It's not lookin like no fantasy, dickface, it looks pretty solid

http://tinyurl.com/bkgtd

Kudos to Jews of conscience for coming to their senses and breaking with American far-right cyborgs like Steve

This is the second big move against the Bush junta by Jewish organizations in as many days. Something very interesting is afoot. Are the Bushies about to go down like the Titanic?

Yes, these Reform Jews are now opposed to the Iraq war when taking such a position is no longer dangerous. What a daring move! But how do they feel about a Palestinian state? Oh, why did I have to bring that subject up? It's so embarrassing to Reformed Judaism.

Neoconservatism in the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States

I think the following passages in the Wikipedia article are relevent:

"In foreign policy critics argue that neoconservatives have a tendency to view the world in 1939 terms, comparing the threat from adversaries as diverse as the Soviet Union, Osama bin Laden (and, more broadly, Islamofascism), and China to the threat then-posed by Nazi Germany, while American leaders such as Reagan and Bush stand in for Winston Churchill. There is also a tendency to compare leftists, and others who oppose them to Neville Chamberlain, as appeasers and/or Anti-American."

and

"Many prominent neoconservatives are not Jewish, among them Michael Novak, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Frank Gaffney, and Max Boot. Furthermore, neoconservatives in the 1960s were much less interested in Israel before the June 1967 Six Day War. It was only after this conflict, which raised the specter of unopposed Soviet influence in the Middle East, that the neoconservatives became preoccupied by Israel's security interests."

and

"Identification with the State of Israel's struggle against terrorism was furthered by the September 11 terrorist attacks"


Some well known neoconservatives are Jewish and among antiSemitic conspiracy theorists the overrepresentation of Jews among neocons seems to have meaning. The thing is the percentage of Jewish intellectuals in foriegn policy think tanks who are neocons is probably less than the percentage in groups that oppose the neocons. Pointing to Pipes, Kristol and others being Jewish is about the same as pointing at Barbara Lubin, Dennis Bernstein, Amy Goodman and Chomsky as being Jewish and somehow thinking this means there is a Jewish conspiracy to oppose Israel.

zionism is a form of judao-fascism, the state supported counterweight to non-state islamo-anarchism, much of the latter of which in palestine consists of legimitate resistance per international law.

Thank you Indybay for making this place more peaceful. The propagandists, trolls, gatekeepers can find another place to spew their lies.

toothless: "Never again will you be able to play your favorite head game of smearing fake blood on yourselves on streetcorners and bawling "VIGG-KA-TIMM!!!""

Even by the intellectually shabby standards of toothless, this comment is just completely fucked up, isn't it.

Is there still a soul left reading this site who believes toothless is driven by anything other than raw hate? Yet he's still allowed to post here, while the posts that call bullshit on him will mysteriously disappear -- without, of course, a suitable explanation from the editors, who can't be bothered with such things.

@%<

I think he rightfully points out the 'persecution mentality' that seems rampant in the postings from the 'pro-israel, all the time' crowd of trolls that has spammed this site for a long time. It's like saying the U.S. is the victim in Iraq, or the whites were the victim in South Africa.....It makes no sense.

its good that the reformist jews are coming around, albeit, late. however, those resisting the judao-fascist state and the christian pat robertson fascists are necessarily a good thing. alliances can always be made.

look at the sandinistas in managua, nicaragua - they've combined with a small right wing group in their congress to block passage of CAFTA - the american fascists are quite miffed about that. the sandinistas also control most of the judiciary. thus the pro-american puppet president is surrounded by his enemies.

all this after the u.s. fascists carpet bombed the country practically out of existence. in fact, the international court of justice condemned the americans for the crime of international terrorism.

one of the few times that the ICF and security council have had the guts to stand up to the american fascisti.

viva che!!!!

Your comment is in the right spirit, but let's get it right for the sake of historical accuracy. It was actually much worse than that. What we did was recruit, train, equip, deploy, and continuously support a vast army of some of the most sadistic terrorists the world has ever seen

Our terrorism GOOOOOOOOD

Icky rag-head turrism BAAAAAAAAAAD

We did the same thing to Cuba 20 years earlier, and so now the Bush Reich is sheltering the most vicious terrorist in the western hemisphere

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153/

We did the same shit to Guatemala 10 years before that

And eastern Europe even before that

Be proud, America, be proud...
International terrorism is just another one of your glorious gifts to the world

What happened to all the comments from the 20-23rd?

Here is one of my comments that got disapeared. it really needs the rest of the thread to make it "lucid" as was stated before the purge.

A Zionist is someone (anyone) who believes that Jewish people from anywhere in the world have more of a right to live in Palestine than an indigenous inhabitant of Palestine does. If you believe that Jewish people have more of a right to land, security, a nation, a good night sleep in a home, or to fly apache helicopters and F-16s around shooting missiles in Palestine than a Palestinian does you are a Zionist.

Zionism is expressing ideas or taking actions that give Jewish people more rights in Palestine that Palestinians have. Its violent racism in a specific place against the natural inhabitants and communities of that place and its called Palestine.

Oddly Zionist are the most anti Semitic people on the planet. Mainly because the Arabs they are ethnically cleansing are Semites. Additionally because there are more Palestinians who want to live at home in Palestine than their are Jews who want to leave their homes around the world and trespass on land they steal from people they have killed, Zionist undermine(threaten) integrated Jewish communities to push Jews to move to their US junk bonded land scheme.

Bizarrely Zionist believes that Jewish people can’t be racist and that only non Jewish people are racist. Thus they have monopolized the market on "anti Semitism" not allowing that the Arab children they kill and rob are Semites.

Lots of rats are jumping off the neo con (yes each and every one of them is a Zionist) war ship. This just highlights that they have been on it.

<<<<Neoconservatism in the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States

I think the following passages in the Wikipedia article are relevent:>>>>>

jewish groups like the adl, jewish federation and many others, that work as a combined propaganda block to great effect, heavily influence the writings in wikipedia. when they go into attack mode, the writers cave in almost all the time and sheepishly accept those organizations skewed world view.

so no, i do not accept your premise that wikipedia should be considered an objective, reliable source any more than i would trust the adl's "censorship" of the internet.

here's a lesson on kicking american nazi aggression the peaceful way. i haven't read anything about this in the new york times or other propaganda machines.


From Cairo, Hope

by Ray McGovern
The surprising degree of consensus reached by the main Iraqi factions at the Arab League-orchestrated Reconciliation Conference in Cairo last weekend sharply undercuts the unilateral, guns-and-puppets approach of the Bush administration to the deteriorating situation in Iraq. The common demand, by Shia and Kurds as well as Sunnis, for a timetable for withdrawal of occupation forces demolishes the administration's argument that setting such a timetable would be a huge mistake. Who would know better—the Iraqis or the ideologues advising Bush?

Withdrawal of Occupation Forces

The final communiqué has not been formally released, but linguists at al-Hayat, the Arab-language newspaper in London, have translated this key passage into English:

"We demand the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with a timetable, and the establishment of a national and immediate program for rebuilding the armed forces … that will allow them to guard Iraq's borders and to get control of the security situation…."

It is no accident that pride of place is given to the demand for withdrawal and that rebuilding the armed forces comes second. The Bush administration insists it must be the other way around; i.e., that rebuilding the Iraqi army is a precondition for withdrawal.

Also of note was the conference decision to differentiate terrorism sharply from "legitimate" resistance and to avoid condemning violence against occupation troops:

"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources, and houses of worship."

For good measure, the final communiqué also demanded "an immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order," release of all "innocent detainees," and investigation of "allegations of torture of prisoners."

The communiqué's feisty tone was facilitated by the conspicuous and unexplained absence of U.S. representatives. By shunning the conference, administration officials missed the beginning of a process that has within it the seeds of real progress toward peace. In addition to more than 100 Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish participants, the conference was attended by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika and the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran – but no U.S. officials. The gathering was strongly supported not only by the Arab League but also by the UN, EU, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

All in all, the various Iraqi factions, including interim government officials, displayed unusual willingness to make the compromises necessary to reach consensus on key issues – like ending the occupation. Key Sunni leader Saleh Mutyla had set the tone shortly before the conference, even though the U.S. chose that time to launch "Operation Steel Curtain," the largest foray into Sunni territory this year. Mutyla nonetheless indicated that the resistance would agree to a cease-fire in exchange for U.S. withdrawal.

Reaching Out to the Sunnis

One main purpose of the Reconciliation Conference was to engage the Sunni parties in the political process, and several of the Sunni participants have close ties with nationalist Sunni insurgents. Agreement that resistance is a "legitimate right" and the decision not to apply the word "terrorism" to attacks on occupation forces were two significant olive branches held out to the Sunnis. In recognizing the right to resist the occupation, the conference severely undercut Bush administration attempts to paint Sunnis as Saddam loyalists or al-Qaeda collaborators. In contrast, the Sunnis were made to feel like full-fledged partners in this newly begun search for a peaceful solution sans occupation.

Underscoring that point, Iraqi Interim President Talabani, an ethnic Kurd, made an unprecedented offer:

"If those who describe themselves as Iraqi resistance want to contact me, they are welcome. … I am committed to listen to them, even those who are criminals…."

From Washington, Pouting

The administration's initial reaction seemed designed to put Talabani and other negotiation-welcoming Iraqi officials in their place. On Monday, addressing the issue of troop withdrawal, State Department spokesperson Justin Higgins said:

"Multinational forces are present in Iraq under a mandate from the UN Security Council. As President Bush has said, the coalition remains committed to helping the Iraqi people achieve security and stability as they rebuild their country. We will stay as long as it takes to achieve those goals and no longer."

Yesterday, another State Department spokesperson repeated this mantra after giving lip service to U.S. support for "the ongoing transitional political process in Iraq."

With a full-fledged peace conference scheduled for February, and elections in mid-December, Washington has little time to waste if it wants to influence the peace process begun at the Reconciliation Conference in Cairo. The demand for the withdrawal of occupation troops creates an opening. But with the "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" and neoconservative policymakers still in charge, and jittery Democrats only slowly seeing the light, it is doubtful that the administration will seize the opportunity – even though doing so would probably enhance Republican chances in next year's midterm elections.

This may change, however, because other pressures are mounting. America's front-line Army and Marine battalion commanders in Iraq have gone behind Rumsfeld's back to spill their guts to Senate Armed Forces Committee Chair John Warner. And Rep. John Murtha, retired Marine and a leading defense advocate on the Hill, has introduced a bill calling for troop withdrawal "as soon as practicable."

Together, that initiative, the mini-mutiny among field-grade officers, and the outcome of the Cairo conference could conceivably break the Gordian knot in Congress. In calling for withdrawal, Murtha has made a critical bridge from the hawkish center to a majority of Americans and to progressives in Congress.

These recent events open up a new chapter in the history of this war. Iraqi politics, U.S. public opinion, and military necessity all argue for the United States to lend its support to the national reconciliation process. Yet, even faced with such an obvious chance to climb out of the Iraq quagmire, there is still little sign that the "Cheney-Rumsfeld Cabal" will be able to veer from the prevailing predilection to self-destruct.

The president's current advisers are the same ones who brought us Iraq – and for reasons other than those given. It would take very strong pressure to get them to relinquish their twin vision of permanent military bases in Iraq and influence over what happens to the oil there. The president is not likely to argue with the ideologues around him, nor has he shown any willingness to broaden the circle of his advisers. The only realistic hope may lie with Republican congressional candidates. Already sweating over the growing unpopularity of the war, the Republicans running in '06 may be the only ones who can break through the White House palace guard and argue persuasively against the increasingly obvious folly of "staying the course."