Powerline Uses Chopped Audio Clip to Smear Rep. John Dingell As Hezbollah Apologist
Powerline Uses Chopped Audio Clip to Smear Rep. John Dingell As Hezbollah Apologist
Yesterday, the popular right-wing blog Powerline smeared Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) as an apologist for Hezbollah using an edited clip from local Detroit television. The post, entitled “Dingell: What’s Wrong With Hezbollah,” features this misleading transcript, complete with edited audio:
Asked, “You’re not against Hezbollah?” Dingell answers, “No…”
Here’s what Dingell actually said:
Q: You’re not against Hezbollah?
DINGELL: No, I happen to be — I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence.
Dingell was arguing that the United States should seek to maintain its historic role as an “honest broker” in the Middle East. There are legitimate criticisms of this position, but they should be based on Dingell’s actual views, not a dishonest caricature. Watch the entire exchange:
Email Powerline and (politely) request that they tell their readers that, right after the audio clip they posted cuts out, Rep. Dingell says, “I condemn Hezbollah.”
Transcript:
DINGELL: First of all, our problem is that we must be a fair and honest broker and a friend to all parties. The resolution didn’t make us that. We have to have the trust of both of the people of Israel and the people of the Arab countries around it, in order to help resolve the problem. If we don’t, the possibilities of regional war, calamitous situation with regard to israel which has 5 million people amidst a billion and a half Arabs are a real potential for calamity. Having said at that, what we have to do is to see to it that finally we begin to address the problems that exist to abate the difficulties that are preventing a– a honest solution to the problem and a negotiated end. It takes– it takes a lot of work to get the trust that it takes to do this. The resolution did not instill that kind of trust and the end result would be quite frankly, the real solution to the problems that exist in the middle east would probably have been and probably will be put off.
ANCHOR: Overall majority of your colleagues didn’t see it that way and some would suggest that if– even though there are obviously a lot of issues with Lebanon and with Palestinian cause wrapped up in this, that this largely boils down to israel against Hezbollah and Hezbollah is a group that the United States has deemed a terrorist organization, that there’s only one side for the Americans to come down on in this fight.
DINGELL: Well, we don’t, first of all, I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel.
ANCHOR: You’re not against Hezbollah?
DINGELL: No, I happen to be — I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence, but I think if we’ve got to talk to them and if we don’t — if we don’t get ourselves in a position where we can talk to both sides and bring both sides together, the killing and the blood let is going to continue.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The first sentence of the post identifies Dingell as a Republican, but the accompanying screen shot says he’s a Democrat. Which is correct?
August 1st, 2006 at 10:37 amDingell was arguing that the United States should seek to maintain it’s [SIC] historic role as an “honest broker†in the Middle East.
The historic role of the USA has been to support brutal client states that are corporate-friendly and depose elected governments that aren’t.
The “honest broker” role is one in the sense of “a character or part played by a performer” (definition courtesy of the American Heritage dictionary). I.e., fictional.
August 1st, 2006 at 10:37 ambut, you see, their brains are hard wired for direct edit…
August 1st, 2006 at 10:38 amthey can only hear what they want to hear…
In your first sentence you call Rep Dingell a republican (R-MI)
August 1st, 2006 at 10:39 amHe’s a Democrat. We’ve fixed the error. Thanks!
August 1st, 2006 at 10:44 amOnce again the liberal media is trying to destroy America……..oh wait.
August 1st, 2006 at 10:49 amIt’s swiftboating season
August 1st, 2006 at 10:55 amCut and paste neo-cons at work. They think that all people are stupid, and that will be their downfall.
August 1st, 2006 at 10:58 am#6 – Once again the liberal media is trying to destroy America……..oh wait.
What does any of this fiasco have to do with the “liberal” media, or anything like that?
August 1st, 2006 at 11:00 amDingell is saying that he’s not against Hezb on principle but is against it on its methods. Powerline finds that objectionable because they think he should oppose it on principle (as it is a proxy for Iran, an anti-democratic element in Lebanese politics etc. etc.)
So there’s no distortion, though for fairness Powerline should have included the whole statement.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:04 amDingall is a Democrat with a large Arab-American population in his district. He wants to condemn the violence without sounding anti-Arab so it was easy to distort his remarks. The folks at Powerline are truly scum.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:11 amWhat does any of this fiasco have to do with the “liberal†media, or anything like that?
Comment by Chase
I see you were born without a sarcasm detector.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:11 amPowerline finds that objectionable because they think he should oppose it on principle (as it is a proxy for Iran, an anti-democratic element in Lebanese politics etc. etc.)
I’m not sure how Hizbollah are anti-democratic, given they have in fact been elected to the Lebanese Parliament!!!
That aside, the speaker is absolutely correct, how can the US be considered an honest broker, when it so overwhelmingly supports one side of the argument? This is so overt and obvious that it renders the US involvement all but useless, and arguably worse than useless.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:12 am#11 – At least he’s not shy about abandoning ideological principle for electoral pragmatism.
Since when is condemning Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, anti-Arab?
August 1st, 2006 at 11:14 am#12 – No, I understand it was knocking Powerline as a conservative outlet, said in such a way that they, not the “liberal media”, were “destroying the country”.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:15 amIt seems remarkable that media outlets can be fined for showing the occasional inadvertent tit, but nothing exists to penalise media outlets for broadcasting easily identifiable lies.
I mean, which does more harm?
August 1st, 2006 at 11:15 amI’m not sure how Hizbollah are anti-democratic, given they have in fact been elected to the Lebanese Parliament!!!
Because they supported the Syrian occupation and are now making various (non-parliamentary) threats at Lebanese figures.
But as I said, there’s millions of other reasons for the US to oppose Hezb. Hezb is classified as a terrorist organization by the US gov’t.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:17 amyou think someone named AssRocket will be held accountable?
August 1st, 2006 at 11:17 amPerry –
If that was Powerline’s goal, why did they not make that point? Why did they use dishonesty to force their readers to make a far different conclusion? I don’t think you can second guess the content of the media outlet in order to come to a conclusion that is different from the conclusion reached by the content. You must take it at face value and at face value this is disgraceful.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:17 amPowerline is one of many fascist blogs that see only in black and white and have just one rigid point of view. Slander and libel are two of their favorite tools in that the end justifies the means. Lies are good if they make their point. There are no conservatives. They have all become independents or libertarians. The conservatives are a bunch of kooks that would love to see all countries under one world banking and corporate empire enforced by a military state. There are NO conservatives in the Republican party.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:17 amSo there’s no distortion, though for fairness Powerline should have included the whole statement.
talk about parsing… the distortion was leaving out the whole statement…
August 1st, 2006 at 11:17 amSince when is condemning Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, anti-Arab?
Comment by Chase — August 1, 2006 @ 11:14 am
Well many Arabs consider them heroes. The British in Northern Ireland had a terrible time convincing people that blowing up pubs and killing strangers at random meant you were a bad person.
After all, the IRA were resisting a henious and crafty invader who would literally stop at nothing. No means could be dismissed when faced with such an insidious enemy …. oops seem to have mixed my IRA script up with my list of right wing talking points.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:19 amPowerline is no more a “media outlet” than ThinkProgress.
It’s an op-ed site. Think back on how many times ThinkProgress has been selective in pulling quotes to make a point against Republicans and conservatives?
That, #12, was the point of my post above – this isn’t ‘media’ in the sense that the Times, the WaPo or CNN are ‘media’.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:20 am#3 katy,
Politicians brains are hardwired for indirect answers—you can hear whatever you want in their ambiguity.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:20 amThe liberal mainstream press could try this tactic on Bush, but the cut-short response would always be, “Duh….. ummmm…..”!
August 1st, 2006 at 11:22 amYes, ThinkProgress and PowerLine are both op-ed sites…
But I’ve never seen ThinkProgress take the very first word of a quote and then lop off the rest of a long explanation to make it sound like somebody had the opposite viewpoint that they actually do.
I’d LOVE to see an example, Chase.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:27 amThe point is Chase that conservatives flock to Powerline and RedState and the other blogs for their news because they feel that they can’t get “the message” from the liberal media bent on distorting the facts.
This is the “new media” where people take what is posted on TP and the rest as just as credible if not more so than something you will see on CNN or read on the NYT.
So the point I was making is that if the situation were reversed and it was a conservative whose remarks were taken out of context to portray a belief that their feelings were in fact 180 degrees different than what they actually said, this would be touted by Rush and the rest of the troglodytes as another of example of how you can’t trust the “drive-by media”.
Make sense?
August 1st, 2006 at 11:28 am#23 -
If this is an Op-Ed site. Than I guess this level of dishonesty in argumentation should permanently invalidate the opinion of Powerline editors?
August 1st, 2006 at 11:29 amPerry @ 11:04 am — What part of “I condemn Hezbollah” is not clear to you? (Of course, it’s quite clear to the Powerliners, or whoever it was that edited that tape for them. That’s why that sentence was edited out of the video clip that Powerline used.)
August 1st, 2006 at 11:32 amFinally, some common sense from a Democrat on the Mideast crisis. No more Israeli apologists. Of course Power Line will hack this up and use it for right-wing smearing. It’s all they know how to do. However, dingell did set himself up for some sort of backlash after his first word uttered after the “Are you against H?” Q was “No…” Having said that, I totally agree with what Dingell said. H isn’t Al Qaeda, only a terror organization bent on killing people. Let’s talk.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog.php
August 1st, 2006 at 11:32 amVote tampering lawsuit is filed against California election official in the Duke Cunnningham special election. Will the GOP get spanked?
Is some violence against Israeli interests justified? 7/29
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog.php
Don’t hold your breath, Parrotlover77. But thanks for squirting the anti-troll spray.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:34 am#30 Unfortunately this issue is being framed in the same manner as the War on Terror, if you don’t support Israel’s policies then you support terrorists. Everything is black and white, you are for us or against us.
I think for the most part people have begun to realize that line of reasoning is hollow and immature.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:35 amWe have truly reached a low point in our history when the advocation of peace labels one as “the enemyâ€.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:36 amLCLiberal: The person talking to Dingell set him up with a leading “So when have you stopped beating your wife lately?” question. I’m not surprised that it took Dingell a second or two to try and dodge the framing.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:36 am#26 – I don’t know that TP has done the precise same thing in the past.
Without scrolling through the archives, I can’t recall a specific example of a time when TP somehow misrepresented the nature of a news item. It’s been done. It’s not the end of the world on an opinion site.
#27 – Rush is a jackass. People that take their news are idiots (just like people who take their news from Franken’s show are idiots as well). What’s more, since I’m thinking about it, you should take what you here from network news and Fox News with a grain of salt. The best place to get balanced news is still PBS.
And certainly the worst are internet opinion blog sites, from either end of the spectrum.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:37 am#9, #6 is goofing. I understand that the joke reifies the false claim that there is a liberal bias in the media, but I think it better illustrates the hypocracy inherent within the right wing.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:38 amWhat part of “I condemn Hezbollah†is not clear to you?
You’re doing what Powerline is accused of doing – chopping the statement in the middle. Actually you chopped the statement in mid-sentence.
Dingell says he isn’t opposing Hezb in principle.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:38 amOh puh-leeze!!! Judd – that is low, even for you. Answer this question – do you support Israel or Lebanon?
The left is so hung up on this one. They can’t alienate their voting base, but they hate Israel because it’s a democracy. You people are so far gone one might confuse your talking points with Mel Gibson’s drunken rant!
Judd – don’t defend Dingell, defend Israel. AND if you can’t, then you will be attacked. Their is no in between in the struggle against terror.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:41 amOH NO! ITS BAAAACKKKK.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:41 am#35 Ok – I’ve been out of the country for the past week and it’s good to see that you didn’t suddenly lose your objectivity.
I believe the best way to inform yourself is to read about a particular story from as many sources as possible and through that come to your own conclusions. Each and every news source will write something that is not wholly true once in a while, but it’s the deliberate attempt to distort that gets me fired up, be it from the left or the right.
It’s also nice to hear that you are a PBS champion, since there has been a systematic attempt to destroy PBS over the past 4-5 years.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:44 am#38
I’m glad that you’re still here to provide comic relief, especially the “The left is so hung up on this one. They can’t alienate their voting base, but they hate Israel because it’s a democracy.”
Classic!
August 1st, 2006 at 11:47 am#6 Once again the liberal media is trying to destroy America……..oh wait.
Comment by onthefence — August 1, 2006 @ 10:49 am
So called “liberals” should utilize the same tactics as the NeoCons. Start labeling FOX News “Liberal media” and designate George Bush a “Liberal.” Since the word “Liberal” has been villified, bastardized, redefined, falsely and consistently applied in an attempt to discret someone or some organization, I believe its only fair to invoke the “I know you are but what am I” response.
Lets remove the current (ahem) “Liberal” congress come November so we can impeach this “Liberal” President.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:48 amYep. They hate freedom.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:48 amChase keeps saying that. I own no television. Read VERY few MSM newspapers or news sites. I go for the articles written by journalists who have been BLACKBALLED by said MSM newspapers and news sites. Not only that, but writers such as Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, Gore Vidal, the late great Hunter S. Thompson, Howard Zinn, among others, and the Dali Lama for inspiring words of wisdom. I have read the writings of our fore fathers, and have re-read our constitution and declaration of indendence a dozen times over….
PBS???
August 1st, 2006 at 11:50 amI remembered this and was able to find it: This post, there TP uses a quote that does allege a link between Hussein and 9/11 while asserting it did.
I also remember at least one time when TP had to change the headline of a post after commenters complained it was inaccurate. (This is the one I specifically recall. There may have been others.)
In any event, there are a couple examples for ya, Parrot and Phoenix.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:50 amBeing that there are, literally, millions of blog sites, I don’t see how this blanket statement can be correct. Are there some on both sides that spread out-right lies? Yes. However, there are some that rise above the rest in quality and visitorship. ThinkProgress is definitely one on the left and PowerLine definitely one on the right.
That being said, there is a community responsibility to “call it out” when facts are twisted or an article is just flat-out factually wrong. This is what TP has done to PL. It’s one thing to disagree on opinion, but another to falsely report a story.
Call me biased, but I cannot think of a single time I’ve seen something like this on TP. I’ve seen them post *opinions* in the commentary portion of the post and the public comments below the post that I might not 100% agree with and I’m sure many such as yourself certainly do not agree with, but the content of the article itself and all quoted material was, in fact, accurate and not distorted.
I’ve also seen them make honest mistakes, such as in this article when Rep. John Dingell was referenced as a Republican, which was promptly fixed and changed to Democrat.
Point is, I’m tired now of hearing how “bad” blog sites are. The media started reporting on this because I think they are seeing blogs as a threat and honestly believe they could NEVER be so partisan as these sites and they ALWAYS report the unfiltered truth! Afterall, they are *professional* journalists! But we see on both sides of the spectrum how this is not the case – they are not non-partisan and without opinions. For instance, Fox News has an extremely conservative slant. And the conservatives are always upset with the NY Times for having a “liberal” slant, although I personally do not see it.
So what’s the difference other than one being a very large for-profit corporation driven by ratings and money and the other being small groups of people motivated by the passions and causes they believe in?
I’ll take the latter…
(Note: i’m not dismissing traditional media as a valid source of news, just trying to clear the smog of bias against blog-sites!)
August 1st, 2006 at 11:53 am#44 – Geez, madashell, that’s quite a lineup of Who’s Who among modern Marxists and hard-core leftwingers you draw inspiration from.
And yeah, PBS.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:53 am#38. Where and who is this War on Terror exactly against? Your pathetic push to keep blind fear running with this struggle against Terror is bullshit. Define Terror and then we can discuss the for and against.
Are you really that anxious to get to armagedon?
August 1st, 2006 at 11:54 amTheir is no in between in the struggle against terror.
Comment by Suck the Baby’s Skull Out — August 1, 2006 @ 11:41 am
That of course is the exact pathology that defines this kind of struggle. Hizbollah no doubt also think there is no “in between in the struggle against imperialisim, zionisim etc”.
They are all wrong, and innocent people are dying because of their delusions. Depressing:-(
August 1st, 2006 at 11:54 am#42
Good idea Liberalmedia. I for one will be applying the word “liberal” to everything evil in the world, i.e. Hitler was a liberal, Judas was a liberal, Bush is a liberal, etc…
August 1st, 2006 at 11:55 am#44 – Geez, madashell, that’s quite a lineup of Who’s Who among modern Marxists and hard-core leftwingers you draw inspiration from.
And yeah, PBS.
Yeah, those founding fathers. Have you read any of that stuff, I mean Thomas Paine what a kook, and don’t get me started on Hamilton!!!
August 1st, 2006 at 11:57 amChase – GO TO HELL.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:57 am#46 – That’s fair.
I would be impossible to suggest TP presents a fair, even-handed account of events. They have an ideological slant, as does Powerline, and the way they report the same issues (not to mention the news items they choose to report in the first place) reveal their particularly slant.
I think it’s dangerous, at least right now, to rely on opinion blogs for basic news. They might break news, or they may provide more in depth analysis but they tend to only expose those parts that bolster their side or diminish the opposition. When you’re looking for real balance, TP or Powerline are not your best venues.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:00 pmYour first example makes no sense. The quote is true and he was called out for it.
Your second example shows how TP corrected itself after TP readers called them out. I’d like to see PL do the same. If they do, my (very low) opinion of them will go up.
Also keep in mind even in the second example, the quotes were accurate, it was TP’s extrapolation (and opinion) that many considered might not be correct.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:00 pm#49
Their is no in between in the struggle against terror.
Comment by Suck the Baby’s Skull Out — August 1, 2006 @ 11:41 am
Lets please rephrase that. There is no in between in the struggle against Liberal Terror. Since Liberal is now synonymous with all that is evil, please remember to identify all Terrorists and Terror as Liberal in nature. Thank you.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:02 pmI can think of a time TP distorted a Republican’s words.
It was Tony Snow, he was talking about how Bush and his homework.
I can only hope the reaction from the readers of that post looks similar to the one we can expect from PL readers.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:03 pmDid Chase just call the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and writings of our Fore Fathers “modern marxists and hard-core leftwingers?”
I can buy left-winger for the forefathers. They were extremely liberal. But marxist?
Do you even know what the means?
August 1st, 2006 at 12:03 pm“You’re not against Hezbollah?”
What’s wrong with answering “no” to this anyway?
It’s a confusing double negative question. Simplified, it is asking “You’re for Hezbollah?”– and he says “no”.
big deal.
If the question had been “You’re against Hezbollah?”
and he said “no”, then it might mean something
August 1st, 2006 at 12:04 pmThe “No” in Dingell’s statement was in disagreement with the question, not agreement. He wasn’t saying “that’s correct, I’m not against Hezbollah”, he was saying “no, I reject the premise of your question”.
So the Powerline truncation is as deceitful as it is possible to be, as it implies that Dingell was saying the exact opposite of what he was saying.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:06 pm#51 – I’m not gonna lie, Hamilton is the background on my cellphone.
#52 – Nerve struck? But be fair! Chomsky, Krugman, Vidal, Thompson and Zinn aren’t exactly a diverse crowd with a wide range of ideologies.
#54 – I disagree with your take on the first quote.
And like the second, it’s the extrapolation that I have a problem with. Their ideological predisposition led them to falsely “extrapolate” a conclusion that is, at best, weakly based upon the provided quotes.
I didn’t mean to say earlier that TP had done in the past the exact same thing as PL has done. I only meant that both have an ideological slant and will ‘massage’ the material to further that position.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:07 pmMarxism, Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Conservativism, Totalitarianism, Anarchism, Libertarianism, Feminism…whew I’m dizzy
August 1st, 2006 at 12:07 pmOkay, my link to the ThinkProgress post somehow didn’t make it into the post. I shall try again.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:07 pmRight wing dishonesty…
This is the kind of thing for which the righties are becoming famous. It’s right out of the Karl Rove playbook.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:08 pmYesterday on Power Line, John Hinderacker posted the following:
Yesterday, Representative John Dingell of Michigan appeared on a Detro…
Corporate media doesn’t so much care what ’side’ you are on as long as it’s profitable. Recall that FOX NEWS, and others have followed suit, won their court case to LIE. I don’t think they much what they edit or smear as long as the *PIG’s get paid.
[*Pundits In General]
==
“And certainly the worst are internet opinion blog sites, from either end of the spectrum.
Comment by Chase
Shooting yourself in the foot again Chase? =)
August 1st, 2006 at 12:08 pmKarl Rove loves to smear people like Rep. Dingell, so the character assassination of him has begun in earnest > the Israeli fascists want him destroyed as well!
August 1st, 2006 at 12:10 pmOur opinions (and the TP editors’ opinions) may not always agree (and may frequently disagree), but my point is the facts in your TP example were, in fact, correct. The original point of the careless editing on PL still stands as an intentional factual error, not just a difference of opinion.
Thanks for confirming that.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:12 pmThe first step is admitting the truth. I admit I am a Liberal. My heart has bled. I hugged a tree. I believe in preserving the environment. I want clean air and water to drink. I voted for taxing the rich. I believe in health care for all. I believe in living wages for all. I am opposed to war. I believe in equal rights for all. Did I leave anything out?
August 1st, 2006 at 12:12 pmi hope this isn’t one of the rovian tools that they’re gonna use more and more before the midterm elections, in order to help make their own reality. i can see them starting w/the powerline jerks, just to test the waters, so to speak, to see how large of an uproar there might be.
i can’t believe i’m thinking like this.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:13 pm#51 – I’m not gonna lie, Hamilton is the background on my cellphone.
Really? I LOVE THAT GUY. How is this even possible? :-)
Hamilton is my poster boy for the guy we really understood that law MUST IMPINGE DIRECTLY ON THE INDIVIDUAL. The importance of this cannot be understated, and it’s one of the primary reasons the US is still a nation state.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:16 pmPowerline:
August 1st, 2006 at 12:18 pmA good example of an entity without honor or shame.
This post, there TP uses a quote that does allege a link between Hussein and 9/11 while asserting it did.
Comment by Chase — August 1, 2006 @ 11:50 am
This statement makes no sense.
ThinkProgress quotes Pres Bush saying he never alleged a connection between Husssein and 9/11 (”I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein”), and then quotes Pres Bush’s letter to Congress where he does make the connection (”The use of armed forces agaisnt Iraq is consistent with (…) or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001″).
The title of the thread reflects that contradiction.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:18 pmAnd certainly the worst are internet opinion blog sites, from either end of the spectrum.
Comment by Chase
Naw, the right side, for whatever reason, is more prone to bribes, corruption, and outright lies. War propaganda is high right now as is the amount of blowback and I wouldn’t fall into any of the hate, blame and apologist traps.
Think about it.
If I am against war, death, which is only to say I think Killing each other is Killing each other, I am an apologist for Hezbollah.
This is idiot Logic. If this was true then Nixon was an Apoligist for the Vietnamese. Reagan an Apologist for the Lebanese when he pulled the troops out..errr. cut and run Ronnie, out of Beirut.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:22 pmThe first step is admitting the truth. I admit I am a Liberal. My heart has bled. I hugged a tree. I believe in preserving the environment. I want clean air and water to drink. I voted for taxing the rich. I believe in health care for all. I believe in living wages for all. I am opposed to war. I believe in equal rights for all. Did I leave anything out?
Comment by LiberalsAnonymous
August 1st, 2006 at 12:23 pm——————-
…opposition to capital punishment,fellow liberal.
Comment by LiberalsAnonymous
——————-
…opposition to capital punishment,fellow liberal.
Comment by Steve53 — August 1, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
Can you stretch to binding global law to make war illegal …… ?
August 1st, 2006 at 12:26 pmWhenever someone breaks down what it means to be liberal I am reminded of the difference between good and evil. I believe good will triumph over evil. Hopefully good will triumph over evil this november and remove the evil from office.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:28 pmChomsky (Linguist at MIT), Krugman (Economist NYT), Vidal (author), Thompson (author) and Zinn (author of books EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD READ – THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES 1 and 2!!!) are a diverse crowd with a wide range of ideologies
August 1st, 2006 at 12:29 pmThey [TP] have an ideological slant, as does Powerline, and the way they report the same issues… reveal their particularly slant.
Comment by Chase — August 1, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
also revealing – the particular LIES of powerline and that ilk…
and that’s why TP, mediamatters, etc are so valuable and important… finally, pushing back, with the FACTS…
August 1st, 2006 at 12:31 pmyou GOT THAT RIGHT, Katy!
August 1st, 2006 at 12:32 pm[...] Via TP; S,N!; Atrios. Explore posts in the same categories: Wingnuts [...]
August 1st, 2006 at 12:37 pmScrew polite, I’m tired of these liars and their constant blatant lying.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:47 pmParrotlover77 at #54: Beat me to it! Thanks!
August 1st, 2006 at 1:06 pmKTH at #59: Thanks to you, too. The question was framed to elicit a certain response; Dingell almost fell into the trap, then reframed the question to avoid the trap.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:08 pmAs Atrios says, the really interesting question is who fed the Powerliners the deliberately truncated clip. I don’t think Hindrocket, Big Trunk or Deacon have the tech chops to pull it off.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:10 pmThe left is so hung up on this one. They can’t alienate their voting base, but they hate Israel because it’s a democracy.
Yeah, that’s the same reason we also hate Canada, France, and Sweden.
Oh wait, we don’t hate any of those, do we. My mistake.
Maybe our beef with Israel is for some other reason, like its oppression of Palestinians and its brutal, indiscriminant slaughter of Lebanese civilians.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:10 pmComment by LiberalsAnonymous
——————-
…opposition to capital punishment,fellow liberal.
Comment by Steve53 — August 1, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
Can you stretch to binding global law to make war illegal …… ?
Comment by Brian Coughlan
August 1st, 2006 at 1:11 pm—————————-
A wonderful notion.It may be unworkable–but a wonderful notion nontheless.
#58
“You’re not against Hezbollah?â€
What’s wrong with answering “no†to this anyway?
It’s a confusing double negative question. Simplified, it is asking “You’re for Hezbollah?â€â€“ and he says “noâ€.
big deal.
If the question had been “You’re against Hezbollah?â€
and he said “noâ€, then it might mean something
Comment by alex — August 1, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
Your comment reflects my feelings about the media—They frame their questions having already made up their minds about a situation or event. In this case it seems as though the reporter had decided this was a for or against situation, and decided to make Dingell choose between Hezbollah or Israel. It’s not a fair question to be asked when a camera and a microphone are shoved in your face. Unfortunately, as the interviewee jockeys to understand the question, and to answer appropriately, enough fodder is generated to fuel the pundits jabs. Apparently the left doesn’t like it any more than the right does.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:20 pm(just like people who take their news from Franken’s show are idiots as well)
Comment by Chase — August 1, 2006 @ 11:37 am
shows how biased and ignorant you are…
August 1st, 2006 at 1:24 pmyou could learn alot listening to the guests that al presents…
whereas rush just “pulls stuff out of his butt” – a fact.
Frankly, Powerline lied by selectivly cherry picking what words they want to present. Makes themn qualified to work for this current adminstration.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:26 pmThe fact that this is the blog that pushed the Rathergate story makes this pretty ironic.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:34 pmDid it ever ocurr to anyone that the right wing evangelicals of this country are just opposite sides of the coin of the Islamic jihadist. I mean I could be stating the obvious but:
1) They’re both religious fanatics.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:40 pm2) Their both bent getting to some ‘promised land’.
3) They both use proxies (US Military) and (Suicide Bomber) to do their dirty deeds and kill innocents of each others side.
#60, you speak from virtually complete ignorance.
Chomsky and Krugman have virtually no fundamental views in common. The fact that they share the belief that the current administration is grossly incompetent does not make Krugman a marxist. Krugman is a firm believer in making lots of money via investments and living the high life. He does not share the insane, reactionary, Republican view that all taxation is theft. I suppose that makes him a marxist to some. You might want to actually learn what marxism is someday if you insist upon calling people marxists.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:40 pm[...] Powerline uses a chopped up video to attack Dingel falsely. The right wingers had a field day with it. TP has it also [...]
August 1st, 2006 at 1:54 pm“I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel. ”
Kind of says it all, doesn’t it. Terrorist group…democracy….no, I don’t take sides either way. Incredible.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:56 pm#76 (and really #91 too) – Their day jobs aside, they are all prominent members of the political left. Please don’t act like they represent “a diverse range of viewpoints”.
#87 – I just became aware today that Air America was available in San Antonio. My only previous experience with Franken was on a couple simulcasts on C-SPAN. From those few hours I found him about as difficult to listen to as Rush. Both are full of shit.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:02 pmWhenever someone breaks down what it means to be liberal I am reminded of the difference between good and evil. I believe good will triumph over evil. Hopefully good will triumph over evil this november and remove the evil from office.
GoodvsEvil
——————-
I see it essentially the same way,GvE.
I prefer to liken the situation to a polarity of thinking:service-to-self(those who would control and manipulate others–for our “own good”,and their supporters),and service-to-others.
Perhaps we’ll see the day when the old power structures no longer hold sway.Our survival may depend upon the world’s citizens finally understanding that every individual on this planet is a member of the same tribe.
For now,maybe all we can do is try to open our hearts(I struggle with that as much as the next person),and try to make the actions of the service-to-self crowd–whatever their declared political,spiritual,or philosophical stance–more transparent–to more fully inform our choices.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:05 pm#90
Did it ever ocurr to anyone that the right wing evangelicals of this country are just opposite sides of the coin of the Islamic jihadist. I mean I could be stating the obvious but:
1) They’re both religious fanatics.
2) Their both bent getting to some ‘promised land’.
3) They both use proxies (US Military) and (Suicide Bomber) to do their dirty deeds and kill innocents of each others side.
Comment by seenbuddy — August 1, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
1. Unlike Islamic Jihadist, only a small percentage of right wing evengelicals are actually fanatics.
2. Evengelicals want you to have a better life here, and to be with them in heaven.
3. Evengelicals do not seek the death of innocents or those who disagree with them. They can no more use the military for anything than you can. Evengelicals are actually responsoble for a lot of humanitarian work. They build hospitals, they feed the hungry, and they cloth the poor. the same cannot be said about Islamic Jihadists.
Your comparison sucks! It shows that you know nothing about Evengelicals, and it reveals that you have some sort of axe to grind regarding them.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:05 pmI can’t recall the last time any evangelicals sawed someone’s head off…
landv.net
August 1st, 2006 at 2:08 pmA couple of weeks ago, when the House voted 410 to 8 to support US ally Israel and condemn terrorist organization Hezbollah, Rep. John Dingell voted NO! When it came to a vote on the floor of the United States Congress, Dingell refused to condemn Hezbollah.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:11 pm1) They’re both religious fanatics.
2) Their both bent getting to some ‘promised land’.
3) They both use proxies (US Military) and (Suicide Bomber) to do their dirty deeds and kill innocents of each others side.
Comment by seenbuddy — August 1, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
Totally. That is why the founders of the US were so insistent on the separation of church and state. In the previous century, Europe had been drenched in blood by religous demgouges who had managed to lever themselves into power. The founders, very wisely were determined to avoid that at all costs.
The current bitter division in American political life is exactly because this demagougery has been allowed to take root in a major political party.
From this remove, the Republicans and Democrats are almost politically identical. Except for the republican error, fatal I hope, of allowing the religous right to grow like a cancer of the brain, imparing their cognitive functions. To survive, they need radical surgery and even then they’ll be in recovery a long, long time.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:13 pmBrian, how do you figure the religious right has grown like a cancer on the brain?
August 1st, 2006 at 2:14 pmI can’t recall the last time any evangelicals sawed someone’s head off…
landv.net
Comment by alanH — August 1, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
Will you accept blowing people up in Northern Ireland as recently as 10 years ago? Or your own home grown nutbags who blow up doctors and nurses who perform abortions? Or do you approve of that. Feel free to answer.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:15 pmA couple of weeks ago, when the House voted 410 to 8 to support US ally Israel and condemn terrorist organization Hezbollah, Rep. John Dingell voted NO! When it came to a vote on the floor of the United States Congress, Dingell refused to condemn Hezbollah.
Considering that US ally Israel had just embarked on a massive terrorist campaign against its neighbor, voting no was the principled thing to do.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:16 pmI would consider Northern Ireland a largely political dispute that breaks down along religious sectarian lines. Or perhaps tribal, if you will. It has nothing to do with the religious doctrine. And as for “home-grown nutbags” I’d ask you to look at the totals of people who oppose abortion and consider the percentage who have ever done anything violent in support of their position. Compare how much support anti-abortion terrorists have in this country with their Muslim counterparts throughout the world.
Gary: how do you figure Israel was acting as a terrorist when it responded to an unprovoked attack? Or is anything Israel does automatically terrorist because it’s Israel?
August 1st, 2006 at 2:20 pmGary Kleppe,
I take it you would join with Rep. Dingell and vote to support Hezbollah and condemn Israel, because that would be the “the principled thing to do?”
August 1st, 2006 at 2:27 pmYou don’t have to edit Ann Coulter or the other bigots for crazy shit. It’s just endless.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:31 pmI can’t recall the last time any evangelicals sawed someone’s head off…
landv.net
Comment by alanH — August 1, 2006 @ 2:08 p
I do recall a religious fanatic blowing up hundreds of people, including children, at Oklahoma City. Anyone else recall him?
August 1st, 2006 at 2:33 pmAnd as for “home-grown nutbags†I’d ask you to look at the totals of people who oppose abortion and consider the percentage who have ever done anything violent in support of their position. Compare how much support anti-abortion terrorists have in this country with their Muslim counterparts throughout the world.
I’d expect that the percentage which are violent are fairly small in both cases. But it’s not exactly a fair comparison. Arab Muslims have had to suffer under vicious maniacs like the Shah of Iran.
Gary: how do you figure Israel was acting as a terrorist when it responded to an unprovoked attack?
An attack that targets civilians for mass slaughter is terrorist, especially if the purpose of the attack is to effect political change.
Whether it was unprovoked is debatable, incidentally. By some reports the Israeli soldiers were captured on Lebanese soil. Imagine what would happen to Lebanese troops if they entered Israel without permission.
Or is anything Israel does automatically terrorist because it’s Israel?
No, but I imagine that is the reason you’re willing to overlook anything they do.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:37 pmAnd here I thought Bill O’Reilly was the master of VideoGate with editing of Biden video clips.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:40 pmYour comparison sucks! It shows that you know nothing about Evengelicals, and it reveals that you have some sort of axe to grind regarding them.
Comment by Antagonist — August 1, 2006 @ 2:05
Just some friendly advice:
For someone who who purports to speak for evagelicals, you might sound more credible if you first learned to spell the word.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:42 pmI take it you would join with Rep. Dingell and vote to support Hezbollah and condemn Israel, because that would be the “the principled thing to do?â€
I would’ve voted against supporting Israel’s terror campaign, if that’s what you mean.
This doesn’t equate to support for Hezbollah, any more than opposing the Nazis equated to support for Stalin.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:43 pmI do, actually…it’s easier to remember one person’s name than it is hundreds or thousands.
Arab Muslims have had to suffer under vicious maniacs like the Shah of Iran.
Actually very few Muslims living today suffered under the Shah of Iran. Even fewer if you don’t count non-Iranians.
An attack that targets civilians for mass slaughter is terrorist, especially if the purpose of the attack is to effect political change.
You’ve effectively described Hezbollah’s modus operandi. Not to mention the Iraqi “insurgents.” But let me ask you, who is to blame when fighters fight from behind civilians? And what does “political change” have to do with whether or not you’re targetting civilians for mass slaughter?
Which reports are those?
How can you imagine that…you don’t know me. I await any proof that Israel is undertaking anything different than any other country would do, in fact do more of, under the same set of circumstances. I’ll read what you have to say.
landv.net
August 1st, 2006 at 2:48 pm
By some reports the Israeli soldiers were captured on Lebanese soil. Imagine what would happen to Lebanese troops if they entered Israel without permission.
Pure propaganda.
In an unprovoked attack, Lebanese “troops” entered Israel “without permission” to kill three soldiers and kidnap two others (after firing rockets across the border into three northern Israeli towns). In an attempt to rescue the captured soldiers an Israeli tank was blown up (killing four more soldiers) while crossing into Lebanon where it ran over an IED–the same kind of IED that is killing and maiming our boys in Iraq. You can thank Hezbollah for that invention and its widespread use in Iraq.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:58 pmPowerline is like little green footballs.
Need I say more?
Blood thirsty failed Americans.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:58 pm[...] Today’s Example: Powerline Uses Chopped Audio Clip to Smear Rep. John Dingell As Hezbollah Apologist [...]
August 1st, 2006 at 3:10 pmYou’ve effectively described Hezbollah’s modus operandi. Not to mention the Iraqi “insurgents.”
Not to mention Israel.
But let me ask you, who is to blame when fighters fight from behind civilians?
If those civilians get indiscriminantly blown away, I would blame the persons who blew them away.
And what does “political change†have to do with whether or not you’re targetting civilians for mass slaughter?
That’s part of the definition of terrorism according to the FBI, not to mention the dictionary.
By some reports the Israeli soldiers were captured on Lebanese soil.
Which reports are those?
Look here and follow the links.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:11 pmI would’ve voted against supporting Israel’s terror campaign, if that’s what you mean.
This doesn’t equate to support for Hezbollah, any more than opposing the Nazis equated to support for Stalin.
Come on, Gary. Pick a side. Show us your true colors.
Israel wants to limit civilian deaths ON BOTH SIDES and Hezbollah wants to increase civilian deaths ON BOTH SIDES
When those children were killed in Qana the other day Israelis displayed sadness and regret; dead children brings them sadness, not happiness. But when thugs in Hamas kill a bunch of Israeli kids it feels them with much joy; they go out on the West Bank and celebrate for hours with fireworks.
If you don’t see the difference, then there is something wrong with you, Gary.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:14 pmNot to mention Israel.
Do you think that Israel is targetting civilians under the pretext of fighting Hezbollah?
If those civilians get indiscriminantly blown away, I would blame the persons who blew them away.
How would it be “indiscriminate” if the “persons who blew them away” are being attacked from among those civilians? If there are civilians there, does that make it morally wrong to respond. What would be the proper way to respond. No response?
That’s part of the definition of terrorism according to the FBI, not to mention the dictionary.
OK…that sounds right. I thought perhaps that was some special point you were making.
Look here and follow the links.
I have no way to judge the veracity of this site, but they do seem to have an…agenda.
landv.net
August 1st, 2006 at 3:21 pmHe said he wasn’t against Hezbullah. He said it in context. I did not hear the Powerline version, but yours condemns him. Hezbullah is a terrorist group, not a country.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:23 pmIf those civilians get indiscriminantly blown away, I would blame the persons who blew them away.
No civilians are getting “indiscriminantly blown away” by Israel.
It is Hezbollah that has fired thousands of rockets “indiscriminantly” into Israel; and every time they do that they are guilty of a war crime, according to Juan Cole.
But when Hezbollah is firing rockets into Israel from a launcher set up two inches from an apartment buildings, what would you have Israel do? Turn the other cheek? Wait until they run out of rockets or suicide bombers?
August 1st, 2006 at 3:28 pmIsrael wants to limit civilian deaths ON BOTH SIDES
Explain the evidence for this conclusion, please.
When those children were killed in Qana the other day Israelis displayed sadness and regret; dead children brings them sadness, not happiness.
Who cares how sad they looked? It’s actions that matter, not words. The way to prove that you deplore killing children is to refrain from killing children, not to kill them and then act sad about it.
See also this link for some Israeli quotes.
But when thugs in Hamas kill a bunch of Israeli kids it feels them with much joy; they go out on the West Bank and celebrate for hours with fireworks.
Let’s have a cite for this claim, please.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:28 pmChip,
try re-reading the transcript, he condemdns hezbollah for using violence. Also hezbollah does have representation in the lebonese parliment, so they are part of the government.
DINGELL: No, I happen to be — I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence, but I think if we’ve got to talk to them and if we don’t — if we don’t get ourselves in a position where we can talk to both sides and bring both sides together, the killing and the blood let is going to continue.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:30 pmActually, Jose Chung, while I couldn’t really say whether it was the “same kind of IED that is killing and maiming our boys in Iraq,” it seems like if you want to thank anyone for the invention of it, you should try thanking the actual inventors: the IRA and the British gov’t.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:33 pmExplain the evidence for this conclusion, please.
How about the observed tactics used by either side, as well as the total number of civilian deaths compared to overall military strength?
Let’s have a cite for this claim, please.
Well, I do remember the Palestinians dancing with joy after 9/11…
August 1st, 2006 at 3:36 pmThe kooky conservatives are picking up on this and spreading it. The sliced and diced video’s now on YouTube for all the world to see without its conservative puppetmaster’s strings.
Check out this out and out lie from a radical right-winger who doesn’t get that context actually has some value, posted on the conservative state blog “Illinois Review”.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:49 pm#109
Just some friendly advice:
For someone who who purports to speak for evagelicals, you might sound more credible if you first learned to spell the word.
Comment by Barfly — August 1, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
You know… I was just thinking about that today… I used to be great at spelling, then I’ve progressed to occasional errors, and now recently my spelling has become worse than ever. Trust me—I’m more disturbed by this than you are. Perhaps I’m trying to do too many things at one time. Thanks for pointing out the typo—I’ve been called on my errors to the point where I recognize I need to do something about it.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:51 pmHow else are they going to manufacture a point without hacking up his words?
August 1st, 2006 at 3:53 pmHow about the observed tactics used by either side, as well as the total number of civilian deaths compared to overall military strength?
No, that’s a standard designed to stack the deck in favor of the powerful. By this standard, it’s no big deal if a Chinese soldier shoots you with a rifle, since China has nukes and one rifle is only a tiny part of their overall military strength.
Try comparing civilian deaths straight up, or as a fraction of total deaths.
Well, I do remember the Palestinians dancing with joy after 9/11…
That lie was debunked a long time ago. The “dancing with joy” was archived footage from years earlier.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:54 pmBlue, that was taken out of context. But as I pointed out before, the context isn’t too good either. He did say, “I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel.” Since many of us don’t equate democracies with terror groups, that’s a pretty telling statement.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:54 pmNo, that’s a standard designed to stack the deck in favor of the powerful. By this standard, it’s no big deal if a Chinese soldier shoots you with a rifle, since China has nukes and one rifle is only a tiny part of their overall military strength.
Nope…the metaphor you’re looking for if both sides have a rifle, but one side has a nuke and chooses not to use it. Neither being powerful nor powerless bestows moral superiority, but when we do look at the tactics used by either side…the employment of human shields as a matter of course, the indiscriminate use of rockets against civilian areas, the fact that Israel, at a cost to its own effectiveness, sends out flyers telling where they are going to strike, it seems pretty clear who’s holding back and who isn’t.
That lie was debunked a long time ago. The “dancing with joy†was archived footage from years earlier.
Who debunked it? I remember it being on several networks right after 9/11.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:58 pmWell, I do remember the Palestinians dancing with joy after 9/11…
That lie was debunked a long time ago. The “dancing with joy†was archived footage from years earlier.
_____________
No, it was never “debunked.” It happened. Live with it. The truth is that the cameras filming these celebrations on 9/11 were ordered to be turned off–at the point of a gun. So they had to stop filming. So in the end we only got to see a partial and shortened view of the festivities.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:04 pmWe should have asked ourselves, why would the Palestinians celebrate such a thing. Americans do very little soul searching.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:08 pmJose, that’s what I remember too. Apparently the AP filed a complaint about the threats.
http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/diplomacy/articles/dip_0087.htm
August 1st, 2006 at 4:08 pmTravis, your point is well taken. The history of IEDs is more broad than I indicated. I was using this line from Wikipedia:
Hezbollah pioneered the use of IEDs against military forces after the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel.
and this:
The British also accused Iran and Hezbollah of teaching Iraqi fighters to use infrared light beams to trigger IEDs.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:14 pmJust finished watching 5×15 of the X-Files. Remember them? The episode is a “prequel”, and set in the 1950’s. I was struck by the comment Hoover makes to an FBI agent.
HOOVER: … in less than seven years the odds have changed from nine to one in our favor, to eight to five against us. The threat of global communist domination is a reality that can be ignored only at the risk of our own annihilation.
DALES: The men we arrested weren’t communists.
HOOVER: If we are to defeat the enemy, we must use their tools. We must go further. We must do those things which even our enemies would be ashamed to do. It is only through strength that we can make our enemies fear us, and thereby ensure our own survival. You have one chance, Mr. Dales, to save yourself–to demonstrate that you have the strength to serve your country.
What is especially interesting is the tone of the piece, the clear disapproval by the writer of what Hoover is saying, the sense of brutality he is trying to instill.
Yet, here we are a mere 7 or 8 years later, were people daily post worse, and people consider Jack Bauer to be an honourable and brave protector of freedom. Food for thought.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:22 pmWe should have asked ourselves, why would the Palestinians celebrate such a thing. Americans do very little soul searching.
Comment by Krazny
Why would Palestinians celebrate death? Are you kidding me? It’s a death cult. Talk about a naive question! They LOVE death. Especially dead Americans and dead Israelis. You have no idea what JOY they get in killing, especially Israelis, but Americans also; to them we are all invading Jews, who they are taught from the crib to hate. But you would honor that hate; only someone who went to college could ask a question that naive.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:27 pmAsk yourself why Jose, you almost had a breakthrough. Military intervention will not stop terrorism. finding and ending the roots will stop terrorism. I am not talking about honoring hate, and you know it. You are unable to see past your inane talking points.
I also like your tacit statement, that anything over a high school education is bad. I am guessing you umm didn’t go to college?
August 1st, 2006 at 4:33 pmComment by Jose Chung — August 1, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
You sound like something of a fan yourself ….
August 1st, 2006 at 4:33 pmKrazny: what makes you so sure that “we” can find and end the “roots” of terrorism? When a terrorist group says they want to recreate the Caliphate of a thousand years prior, what “roots” do we need to address to counter that?
landv.net
August 1st, 2006 at 4:41 pmKrazny: what makes you so sure that “we†can find and end the “roots†of terrorism? When a terrorist group says they want to recreate the Caliphate of a thousand years prior, what “roots†do we need to address to counter that?
You need look no further then the British/Irish conflict, remember the IRA actually killed members of the British government and very nearly killed Margreat Thatcher herself by bombing the hotel the cabinet were staying in. That Alan, is restraint, and Maggie was no shrinking violet. It takes time, decades, there are ups there are downs. However in the 30 years of IRA terrorism (Ireland has roughly the population of Lebanon), some 3000 innocent people died violently.
In this “spatâ€, if we ignore the all the deaths before, the current conflict is within a few hundred of 1000 innocent deaths. After 2 weeks. Thats the difference Alan. There is no panacea, no easy solution, I’m sorry to have to disappoint you in that regard:-( Except to say that war, unless it is going to be genocidal all out war to kill millions, will never resolve these kinds of issues, and will invariably make things worse.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:49 pm[...] But thanks to the folks at Think Progress we can see the whole quote. Q: You’re not against Hezbollah? [...]
August 1st, 2006 at 4:53 pmActually Alan, I am not 100% sure we can. However supporting brutal regimes in the middle east, Saddam Hussien, Shah of Iran, and to an extent Isreal, is not going to gain any sympathy for the US in the middle east. Anytime you have a large group of disaffected, angry, poor, you are going to have violence. We also have a problem, of religous beliefs being twisted to inspire acts of terrorism. A belief that by killing the infidel you are given a place in heaven. Where suicide bombers are worshiped as heros. Do I think their priorities are screwed up, you bet.
Keep in mind, there is still hatred over the crusades 500 years ago, the more recent western colonialization of the middle east, from 1918 to the 1950’s. Honestly our best bet would be to stop using foreign oil, thus ending any interest in the region, and defend ourselves and our allies at home.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:54 pmYou need look no further then the British/Irish conflict, remember the IRA actually killed members of the British government and very nearly killed Margreat Thatcher herself by bombing the hotel the cabinet were staying in. That Alan, is restraint, and Maggie was no shrinking violet. It takes time, decades, there are ups there are downs. However in the 30 years of IRA terrorism (Ireland has roughly the population of Lebanon), some 3000 innocent people died violently.
In this “spatâ€, if we ignore the all the deaths before, the current conflict is within a few hundred of 1000 innocent deaths. After 2 weeks. Thats the difference Alan. There is no panacea, no easy solution, I’m sorry to have to disappoint you in that regard:-( Except to say that war, unless it is going to be genocidal all out war to kill millions, will never resolve these kinds of issues, and will invariably make things worse.
First, let me thank you and Krazny both, for thoughtful answers. Brian, I don’t think the comparison is apt, considering that in the “Troubles,” there weren’t any all-out battles…rather it was a series of assasinations, single bombings, reprisals, etc. It was all very low-level. As for genocidal war, I’m not sure that it takes that, but there is a level at which the pain is too great for one side to continue. It might actually save more lives in the long run to go above that level for a short time–to rip the bandaid off, so to speak–rather than to stay below that level for so long that ultimately more people are killed.
Krazny: in one sense you’re right about the foreign oil, but I don’t really think it’s all about real grievances. And I don’t think it’s all about being poor and dissaffected. After all, consider how many terrorists come out of Britain, where they aren’t especially poor and disaffected by most standards. It has to do more with a culture of impotence, and of rage against their own governments, who allow them to vent against the US and Israel . I don’t really know how we change the culture.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:05 pmalanH,
Thanks for that excellent link. Reading down the column I had to laugh where it reported that Yesterday Arafat donated blood for the victims of the tragedy and condemned “this horrible attack.”
But never his blood!
Think of all the hundreds of brainwashed kids he sent into Israel to martyr themselves by blowing themselves up along with as many innocents as possible. The chief prize was a Jewish girl. By killing her you knew she wouldn’t be giving birth to any more Jews, who in their textbooks are compared to donkeys and pigs.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:08 pmWell, Hamas had in their charter that they want to kill the last Jew, so there you have it. You’re welcome.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:13 pmAlan,
I didn’t say it was about real greivances. However the percieved history in the middle east is on of suffering under the bloody hands of western christians. There are many factors involved. The inability of the governments to change so much of what is wrong, a culture that encourges intolerance and hatred, and a feeling of powerlessnes in the face of the enemy. Yassir Arafat failed to control Palistine, and hamas. He failed to maintain peace with Isreal. Lebenon has failed to control Hezbollah, and are now facing an all out war with Isreal. Islam is a young religion, and has not gone through an enlitenment period like Christianity. It clings forcefully to the old ways.
The point I am trying to make, is to end the threat of terrorism will take much more then bombs and guns.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:16 pmKrazny, I think it will take more than bombs and guns in the long run, though I think it will take bombs and guns now. While we may not entirely agree, I think we probably don’t entirely disagree either.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:28 pmKrazny,
(I make the point about college because so many of you on the Left have not deprogrammed yourselves from all the drivel you were taught in college. Ward Churchill was all too typical of his “profession.”)
I am not talking about honoring hate, and you know it.
Are you sure? I find implicit in your thinking that their hatred may be credible; or, in other words, eligible of respect or consideration, due to its root causes.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:31 pmLOL funny thing about college, it tends to teach introspection, and free thinking. Sorry to disappoint you Jose, I am well past college age. As for Ward Churchill being typical, you need to a little deprogramming yourself. Try reading neutral news services for a bit.
I think we need to understand why the hatred. It doesn’t honor or lend any credibilty to the hate. I understand, that it is much easier for you to not consider the history of the region, and the history of US/western involvement in the region. Remember, that a key component to defeating an enemy is understanding how the enemy thinks.
Alan
We most likely do agree on a number of things. I am not defending Hezbollah or Hamas. both groups are pretty sick and twisted, however the situation needs to be worked out on a number of levels, not just militarily.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:46 pmI appreciate your comments, Krazny.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:51 pmonly someone who went to college could ask a question that naive.
Comment by Jose Chung — August 1, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
This is probably one of the most strange comments I have read in a long time.
Jose, now explain to us why we “don’t need no education” and why being illiterate is better.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:52 pmGregor, I suspect he’s talking about that old chestnut of how some ideas are so ridiculous, only an intellectual could possibly believe them…
August 1st, 2006 at 6:04 pmI appreciate the dialogue as well Alan. I think you are correct about Mr. Chung, and his chestnut.
August 1st, 2006 at 6:08 pmWe wrote on this — and thanks for the great catch. http://njdc.typepad.com/njdcs_blog/2006/08/advice_to_jewis.html
August 1st, 2006 at 6:09 pm#133 -Jose Chung @4:14 pm “…after the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel.” And Israel stayed there for 18 years. Not exactly the ideal foundation for a long term peaceful relationship. BushCo has created the same disaster in Iraq, and like Israel, they blame the ‘insurgents’ for the situation that their occupation created. Then they use it as an excuse to kill them. Seriously psychotic thinking going on there.
August 1st, 2006 at 6:27 pmIn # 121, Kranzy says -
try re-reading the transcript, he condemdns hezbollah for using violence. Also hezbollah does have representation in the lebonese parliment, so they are part of the government.
Lest, we forget, the Republicanparty is for all intents and purposes, represents the government here. How much damage they do to our nation between November 8th and January 1st 2007 is only a matter of prayer and salvation afterwards.
August 1st, 2006 at 6:42 pm“DINGELL: Well, we don’t, first of all, I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel.
ANCHOR: You’re not against Hezbollah?
DINGELL: No, I happen to be — I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. ”
Dingell is an idiot an apologist for terrorists, Powerline did him a favor by not running the complete quote
August 1st, 2006 at 7:38 pmhere’s hoping for a correction along the lines of “well, turns out i was wrong on the facts. the point, of course, remains valid nevertheless.”
August 1st, 2006 at 7:42 pmSo he is not against Hezbollah, just the violence?????
Ok, so does anybody here remember that Hezbollah has killed more americans as a terrorist group than anyone else besides Al Queda?
The whole point of the group is to destroy all of Isreal and anyone that supports them. There is no rationalizing with them!!! LOL!! That’s like saying, lets negotiate with Microsoft and ask them to stop making software. The whole idea of seperating the “political”wing”of hezbollah from the “militant” wing is pure fantasy.
Give me a break here people
August 1st, 2006 at 7:53 pm[...] ThinkProgress has posted a longer video clip and points out that Dingell continues his last answer: No, I happen to be—I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence. [...]
August 1st, 2006 at 8:47 pm[...] The irony is too good not to mention. [...]
August 1st, 2006 at 9:17 pm#133 -Jose Chung @4:14 pm “…after the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel.†And Israel stayed there for 18 years. Not exactly the ideal foundation for a long term peaceful relationship. BushCo has created the same disaster in Iraq, and like Israel, they blame the ‘insurgents’ for the situation that their occupation created. Then they use it as an excuse to kill them. Seriously psychotic thinking going on there.
Comment by Cyra Brown
No, you have it backwards. Terrorism causes occupation; not the other way around. Besides, Israel left Lebanon six years ago! and Israel left Gaza one year ago, yet the attacks came from both these places. Why is that? Stop reading from your primer which was written by ignorant and gullible westerners who bought into the rationalizations for terror.
The blood in Qana is on Hezbollah’s hands. It’s a war crime to use civilians as human shields and that’s what they were doing.
August 1st, 2006 at 9:25 pmNice going, Judd. In Dingell’s own words he voted against the resolution because he was afraid the terrorists might not like it, making it more difficult for us to “talk to them.” Big deal. Why should Dingell care what a bunch of Lebanese/Syrian/Iranian terrorists think? More to the point, how does that differ in any way from the original Powerline coment on Dingell’s vote and quote? Broadening the context in this case only makes matters worse for Dingell.
Maybe Dingell’s moral obtuseness has something to do with the fact that his district has a significant Muslim/Lebanese population. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Dingell’s district also includes Ann Arbor, home to an extremely liberal University of Michigan community that includes anti-Israel faculty member Juan Cole [According to one Jewish U of M official, Cole "has an appalling Web site, highly critical of Israel."]. I notice that you failed to mention those facts.
This information is, at the very least, relevant to a transparent understanding of who John Dingell is and what constituencies he represents. Judd’s/TP’s failure to include it in its commentary is a failure of ethics and credibility, matched only by Dingell’s appalling refusal to condemn terrorists for their terrorism.
August 1st, 2006 at 9:45 pmPowerline tries to change the subject. Fails to apologize to readers. Their legitimacy, what they had, is gone. They have gone the way of Coulter, Rush, Randi Rhodes, etc.
August 1st, 2006 at 9:51 pmThis is a black and white issue: Hezbollah is a terrorist organization which uses innocent civilians to protect its “soldiers” and hide its weapons. Dingell’s lack of strength in an outright condemnation of these thugs is indicative of a weakness that these terrorists exploit. No amount of handwringing will change the fact that their purpose is the destruction of peaceful nations such as ours. Our society, which rewards free thinking and strives to place men AND women on an equal level, is at risk from religious zealots who wish to control the way you think and subjugate women, minorities, etc. Don’t appease these genocidal terrorists!
August 1st, 2006 at 11:00 pmI’m not sure, but I think there is less intelligent life at this blog than there is on Mars.
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:06 amThey have gone the way of Coulter, Rush, Randi Rhodes, etc.
Comment by R James — August 1, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
“One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn’t belong…”
can’t imagine why you would group the goddess of radio
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:16 amwith any of those lying, soulless whores…
[...] Huh. Dingell was actually advancing a bone-standard ‘honest broker’ position, and someone or another posted a doctored recording trying to fool people. (Full video and transcript here. Hanx: Judd at Think Progress.) [...]
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:27 amKaty,
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:58 amMaybe my comparison is unfair. I just find her shrill and she seems to play loose with the facts. It is been very long since I listened to Air America Radio so I can’t back up my statement with examples. So I guess take it with a giant grain of salt.
Lee Atwater is smiling from hell with this one.
They learned so well . . . . .
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:28 am“Our society, which rewards free thinking and strives to place men AND women on an equal level, is at risk from religious zealots who wish to control the way you think and subjugate women, minorities, etc. ”
Comment by Joel — August 1, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
This statement shows exactly how little you know about Hezbollah-not to defend the organization, but to state the facts- Hezbollah is not just a political organization it’s also a social one. Hezbollah has built schools, hospitals and other facilities for the people of southern Lebanon. In addition, being muslims in the first place they are obliged to treat every individual of the society as an equal. You can see that by watching the great rule that women play in their community of southern Lebanon.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:44 am[...] Yesterday, the right-wing blog Powerline posted a chopped audio clip from a July 30 interview to smear Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) as a Hezbollah apologist. This morning, the Washington Times follows their lead: Here’s what Mr. Dingell had to say to a reporter in Detroit the other day during a television program: “I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don’t take sides for or against Israel.” When asked if he really wasn’t “against Hezbollah,” Mr. Dingell replied, “No.” [...]
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:31 amNo 170 comment (you didn’t leave your name–no courage?…)
Any attempt to support a terrorist group by equating good deeds to these murderers is illogical farce. I suppose you could equate good deeds to the Bloods or the Crips by stating that they buy expensive things with their drug money (and contribute to the sales tax base of L.A.). Killing innocents with the stated purpose of eradicating Jews is genocide, pure and simple.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:45 amJoel
I am not trying to support a terrorist group by equating good deeds to the murderers, all I’m saying is that we must look at the whole picture and gather all the facts needed in order to make an opinion non the less stating one.
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:17 pmMaybe my comparison is unfair.
not just “unfair” – totally falacious…
I just find her shrill and she seems to play loose with the facts.
she does get excited and passionate – but NO ONE backs up their statements with the facts and sources LIKE RANDI DOES… she posts everything she talks about right there on her website – AND she demands that her listeners do their HOMEWORK – NOT take just her word for anything…
It is been very long since I listened to Air America Radio so I can’t back up my statement with examples.
then you shouldn’t have made such a staement… do yourself a favor and tune back in…
So I guess take it with a giant grain of salt.
from now on, EVERYthing you say will treated that way.
Comment by R James — August 2, 2006 @ 12:58 am
i am just 300+ miles down the road from you…
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:32 pmhope this has the right effect: I L L – I N I !!!
oh!!! i got confused, r james… i am 100 miles EAST of you…
…i was thinking chicago … …never mind…
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:35 pmWhy does Rep. Dingell think the United States can “bring resolution to this matter” by talking to “both sides”? Did Rep. Dingell explain how one can “broker” with terrorists honestly or otherwise? Wasn’t Rep. Dingell around when Bill Clinton spent eight years as an honest broker negotiating in good faith with a terrorist by the name of Yasir Arafat? How does he think that turned out? Does Rep. Dingell understand that in order for negotiations to bear fruit, the involved parties must be both reasonable and willing to negotiate in good faith? Can Rep. Dingell tell us when Hezbollah has demonstrated either reason or good faith? Does Rep. Dingell expect Syria and Iran to be parties to these negotiations? Can he tell us when either of those nations has demonstrated good faith? Does Rep. Dingell expect a terrorist organization whose stated purpose is to eliminate the state of Israel and as many Jews as possible to simply abandon their whole raison d’etre just because everyone sitting around a negotiating table says so? Does Rep. Dingell really expect the United States to be a “friend” to a terrorist organization? Would Rep. Dingell advocate, for instance, negotiating as an honest broker with al-Qaeda? Hamas? Where would Rep. Dingell draw the line? Is it possible that Rep. Dingell fears that his sizeable Muslim constituency could harm him politically? Or is he just another old fool who would prefer allowing these problems to fester and grow and leaving them to future generations to solve after his endless talking, negotiating and brokering results in bogus, toothless agreements that are neither honored nor enforced?
This is pure gobbledygook. It says nothing and means nothing but tries to sound soothing and oh so wise to the undiscerning ear. Which seems to be what he’s got in spades with this crowd.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:14 pmObersver stated:
Take a look at the video posted on cnn.com regarding a Hezbollah terrorist entering a civilian house to fire rockets at Isreal. The terrorist uses innocent civilians’ homes as launchpads for attacks, and then cries “foul” when those same civilians are killed when there is a counter-attack. So, the whole picture is this: They use innocents in their end-game to destroy democracy and further Iran’s destructive policies.
This is your complete picture. Quit trying to use moral relativism to depict Hezbollah as anything but weak, cowardly, opportunistic thugs and murderers.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:52 pm“1. Unlike Islamic Jihadist, only a small percentage of right wing evengelicals are actually fanatics.”
Who knows what the percentages are, but they’re pretty small in both cases. Most Muslims consider “jihad” to be a very limited concept, which does *not* justify killing civilians ever. Even most members of groups like Hamas are not fanatics (though they’ve certainly got quite a lot of fanatics). Meanwhile, Pat Robertson advocates government assassination of foreign leaders, while Jerry Falwell (I think) blames liberals for the attack on the World Trade Center, while organized evangelical groups execute terrorist bombings on clinics which provide abortions, while Bush declares a “crusade”: right-wing evangelicals have plenty of fanatics.
“2. Evengelicals want you to have a better life here, and to be with them in heaven.”
So does Osama bin Laden. He thinks everyone will be much happier under the restored Caliphate (and once we all convert to Islam, which he believes is necessary to get into heaven), just like the Dominionists here think we should have a Christian Dictatorship. This says nothing good about right-wing evangelicals. In actual fact, both groups spend much of their time trying to make life miserable for people who don’t share their beliefs, which is evil.
“3. Evengelicals do not seek the death of innocents or those who disagree with them.”
Except for Pat Robertson, Randall Terry, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc., etc. Oh, and George W. Bush, of course. And the right-wing evangelical nuts taking over the Air Force Academy, who have been harrassing non-Christians, and even covering up rapes.
“They can no more use the military for anything than you can.”
Excepting George W. Bush and the other self-described evangelicals in government, who *can and do* use the military for their purposes. And the ones in the Air Force Academy, of course.
“Evengelicals are actually responsoble for a lot of humanitarian work. They build hospitals, they feed the hungry, and they cloth the poor. the same cannot be said about Islamic Jihadists.”
Yes it can. Hezbollah and Hamas are best known in Palestine and Lebanon for their *organized social work*. They build and run hospitals, feed the hungry, and clothe the poor, and there are a hell of a lot more hungry and poor there than here. This is why they are so popular, despite being also murdering people and committing acts of terrorism.
Here the comparison is *PERFECT*. Actually, I’d guess that Christian evangelical extremists actually do less humanitarian work than Islamic extremists. (Catholics, not right-wing evangelicals, do the majority of Christian humanitarian work.)
“Your comparison sucks! It shows that you know nothing about Evengelicals, and it reveals that you have some sort of axe to grind regarding them. ”
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:35 pmYou just revealed that you know nothing about Islam or Islamic Jihadists, and that you are attacking them based on a position of ignorance. So you have no business hating them, do you?
Joel
Did you happen to see a video showing Israeli children signing rocket bombs that were sent to great their lebanese peers. This is Israel that you are defending. SHAME on you, where is your humannity?! What Israel is doing is terrorism itself.
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:37 amThen I guess the US was the terrorist in WW2 because there were messages to Hitler scrawled on the bombs.
Anyway, “Most Muslims consider “jihad†to be a very limited concept, which does *not* justify killing civilians ever.”
“Most?” It seems that jihad is understood to be holy war, except when it gets pulled out of the drawer by Muslim apologists explaining what all that nasty talk is “really” about.
August 4th, 2006 at 2:49 pmalanH
This is exactly what the word Jihad means:
“jihad refers primarily to the inner struggle of being a person of virtue and submission to Allah in all aspects of life. This is sometimes described as ‘jihad of the heart.’ â€* . And this is the exact meaning that is mentioned in the Holy Quran. The ‘greater jihad’ is the struggle against temptation and evil within oneself. The ‘lesser jihad’ is working against injustice or oppression in society.
Religious scholar and professor Dr. John Kaltner, who authored the 1999 book Ishmael Instructs Isaac: An Introduction to the Qur’an for Bible Readers,said, “the word jihad comes from an Arabic root whose primary sense refers to the act of putting forth effort to achieve some objective, [such as] the effort each person must exert in order to live his or her life as a good Muslim and avoid the temptation to sin.†The only circumstances under which jihad permits open warfare, he said, is “when it is a defensive response to an attack.†In other words this jihad or struggle is taken to the battlefield solely for purposes of self-defense.
*The Presbyterian News Service
August 4th, 2006 at 3:18 pmPerhaps that’s the theory…it seems to be quite different in practice.
August 8th, 2006 at 4:39 pmalanH
well .. we all have our share of extremists.
You can’t control people’s minds. You can show them the way, but you can’t make them follow it.
August 9th, 2006 at 4:24 pmThere are extremists and then there are extremists…if the extremists in the Muslims world behaved as the extremists in the USA do , we’d have no problems.
And I agree, you can’t make people follow a certain way, but you can hold them responsible for their actions, and take appropriate action against them.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:02 amalanH,
“if the extremists in the Muslims world behaved as the extremists in the USA do , we’d have no problems.” What are u saying here-exactly?
I agree with u in the second point, but does this mean mass punishmnet. I mean we are trying to tell the extremists not to hold the innocents accountable for the deeds of their governments, then we go and kill people just because they are in the same country as the extremists. What kind of messages does this attitude send?!
August 12th, 2006 at 8:25 amI’m saying that our extremists make silly statements…their extremists lop heads off and blow themselves up in crowded marketplaces.
As for your second paragraph, you’re touching on the main problem we have with fighting terrorism–that we are not willing to do what needs to be done to fight it. We don’t have the stomach to kill civilians so we give terrorists a pass when they hide among civilians. We differentiate between governments, civilians, and stateless groups operating within countries, so when they are all amassed we stand there with our superior firepower and don’t know what to do. It’s a problem we haven’t figured out the solution to yet.
August 14th, 2006 at 11:39 amalanH
I’m asking you not to repeat the lies you are hearing from the Israeli government. Most of the buildings that they have bombed were no shelters for Hezbollah fighters, they were apartments with innocents families living in them. Have you ever heard that one of the people burried in the rubble was a hezbollah fighter? Hezbollah fighters or supporters don’t hide their identities, so it won’t be hard to identify their bodies. Both the US and the Israeli government planned for this war for over a year. I can’t believe that they(Israel) planned to invade Lebanon and expect that no one will defend it. You know other people also have the right to defend their lives; not just Israel.
August 14th, 2006 at 6:11 pmI would say that perhaps the only statement I could agree with in that broadside would be the implication that Israelis indeed have the right to defend their lives…although sadly that would seem to remain in the realm of theory for you, and not actuality.
I would also say, as respectfully as possible, that the only “lies” I see here are those in your post. You may well believe them, but no one of good will is obliged to. Hezbollah attacks from among civilians, blends into the civilian population, stages “massacres” for the press, (the photographic evidence is dribbling out), targets civilians and obeys no established rules of warfare. Israel, had it wanted to massacre civilians, would not have issued warnings that ultimately reduced the effectiveness of their operations, and quite frankly could easily have killed a hundred times the number of civilians if that is what it was intending to do.
The two sides play by two entirely different sets of rules–Hezbollah obeys no code and Israel by an excruciatingly strict Western code.
And of course I’d be interested to know how Israel planned to have Hezbollah terrorists kidnap an Israeli soldier as a “pretext.”
August 15th, 2006 at 10:12 amalanH,
Apparently we won’t be able to agree on most of the issues that were raised with this war.
“And of course I’d be interested to know how Israel planned to have Hezbollah terrorists kidnap an Israeli soldier as a “pretext.†“
The incident with the 2 israeli soldiers was the excuse to start this war that was cocked and ready along time ago.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:10 pmNo, I suppose we won’t. I don’t tend to take the word of terrorists over those of democracies. Though perhaps we can come to some middle ground. Israel may well have planned the war, given the circumstances with Hezbollah. I don’t know, however, why such preparation would indicate anything other than a rational response to cross-border attacks, and I still don’t understand how Israel somehow becomes an aggressor when it responds to what would universally be considered an act of war.
August 16th, 2006 at 9:47 amWould crossing the border of a sovereign country and killing and kidnapping soldiers of that country NOT be considered an act of war? Or does an act of war merely become an “excuse” if one doesn’t like the side that responds to it?
alanH
The thing is that the US seems to look the other way when it comes to Israel, and suddenly it stops being objective and takes Israel side. Like a parent who doesn’t believe that his son is a serial killer even though all evidence is pointing to him. Israel has a black record when it comes to dealing with its neighbors, it dug a deep hole and fell in it and now it is pulling the US in it too. It makes me sad to see how the current governmet smeared the US reputation over the last 6 years. It all comes to the fact that ARABS don’t acknowledge the existence of Israel because it is built on the bodies and ruins of their brothers and sisters, and whatever happens between Israel and its neighbors is considered legitimate as they see themselves in a war against an occupation, a war that will last till the end of times.
August 16th, 2006 at 7:26 pmBut why should the US be objective when it comes to taking sides between murderous terrorists and a democratic ally? And why whould anyone believe that Israel has a “black record” when all history points otherwise? Israel is a lone democracy in a neighborhood of thugs, and they must defend themselves….even though others invent a world where the victim is the aggressor and vice versa. Have you ever asked yourself how it is that Arabs live in Israel, but no Jews can live in the Arab countries? Have you ever considered that the singleminded hatred of Israel has been a diversion from the Arab’s own inability to govern themselves as free people? Have you ever asked yourself in honesty how it is that these bloodthirsty Jews, as powerful as they are, warn communities before they attack, go house to house risking their own soldiers lives instread of saturation bombing of areas…why, in fact, they are the only side in the conflict that obeys rules of war, even as all those they fight violate every convention of war? Or is it that when the other believes something strongly enough, then they are justified in whatever they do? I mean, you do know the whole history of Israel’s creation, right? The UN partition that the Arabs never accepted? The evacuation of the Jews from the Arab countries? Any of that? Where do you get your information from?
August 17th, 2006 at 9:49 amalanH,
I get my information from living among the chaos. Jews do live in the arab countries, there is no law that prohibits such thing. Most arab countries are Islamic states with christians and jews, some like lebanon has a majority of christians others like the gulf countries are all muslims with expatriates from other religions. But the arab country with most jews is Yemen. I’m telling you that Arabs do not like Israel as a country or better say as an occupation, they don’t hate jews.
Don’t judge other ways of governing people without trying them your self. And just to let U know, the democracy has existed in the arab world for over 1400 years- it is called “shura” in arabic- and it has been implemented successfully ever since. I invite U to read more about the Islamic and Arab history, widen your horizon and look at the world from a different view.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:23 amI would invite you to do the same thing. You might learn something of how Jewish communities in Iraq, Iran and Jordan and elsewhere were decimated or eradicated. Or how Jews have lived in various Muslim states as dhimmi. .
Or how Jews are not even permitted to set foot in Saudi Arabia.
I understand that Arabs don’t like Israel, but given the rhetoric which I hear coming from many Arab leaders, it’s also manifestly clear that they don’t like Jews. Nasrallah himself had said that he wished more Jews would emigrate to Israel so he wouldn’t have to hunt them down later.
As for “shura,” I don’t see how Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, ad nauseum are run by anything other than dictators, religous or otherwise.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:45 amDo you know what dhimmi is? It means that he’s not a muslim, but his is either a christian or jew, and lives under the care of a muslim country. The “dhimmi” has to pay an amount of money for the state in which he lives. The same system was implemented during the time when Jerusalem was under the christian control. You should know that this system is not implemented anymore.
Shura means that the ruler picks people from his country. They should be people of education, fear Allah, fair and don’t stop the people from meeting with the ruler. So the responsibility is on the ruler to choose good advisors who will help him lead the people under his care. In all the countries that you’ve mentioned the people chose their rulers, and islam gave them the right to override their government under some circumstances.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:27 pmTwo things: one is that with dhimmitude you’ve outlined a system that no Western country would ever demand of its citizens–that they pay a special tax for not being of the right religion or that they live under the “care” of the country, as opposed to being a full citizen enjoying all the rights and privileges thereof. This system may no longer be officially implemented, but it seems clear that this is the intent in certain areas where Islam is expanding. Northern Africa for example.
In the countries I mentioned the people didn’t choose their rulers. Their rulers took power.
And again, I’ll ask you…if Arabs don’t hate Jews, then why are Jews not permitted to set foot in Saudi Arabia? That’s just one example, but you haven’t addressed it.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:39 pmalanH,
Most countries in northern africa are Islamic or has the majority of muslims- there is no intention of treating their citizens differently based on religion.
I disagree with you on the second point as these governments were chosen by the people since the founding of these countries.
As for your last point I would have to get back to you after asking around. Are you sure it’s jews that are forbidden from going to Saudi Arabia or Israelis?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:00 pmalanH,
I found this regarding the last issue:
“The exit and entry visa cards ask applicants for their religious affiliation and officially bans entry to anyone with an official stamp from the State of Israel”. Which is logical as they do not acknowledge the existence of Israel.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pmNo, it’s Jews too:
http://cbs2.com/topstories/topstories_story_057202251.html
And what’s logical about not recognizing the existence of Israel? It exists. They may wish it weren’t so, but there it is. A nation may choose not to have diplomatic relations with another country, but to create a fiction that the country doesn’t exist is a symptom of the greater pathology of the Arab world.
Your earlier post:
Yeah, huh?
http://www.religiousfreedom.com/Conference/Dc/sigmon.htm
By what mechanism?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:35 pmAs I read it wasn’t the government that oppressed the people; moreover, moderate muslims were also a target of extremists. As for tyring to make everything work according to the Islamic laws “Shari’a”, Islam is religion of life it has laws and legislations that don’t just define and somewhat organize the relationship between the man and his creator or the man and himself, but also between him and other people. It’s a way of life.
In Iran the president is elected, in Suadi Arabia the people chose the “Saud” family to rule the country since they founded it, in Syria the Asad government was elected by the Parliament and in Egypt the people re-elect Husni Mubarak. The last presidential election, in which Mubarak won a fifth consecutive term was held in September 2005.
About the Saudi-jew issue, I’m still trying to find a website or a paper that says “no jews are allowed in Saudi Arabia”.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:10 pmNo, I don’t think it was the government per se that was oppressing people…but Islam seems to be all about extra-governmental authority. You have your mullahs and you have your rulers. Maybe they are the same, maybe not. The government gives a nod and a wink and the mobs go to work.
As for these elections, these are carefully controlled events that don’t constitute real elections. The candidates are limited to who the government wants to win. Mubarak generally jails his opposition. As for the Saudis, how did the “people” choose the Saud family? Face it, the Sauds grabbed power and they’ve held onto it, and they will until they lose hold of it.
As for the Saudi-Jew issue, I think I already gave you a link.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:03 pmHere’s another. And the BBC is no friend to Jews or Israel:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3493448.stm
August 17th, 2006 at 3:06 pmWhy do you have to make everything so bad concerning the arab leadership? Try and give them the benefit of the doubt.
I’m sure that you agree with me that the american way of ruling doesn’t suit everybody. Every country has its own way of ruling their people taking in mind the environment, culture and demographic.
The link that you have provided doesn’t contain a reference to where the writer got the information. Still I’m looking for more information about this issue and I will get back to you as soon as I find it.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:15 pmI still can’t believe it, since prophet Mohammad- peace be upon him- had treaties with the jews who used to live in Al Madina. Not just that, they were his neighbors and he had good relationship with them. But still I will ask around, thanks for the info.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:20 pm” As for the Saudis, how did the “people†choose the Saud family?”
This needs an understanding of the life style of the people in the gulf. When the arabian peninsula was just a desert and people lived in tribes, the members of the tribe chose the person or family that has the wisdom and leadership capabilties to govern them and organize their affairs or relationships with other tribes. The Saud were chosen, hence Saudi was founded.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:29 pmBy any standard Arab leadership is abysmal and since they foment hatred of Israel to distract from their own failings, there are no doubts to give them the benefit of.
As for Mohammed, I couldn’t tell you how he personally got along with Jews, but I’m somewhat more familiar with how his followers do.
As for the House of Saud, when was the last time they held a vote? Or the people decided in some way? They are not so purely tribal anymore, are they?
August 17th, 2006 at 3:47 pmNo you are fimiliar with some of his followers attidude toward jews. Please don’t generalize.
Again, the gulf is still very much a tribal community, every citizen is a member of a tribe, except for the ones who got their citizenship due to their efforts and services for the country.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:55 pmA fellow prog. suggested this documentary that can be found in video.google.com, it’s called “Peace, propaganda and the promised land”. It’s interesting!
August 17th, 2006 at 4:02 pmI think I can make general statements, considering the pervasiveness of the attitude. I know that “Mein Kampf” is a best-seller throughout the Arab world, that Iran just put on a cartoon show mocking the Holocaust, that Egypt produced a long TV series based upon the forged document “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” and that religious leaders regularly refer to Jews–not merely Israelis but Jews–as pigs and monkeys.
As for the Saudis, I think they don’t put their leadership to a vote, so if they weren’t so popular, there would be no way to remove them. Don’t try to tell me a “tribal council” is going to unseat them. They’re not so very popular as it is, I understand.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:04 pmI looked up that google site. I don’t think what they say is true.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:06 pmI’m really sorry to say that I find you very close minded and you came with your mind made up already. I feel that I said more than enough, but I’m sad that I couldn’t convince u to put your self in others shoe. Just look back to my previous comments and read how Saudis have the right to change their leadership.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:12 pmWell, there’s being closed-minded and then there’s simply not buying into what someone else is selling. I feel I’ve also made many, many points about how things are in the Arab world, and about how Israel is treated unfairly and how Jews are reviled. And in response I’ve gotten this peaceful picture of the Arab world that doesn’t jibe with reality.
So you know, it’s good to have an open mind but not so open that you’ll believe anything.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:22 pmI’m talking from an experience, I live in country where tolarance is the foundation of our lives. Our attidude toward people comes from our response to their actions, not backgrounds nor beliefs. Here we call for accepting others and not to punish people because of the deeds of their leadership. I’m a musilm and I know exactly what my religion stands for. I won’t apologize for the actions of some muslims as they are the product of frustration and the lack of resources and support.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:37 pmalanH,
Gotta run now, nice exchange of thoughts .. Hope to read one of your comments soon :)
August 17th, 2006 at 4:46 pmOK…we may disagree, but I appreciate the lack of flaming. What country do you live in?
August 17th, 2006 at 5:00 pmI live in the United Arab Emirates.
August 18th, 2006 at 9:34 amFrom what I know that is one of the more modern and well run Arab countries.
August 18th, 2006 at 10:01 amAnd I feel fortunate to be born an Emirati :)
August 18th, 2006 at 10:07 amI guess there are worse places to be born. For my part, I’m very glad to have been born in the United States.
August 18th, 2006 at 12:27 pm“I guess there are worse places to be born”. I’ll try not to take this one as an insult.
I agree with you we both are fortunate to be living in countries that are considered rule models or worlds that some people aspire to be part of. For me the key for countries success is a fair leadership that is part of the ordinary people, or it is still connected to the people.
August 18th, 2006 at 2:59 pmI didn’t mean it as an insult. My speech may be a bit colloquial.
I would say the key to a country’s success is leadership that is fair, but also connected to principles that take the will of the people into account, but that also stand on their own when the people’s will is elsewhere. Sometimes the people are an unruly mob, after all.
August 18th, 2006 at 3:03 pmTell me something, do you get mad when you see that your government pays more attention to external affairs or say issues than it does to demostic issues?
August 18th, 2006 at 3:16 pmNo, I think especially these days external affairs should indeed be on the front burner. The world is becoming more and more dangerous, and I think the US should actually be stronger in dealing with these threats than they have been.
August 18th, 2006 at 3:22 pmBut you know sometimes being so obsessed with these matters may make the government an easy target for people to blame for their frustration, and as you know when people get desperate they do desperate things.
August 18th, 2006 at 3:29 pmI’m not sure I understand what you mean.
August 18th, 2006 at 3:32 pmThere are some issues that the US has been facing for along time such as: homeless people, poverty and brutal crimes. This is what I’m saying, in my opinion these things should always be on the top of the list.
August 18th, 2006 at 3:36 pmWell, I think that unfortunately, those are aspects of nature. It’s not always a matter of the government addressing it, but actually doing what works. As it happens none of those things are especially bad right now, and the fact of increasing danger worldwide, and the increase in terrorism (not unrelated to this entire thread) make foreign matters more pressing.
The first duty of a government, after all, is to protect the country from external threats. If you don’t have that, then addressing domestic issues becomes pointless.
August 18th, 2006 at 3:46 pmI hear you.
It is a good thing to have the people supporting their government, yet are conscious enough and ready to stop it whenever it crosses the line.
August 18th, 2006 at 3:53 pmOf course we all have our own opinions on where that line is located, don’t we…
August 18th, 2006 at 3:58 pmYes of course, for me it’s when your freedom is at the cost of others’ rights. In other words: when you stop practicing your freedom and start invading the rights of others.
August 18th, 2006 at 4:02 pmWhat did you have in mind, specifically?
August 18th, 2006 at 4:12 pmI’m wondering if you might read this and tell me what you think of it.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTI2ZTRmYjg1OTA2ZjM1NGFhMDFjMDQ3ODJmYzA2MWE=
August 18th, 2006 at 5:16 pmI told you exactly what I have in mind.
August 18th, 2006 at 6:05 pmI agree with most of the article except a few things. One thing is how Israel is being victimised by mulims, and I guess that you know my opinion regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict. Another thing is that I don’t believe that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization which I made clear in my previous comments.
I agree with the fact that Imams should play a more active role in the lives of the young muslim generations who live in the west. The thing is that they live in communities and places where Islam is not very much alive, so they try to find their own Islamic identities in the wrong places. Some who call themselves muslims plant their twisted interpretation of Islam in the poor heads.
I don’t think that we will ever agree on who started what, or who is to balme for empowering the so called Jihadists.
August 19th, 2006 at 12:19 pmAre you still there, I was sick last week.
August 28th, 2006 at 11:09 amYeah I’m here .. I hope you’re feeling better :)
August 28th, 2006 at 5:26 pmAugust 28th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Thanks. I’m getting there. A couple of days in the hospital for what was probably a gallstone.
Anyhow, you interested in proceeding or leaving it be?
August 29th, 2006 at 9:52 amWho would leave a respectful exchange of thoughts!
Sure I’m interested in proceeding.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:24 pmIt’s always good to have a respectful exchange of thoughts. At some point, though, if neither party can even agree on the basics, then maybe there’s no point in proceeding.
What I wanted was to get to the issue of what, in your view, constitutes a terrorist group. It’s very hard for me to consider that anyone of good will could possibly consider Hezbollah as other than a terrorist group, whatever goodwill they might garner spending Iran’s money for the benefit of Lebanese citizens. What would define a terrorist group to you?
August 29th, 2006 at 1:38 pmFor me terrorists are the people who try to accomplish their own agenda by claiming that they are defending something- and those are the ones I condemn, or they may have a reason to be angry ,but use wrong means to express their anger and frustration- you may have guessed it, those are the ones I empathize with.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:49 pmI don’t really understand the post. Do you base your definition on tactics or goals?
August 29th, 2006 at 1:54 pmLet me put it this way .. Hezbollah is the product of years of oppression and anguish, they have the guts to stand up for what is seen by 100% of arabs and muslims as an occupation. I know that Iran’s involvement with the group is considered a great issue ,but they are supporting their fellow she’at. I’m not supporting Iran, I’m just stating the facts.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:58 pmgoals
August 29th, 2006 at 1:59 pmI’m not sure one could say 100% of any people could agree on anything, particularly something as questionable as Israel’s existence constituting an “occupation.” (I assume that’s what you mean.) Although I know Israel is not popular in the Arab world.
I would take issue with you that terrorism is definable by goals. What makes terrorism so repugnant is the willingness of the terrorist to violate norms and conventions in pursuit of his goal, not the goal itself. Intentionally murdering civilians, I would argue, is unacceptable whatever the goals they support, or however strongly the group believes in those goals.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:16 pmIntentionally murdering civilians, I would argue, is unacceptable whatever the goals they support, or however strongly the group believes in those goals.
I agree with U on that, but if we take Hezbollah as an example we will see that whatever the group does is not harmful for civilians especialy the Israelis. If Hezbollah were in my country, I would ask them to give up their weopons immediately. In lebanon it is a different story, people turn to Hezbollah to defend lebanese soil when the government does nothing. I mean Israeli soldiers were firing bombs from lebanon to bomb lebanon. Do you see what I mean?
August 29th, 2006 at 2:32 pmBut the only reason Israel was firing anything at all was because of Hezbollah’s provocation.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:35 pmDo u actually believe that the kidnapping of 2 soldiers deserves such a reaction?!
August 29th, 2006 at 2:38 pmI think when it tops the list of many other provocations, yes. No country would sit idly by while the resident army of another country repeatedly ventured into its territory and attacked them. What country would allow such a thing?
August 29th, 2006 at 2:46 pmThe way Israel acted made it look like the bad one, had it acted another way, the whole world would have taken it side. I know that no country would accept such provocations, but rights must be returned to their owners, and there are other ways to settle this in a more civilized way. Wars are so old fashion for me, and I think that force should be the last thing to do in these kind of situation. You can do so many things and come out looking like the good guy.
Alan you will never understand the way we feel here, the fact that we- as arab countries- kept our end of the bargain while Israel laughed when bombing our children made us sick of being the under dog. The people in the streets want to take their rights by their hands because the governments failed them time after time. This is why hezbollah is feeling strong.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:02 pmI think Hezbollah is feeling strong because Israel fought them badly, and even though they lost many fighters, at the end of the day they weren’t destroyed. A lot of the blame goes to Israel’s military and political leadership. Not for fighting, because they had to, but because they fought badly.
As for the whole world, the whole world will never take Israel’s side in any conflict, simply because it’s Israel. So time and time again we see Israel fight wars not of its choosing, and precipitated by others, and yet still be blamed. Israel is blamed for killing civilians unavoidably, while Hezbollah gets a pass for killing civilians by design.
As for war being so old-fashioned or uncivilized…until everyone feels that way they are going to be necessary. And what bargain are you talking about? Israel left Lebanon in 2000 with the understanding that the UN was going to disarm Hezbollah and keep the peace. That never happened. So who violated what bargain?
The one thing I agree with you, sort of, on, is when you talk about your “feelings. I do think that many Arabs “feel” downtrodden and alienated from the larger world around them. I think that’s why they either act out or support those who do. I don’t think, however, that feelings make an argument. An explanation, perhaps, but not an argument of why something should or should not be.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:20 pmIsrael left Lebanon, but not all Lebanon. You would say that the UN says Shaba’a farms belong to Syria, but they don’t as Syrians themselves say they are not.
Why wait for something from the UN before moving out from the occupied territories, not just in Lebanon, but also in Syria and Palestine. I think that these getures will show the world that Israel wants truly to live in peace with its neighbors.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:29 pmLook how much of the territory Israel occupied and then gave back. And look how much goodwill that brought them. Very little.
Ultimately, the line comes to the fact that many Arabs consider Israel to be 100% occupied territory. That’s certainly not negotiable to Israel, as it wouldn’t be to any other country.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:42 pmPut your self in the palestinian shoes, would you give up any part of the US? I don’t think so.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:44 pmI have to go for now .. write to you soon :)
August 29th, 2006 at 3:53 pmI don’t see the Palestinian issue as related to any US issue, but I can say this…if you have two peoples on one disputed piece of land, and one country was established and you either had the opportunity to have a smaller country, or none at all, then it would be wise to make the best deal you could. That was the TransJordanian Arab’s choice in 1947 and they decided to go all or nothing instead. Since then, every time the offer is re-extended–an astonishing thing in its own right–they say no then take up arms. And all they have now is a perenially sick society that values death and martyrdom above all else, and is too corrupt to function at more than minimal levels.
It comes a time that it really does go to culture. Imagine the Jews expending all of their collective energies in trying to get back all that was stolen from them during WW2. They’d have nothing and be nowhere. The Palestinian Arabs are enormously self-destructive.
Anyhow, I’ll catch you later.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:36 pm“if you have two peoples on one disputed piece of land, and one country was established and you either had the opportunity to have a smaller country, or none at all, then it would be wise to make the best deal you could. ”
“Imagine the Jews expending all of their collective energies in trying to get back all that was stolen from them during WW2.”
You are so contradicting yourself .. You admit that Israel has stolen a country from the Palestinian, then you say that they should accept a small piece of it .. Come on!
August 30th, 2006 at 5:22 pmI did no such thing. I said it was disputed. I think the land is Israel’s, but used an intentionally neutral phrase to describe the conflict. Where in there do you see that anything was “stolen?”
August 31st, 2006 at 10:00 amHere .. You said:
“Imagine the Jews expending all of their collective energies in trying to get back all that was stolen from them during WW2.â€
describing what the arabs are now doing concerning the Palestinian issue. You said that they would have had better communities if the had not wasted their time and resources on it.
And let me be clear on this point, why should anyone settle for a small amount of what is rightfully his?!
August 31st, 2006 at 8:26 pmThat the Jews didn’t spend all their energy trying to get back what the Nazis clearly stole speaks to the value of looking forward, not backward. My point was not that the two situations are equivalent–no indeed–rather, the Jews, with a much more clear cut grievance, didn’t spend all their human capital on the kind of violence and goals that would have proven ultimately self destructive, as the Palestinians have.
As for “what is rightfull his”–that’s the whole point of the dispute. I don’t believe Israel “rightfully” belongs to Palestinian Arabs. Israel was Jewish thousands of years ago…if we want to talk about who has the right to that land, that Jews can make a far stronger case than can Arabs whose ancestors were living in Jordan a hundred years ago.
September 1st, 2006 at 10:56 amIf you are talking this way, then I would say that the same thing goes to America. I mean it was settlements at first on Indian lands, then these settlements grew to form the US. This means that the lands of the US are Indians, and they have the right to throw the americans out.
I believe in both people living together side by side. No boundries dividing the states, but two peoples of different ethnicities sharing a land and living in peace. Don’t tell me that this is what the Israeli government is trying to do because the way in which they treat the palestinians clearly speaks of their intentions.
Most of the jews that are living in palestine nowadays are of european descent, they are not the jews who once lived in the land of palestine as most of those have converted to christianity then to islam.
September 1st, 2006 at 3:55 pmIt’s very hard for me to understand how you can view the Israeli government as not wanting to live in peace, when all of their military operations are defensive. From the country’s inception, they have had to defend themselves from almost constant attempts to eradicate them. Time and time again, they’ve been attacked. Time and time again, they’ve offered land-real and actual land–for the chimera of peace. And how do they treat the Palestinians? They supply them electricty and water. Until the intifadas they gave them jobs in Israel proper. They’ve made repeated offers of peace. And the Palestinians raise their children to hate Jews, raise a generation to value self-detonation as the highest honor, and don’t even acknowledge Israel on maps of the middle east.
It takes an astonishing reversal of logic to see Israel as the aggressor.
And if you had these two peoples living side by side, you’d have Jews being victimized by Arabs. There’s little question of that. You’d also turn Israel into the non-functional corrupt entity that the PA runs.
As for the Jews who once lived in Israel…the diaspora scattered Jews to the far corners of the Earth. Many did remain in Israel, and I don’t know where you get this conversion business–unless you mean the ones who were forced to convert. Many Jews did remain, all throughout the middle east, but were repeatedly massacred or exiled over the centuries, reducing their numbers. It’s funny that you argue for the right of people to return to their homeland after a few generations, but not for those who hold a far older claim to their homeland.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:43 amHey .. nice hearing from U again.
Would you mind telling me where are you from?
Throughout this conversation I honestly believed that we will reach some kind of middle ground, but unfortunately we did not. At least for my self I found this experience very much enlightening, being able to hear another opinion or point of view of the crisis.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:15 pmI’m glad you feel that way, although I’m sorry we weren’t able to find anything to agree upon. For my part, you do seem like a person of good will, although I must admit it’s very hard for me to understand how you view the issue. At any rate, I’m in the United States.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:08 pmI believe this puts an end to our conversation in this thread, but I hope to hear from you again in other threads.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:07 amFair enough, thanks. Good luck to you.
September 7th, 2006 at 9:44 amVisa Internet Banking
Scotia Online Banking Sign On
March 17th, 2008 at 10:11 amcorporate apartment
I found your post by searching Google. Very informative. I have similar updates on my site and I hope you don’t mind if I include this in my own site.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:26 pmAllison Hannigan
I think you are absolutely on track here!
March 18th, 2008 at 8:34 pmarab film distribution
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !
March 20th, 2008 at 4:40 amRamonita
Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment
March 20th, 2008 at 10:21 pmPay Day Loan
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:28 amDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:52 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:52 amBoobs Unreal Boobs Boobies
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 2:35 amPicture Framing Service
I enjoyed reading your blog. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:27 pmCracks House
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 12:19 amBig Tits Soft Tits Hot Tits
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 2:18 amBaby Massage
I enjoyed reading your blog. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:31 pmGertude
Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:25 am