inconvenience to America without so much as mentioning the Israeli Yom Kippur war that forged the alliance that enforced it. We read much instead of AIPAC suddenly getting “greedy”. My realization? Israel can do no wrong with Martin Pertez and the US media, for reason that are too obvious (and yet perilous) to state.
    And now, with Israel destroying the Cedar Revolution and speediliy settling all the best land in the West Bank, the media is pointing its bony finger at . . Mel Gibson(!) Follow the shiny coin, children, as the magician removes your wallet.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Around The Sphere July 28, 2006

    Our linkfest from weblogs of VARYING opinions. Opinions in the links don’t necessarily express the viewpoints of TMV or its co-bloggers.

Comments are closed.