Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Israeli War Crimes
This is a summary of israeli war crimes in Palestine for the week ending 24 March 2005. 8mins (english)
Listen now:
PCHR
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights
http://www.pchrgaza.org
Weekly Report: On Israeli Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
No. 11/2005
17- 23 Mar. 2005
Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) Launch Attacks in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT)
· 10 Palestinian civilians, including 6 children, were wounded by IOF.
· Construction of the “annexation wall” in the West Bank has continued; more areas of Palestinian land were confiscated for this purpose and Bethlehem has been separated from East Jerusalem.
· Israeli settlers have continued to attack Palestinian civilians and property in the West Bank; the Israeli government approved a plan to build 3500 housing unit in "Ma'ale Adomim" settlement, east of Jerusalem.
· IOF conducted a series of incursions into Palestinian areas.
· Houses were raided and at least 20 Palestinian civilians were arrested.
· A number of houses were transformed by IOF into military sites.
· IOF have continued to impose a total siege on the OPT; IOF have imposed a comprehensive closure on the OPT for the Jewish Purim; IOF have continued to close a number of roads since the beginning of the current Intifada, IOF have used a new checking set at Rafah International Crossing Point, IOF positioned at checkpoints arrested a number of Palestinian civilians and 2 Palestinian civilians were seriously wounded by IOF positioned at checkpoints.
Introduction
Despite the Palestinian commitment to cease hostilities, which was further emphasized by Palestinian resistance groups in Cairo last week, Israeli occupation forces (IOF) have disregarded understandings concluded with the Palestinian side and launched more attacks against Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). This week, human rights violations perpetrated by IOF included shooting at Palestinian civilians, incursions into Palestinian areas, house raids and arbitrary arrests. In violation of international law and humanitarian law, IOF have also continued to construct the annexation wall inside the West Bank territory and confiscated more areas of Palestinian land for this purpose. They have continued to expand existing settlements at the expense of Palestinian land, in an attempt to create irreversible facts on the ground that will complicate negotiations on the final status of the OPT. Contrary to Israeli official claims, IOF have continued to impose severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians.
This week, IOF conducted a series of incursions into Palestinian areas in the West Bank, during which they opened fire at residential areas and raided and searched houses. Seven Palestinian civilians, including 6 children, were wounded, and 16 others were arrested by IOF. A house was also burnt and a foreign journalist was injured in Bal'ein village, west of Ramallah. In the Gaza Strip, IOF conducted 3 military incursions into Khan Yunis, Gaza City and Wadi al-Salqa village. They arrested 3 Palestinian children who apparently attempted to infiltrate into Israel to search for jobs. On 18 March 2005, IOF moved into the Israeli- controlled al-Mawasi area in Khan Yunis and arrested a Palestinian civilian.
IOF have continued to construct the annexation wall inside the West Bank territory. IOF resumed land leveling in the vicinity of Bilal Ben Rabah Mosque at the northern entrance to Bethlehem, for the purpose of the construction of a section of the wall, which will close the main entrance to the town and separate it from Jerusalem. According to local sources, the construction of this section of the wall will isolate the northern part of the town and will restrict the movement of its residents. They also started to raze more areas of Palestinian agricultural land in Sourif village, northwest of Hebron, for the purpose of the construction of a section of the wall. On 22 March 2005, IOF moved into Dahiat al-Barid area, north of East Jerusalem, and resumed placing signs that determine the route of the wall.
Israeli settlers living in the OPT in violation of international humanitarian law have launched a series of attacks against Palestinian civilians and property. IOF have continued to confiscate areas of Palestinian land for settlement activities. This week, Israeli sources revealed that the Israeli government approved two plans to build 3500 housing units between East Jerusalem and "Ma'ale Adomim" settlement to the east. These plans will practically expand the aforementioned settlement towards East Jerusalem and will prevent geographical contiguity of the future Palestinian state. On 17 and 18 March 2005, Israeli settlers attacked Palestinian civilians and injured 4 of them, including 3 workers.
Contrary to Israeli claims, IOF have continued to impose a tightened siege on the OPT, including Jerusalem. Since Wednesday morning, 23 March 2005, IOF have imposed a comprehensive closure on the OPT for the Jewish Purim. This closure will continue until Monday morning, 28 March 2005.
In the Gaza Strip, IOF have continued to completely or partially close all border crossings of the Gaza Strip, and impose severe restrictions on the internal movement of Palestinian civilians. They have also continued to close a number of roads and crossings in the Gaza Strip since the beginning of the current Intifada. IOF have continued to impose a strict siege on Palestinian communities near Israeli settlements, causing more suffering to Palestinian civilians. On 19 March 2005, IOF informed 16 Palestinian families living near "Kissufim" settler road, northeast of Khan Yunis, that they would establish an electronic gate in the area to control the movement of these families. Since the beginning of this month, IOF has used a special checking machine, which causes health problems, particularly for pregnant women. Although the Palestinian side rejected the use of this machine, IOF have continued to use it. On 22 March 2005, the Palestinian Ministry of Health issued a statement warning of health impacts of this checking set.
In the West Bank, IOF have continued to impose a strict siege on Palestinian communities. They have also imposed severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians. This week, they erected a number of sudden military checkpoints. They stopped and checked Palestinian civilians and arrested 3 of them. Two Palestinian civilians, including a woman, were also injured by IOF positioned at military checkpoints.
The full report is available online at:
http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/W_report/English/2005/24-03-2005.htm
Public Document
**************************************
For more information please call PCHR office in Gaza, Gaza Strip, on +972 8 2824776 - 2825893
PCHR, 29 Omer El Mukhtar St., El Remal, PO Box 1328 Gaza, Gaza Strip. E-mail:pchr [at] pchrgaza.org, Webpage http://www.pchrgaza.org
-----------------------------------
If you got this forwarded and you want to subscribe, send mail to request [at] pchrgaza.org
and write "subscribe" in the subject line.
------
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
"This week, they erected a number of sudden military checkpoints. They stopped and checked Palestinian civilians and arrested 3 of them. Two Palestinian civilians, including a woman, were also injured by IOF positioned at military checkpoints.
"
The good news is that the PA has also been stopping these crimianls before they blow up inncoent people...we can only hope the PA will continue to do so, however reent reports show that the PA is helping to smuggle rockets into the Gaza...
"
The good news is that the PA has also been stopping these crimianls before they blow up inncoent people...we can only hope the PA will continue to do so, however reent reports show that the PA is helping to smuggle rockets into the Gaza...
If Israel is really interested in Peace, Why does it not do the few things that would bring that Peace?
1. If they want a wall on their Border...They should build it on the pre 1967 (Green Line) Border.
2. They should allow the Palestinian People to have their viable Palestinian State in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza, which is only 22% of what is today Israel, West Bank and Gaza.
The U.S. is made up of many races and nationalities.
Surly you can have Israel (that already has 1,200,000 Arabs) with a Jewish majority and an Arab minority, you can have Palestine with a Palestinian majority and a Jewish minority of about 400,000. Once you have this Viable Palestinian State, the Jews who do not want to live in it can move to Israel proper, and the Arabs who do not want to live in Israel can move to Palestine.
Why do you have to have Government forced movement of People. Let it be voluntary.
1. If they want a wall on their Border...They should build it on the pre 1967 (Green Line) Border.
2. They should allow the Palestinian People to have their viable Palestinian State in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza, which is only 22% of what is today Israel, West Bank and Gaza.
The U.S. is made up of many races and nationalities.
Surly you can have Israel (that already has 1,200,000 Arabs) with a Jewish majority and an Arab minority, you can have Palestine with a Palestinian majority and a Jewish minority of about 400,000. Once you have this Viable Palestinian State, the Jews who do not want to live in it can move to Israel proper, and the Arabs who do not want to live in Israel can move to Palestine.
Why do you have to have Government forced movement of People. Let it be voluntary.
Mar. 28, 2005 8:33 | Updated Mar. 28, 2005 9:53
Plan to make Kassam-like rockets foiled
By MARGOT DUDKEVITCH
Security forces arrested eight Islamic Jihad fugitives in raids overnight in the West Bank city of Jenin and the village Fahame south of the city. They were said to be involved in attempting to manufacture homemade rockets similar to Kassams to be used in attacks against Israel.
Troops were dispatched to the area to search for the wanted men before dawn Monday, after intelligence information had been received about their operations.
An IDF soldier sustained light wounds when a bomb was detonated near the troops. He was taken to hospital in Israel.
Security officials said cell members had carried out a number of failed attempts to fire the rockets.
They were unable to confirm reports that the cell members were in contact with members of Hamas who were arrested several weeks ago in Yamoun near Jenin and also involved in trying to manufacture Kassam rockets.
During the raid in Yamoun, at least one completed Kassam rocket ready for firing was found by troops who estimated at the time that two others had apparently been test fired in the hills.
In addition to the rockets, soldiers found a cache including a deadly roadside bomb, three pipe bombs and numerous containers of explosives and other chemicals for manufacturing bombs.
The "factory" hidden in a secret room at a metal works shop in the village was destroyed in a controlled explosion. Security officials estimate that a number of Hamas cells operating in the northern West Bank are making concentrated efforts to manufacture Kassam rockets to be used in attacks inside Israel, such as Afula.
Taking advantage of the relative calm that prevails in the area, terror groups are attempting to strengthen their capability in preparation for attacks against Israeli targets in the future officials said.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1111980175794
Plan to make Kassam-like rockets foiled
By MARGOT DUDKEVITCH
Security forces arrested eight Islamic Jihad fugitives in raids overnight in the West Bank city of Jenin and the village Fahame south of the city. They were said to be involved in attempting to manufacture homemade rockets similar to Kassams to be used in attacks against Israel.
Troops were dispatched to the area to search for the wanted men before dawn Monday, after intelligence information had been received about their operations.
An IDF soldier sustained light wounds when a bomb was detonated near the troops. He was taken to hospital in Israel.
Security officials said cell members had carried out a number of failed attempts to fire the rockets.
They were unable to confirm reports that the cell members were in contact with members of Hamas who were arrested several weeks ago in Yamoun near Jenin and also involved in trying to manufacture Kassam rockets.
During the raid in Yamoun, at least one completed Kassam rocket ready for firing was found by troops who estimated at the time that two others had apparently been test fired in the hills.
In addition to the rockets, soldiers found a cache including a deadly roadside bomb, three pipe bombs and numerous containers of explosives and other chemicals for manufacturing bombs.
The "factory" hidden in a secret room at a metal works shop in the village was destroyed in a controlled explosion. Security officials estimate that a number of Hamas cells operating in the northern West Bank are making concentrated efforts to manufacture Kassam rockets to be used in attacks inside Israel, such as Afula.
Taking advantage of the relative calm that prevails in the area, terror groups are attempting to strengthen their capability in preparation for attacks against Israeli targets in the future officials said.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1111980175794
A reasonable person wrote:
"If Israel is really interested in Peace, Why does it not do the few things that would bring that Peace?
1. If they want a wall on their Border...They should build it on the pre 1967 (Green Line) Border.
2. They should allow the Palestinian People to have their viable Palestinian State in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza, which is only 22% of what is today Israel, West Bank and Gaza.
A closed fanatical zionist wanker responded:
"Israel is occupying nothing ... It is the Palestinians who want to occupy Israel."
Hmmmm. Let's look at this in graphic terms:
Go here: http://www.concert4palestine.org/palestine/c.html and then look at the maps on this page, which document the progression of the Israeli land grab. Actually, the whole presentation here is quite lucid. This a blatant simple invasion. What would you do if, say, the French came and did this to YOUR traditions, YOUR society, YOUR family?
So to answer the question "does Israel Really Want Peace?" I'd have to say no, obviously not, and that Critical Bigot's position -- the standard of simple expansionist bigots who cloak themselves in the "Zionist" canard -- is totally disingenuous and manipulative. The "Zionists" don't want peace, they just want to keep grabbing the land. And their Prime Excuse for doing this is to keep the Palestinians crazy mad, thus driving them to military action, while denying them an actual military. It's essentially the exact same thing that was done to the Native Americans, but at least then we were honest enough to call it what it was: a plain simple bigot program of "westward expansion." In place of this simple honesty, the Israeli expansionist bigot faction has cooked up a slur out of thin air, i.e. that the Palestinian militants are "terrorists" instead of a marginalized partisan underground (the pre-bullshit framework). In this way, the Zionists cleverly use language to trick you into believing the Palestinians DESERVE to be treated like vicious vermin who deserve no consideration or justice. Jewish culture is an undeniable fount of intellectual brilliance, but this is a value-neutral attribute; one of its negatives is the spectacular creative gift for such word games seen among Jews of bad character. Among this faction, the brutal abuses of the Palestinian natives are fully justified because they're plain simple virulent bigots. No, Jews don't count as THE native people here anymore, with a preclusive claim to the land. People who vacate a place 1600+ years ago lose that claim.
If you actually believe in the democratic ideal, instead of just mouth it, you owe it to yourself to not fall for these cheap semantic stunts.
The "terrorist" epithet -- which does see legitimate useage, the premier example being U.S. foreign policy -- has increasingly become the modern equivalent of older Orwellian constructs, e.g. "insurgent" and "communist sympathizer." The latter was similarly used to totally marginalize and dismiss anyone who adopted perfectly legitimate critiques of capitalism. And of course the propaganda services (a.k.a. "media") of the Western Empires, for whom Israel is just an exercise in strategic expansion, totally push the "terrorist" slur. The best way to understand U.S. military aid is as a cold-blooded and very effective global conquest program; they pour money into any party that serves their megalomaniacal interests, and in direct proportion to the degree that they do so. Period. That's why Israel gets the most, by far. The "terrorism" construct is a superb Orwellian construct, highly evasive of analysis, and so we're seeing the Western Empires adopt it more and more for use elsewhere. Like Iraq, where we're now also seeing a marginalized partisan underground deligitimized as "terrorists." The two situations -- Iraq and Israel -- are perfectly analogous, and "terrorism" is simply an ingenious propaganda device the spinners have used to shut down your ability, your DUTY, to analyze the dynamics for yourself. This is the essence of what "Public Relations" does. It's fantastically effective and even more fantastically secretive, moreso than even U.S. intelligence agencies, which are at least subject to elite channels of civilian oversight. In all likelihood, your comprehension of the world is a garbled mass of such lies, and it's important to try to extricate yourself from them. Elite parties have done this precisely to keep you hopelessly confused and thus powerless, and they're master criminals, who use their power malevolently. They don't deserve so much power; they're avowed class enemies of 99% of humanity, not to mention of the whole living planet. The most powerful way YOU can implode that power is by simply breaking the chains they've wrapped around your brain, and you CAN do it. You must find your deep kernel of greatness, your inner messiah... If you're at all passionate about the ideal of magnificient spiritual heroism, then you have that very thing inside yourself. Find it. Unleash it.
If you fail to wrest their power from them, you will allow them to destroy the world, and you will thus be complicit in a global genocide that will destroy your own descendants. There's simply no clearer way to put it. Their criminal greed reflects full-blown psychopathy, a primary symptom of which is a profound inability to consider the future. Far more than a way to atone for the excesses of the Nazis, Israel is a front line in this epic human battle for sanity and survival.
"If Israel is really interested in Peace, Why does it not do the few things that would bring that Peace?
1. If they want a wall on their Border...They should build it on the pre 1967 (Green Line) Border.
2. They should allow the Palestinian People to have their viable Palestinian State in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza, which is only 22% of what is today Israel, West Bank and Gaza.
A closed fanatical zionist wanker responded:
"Israel is occupying nothing ... It is the Palestinians who want to occupy Israel."
Hmmmm. Let's look at this in graphic terms:
Go here: http://www.concert4palestine.org/palestine/c.html and then look at the maps on this page, which document the progression of the Israeli land grab. Actually, the whole presentation here is quite lucid. This a blatant simple invasion. What would you do if, say, the French came and did this to YOUR traditions, YOUR society, YOUR family?
So to answer the question "does Israel Really Want Peace?" I'd have to say no, obviously not, and that Critical Bigot's position -- the standard of simple expansionist bigots who cloak themselves in the "Zionist" canard -- is totally disingenuous and manipulative. The "Zionists" don't want peace, they just want to keep grabbing the land. And their Prime Excuse for doing this is to keep the Palestinians crazy mad, thus driving them to military action, while denying them an actual military. It's essentially the exact same thing that was done to the Native Americans, but at least then we were honest enough to call it what it was: a plain simple bigot program of "westward expansion." In place of this simple honesty, the Israeli expansionist bigot faction has cooked up a slur out of thin air, i.e. that the Palestinian militants are "terrorists" instead of a marginalized partisan underground (the pre-bullshit framework). In this way, the Zionists cleverly use language to trick you into believing the Palestinians DESERVE to be treated like vicious vermin who deserve no consideration or justice. Jewish culture is an undeniable fount of intellectual brilliance, but this is a value-neutral attribute; one of its negatives is the spectacular creative gift for such word games seen among Jews of bad character. Among this faction, the brutal abuses of the Palestinian natives are fully justified because they're plain simple virulent bigots. No, Jews don't count as THE native people here anymore, with a preclusive claim to the land. People who vacate a place 1600+ years ago lose that claim.
If you actually believe in the democratic ideal, instead of just mouth it, you owe it to yourself to not fall for these cheap semantic stunts.
The "terrorist" epithet -- which does see legitimate useage, the premier example being U.S. foreign policy -- has increasingly become the modern equivalent of older Orwellian constructs, e.g. "insurgent" and "communist sympathizer." The latter was similarly used to totally marginalize and dismiss anyone who adopted perfectly legitimate critiques of capitalism. And of course the propaganda services (a.k.a. "media") of the Western Empires, for whom Israel is just an exercise in strategic expansion, totally push the "terrorist" slur. The best way to understand U.S. military aid is as a cold-blooded and very effective global conquest program; they pour money into any party that serves their megalomaniacal interests, and in direct proportion to the degree that they do so. Period. That's why Israel gets the most, by far. The "terrorism" construct is a superb Orwellian construct, highly evasive of analysis, and so we're seeing the Western Empires adopt it more and more for use elsewhere. Like Iraq, where we're now also seeing a marginalized partisan underground deligitimized as "terrorists." The two situations -- Iraq and Israel -- are perfectly analogous, and "terrorism" is simply an ingenious propaganda device the spinners have used to shut down your ability, your DUTY, to analyze the dynamics for yourself. This is the essence of what "Public Relations" does. It's fantastically effective and even more fantastically secretive, moreso than even U.S. intelligence agencies, which are at least subject to elite channels of civilian oversight. In all likelihood, your comprehension of the world is a garbled mass of such lies, and it's important to try to extricate yourself from them. Elite parties have done this precisely to keep you hopelessly confused and thus powerless, and they're master criminals, who use their power malevolently. They don't deserve so much power; they're avowed class enemies of 99% of humanity, not to mention of the whole living planet. The most powerful way YOU can implode that power is by simply breaking the chains they've wrapped around your brain, and you CAN do it. You must find your deep kernel of greatness, your inner messiah... If you're at all passionate about the ideal of magnificient spiritual heroism, then you have that very thing inside yourself. Find it. Unleash it.
If you fail to wrest their power from them, you will allow them to destroy the world, and you will thus be complicit in a global genocide that will destroy your own descendants. There's simply no clearer way to put it. Their criminal greed reflects full-blown psychopathy, a primary symptom of which is a profound inability to consider the future. Far more than a way to atone for the excesses of the Nazis, Israel is a front line in this epic human battle for sanity and survival.
The Palestinians should do a few things:
They should stop their terrorist attacks on the Israelis,
They should dismantle the terrorist organizations,
They should recognize Israel's right to exist.
They should stop teaching their children that they have to kill Israelis and take their land.
The Palestinians should make themselves responsible for their own decisions and for their own future:
Why didn't they accept a state when it was given to them?
If they want to have rights, why don't they ask for them to their authorities?
If they want to be better-off, why don't they ask their government for responsabilities as to how the international aid was spent?
Why don't they urge their government to stop attacking Israel and start working for its people?
"The "terrorist" epithet -- which does see legitimate useage, the premier example being U.S. foreign policy -- has increasingly become the modern equivalent of older Orwellian constructs, e.g. "insurgent" and "communist sympathizer." The latter was similarly used to totally marginalize and dismiss anyone who adopted perfectly legitimate critiques of capitalism. And of course the propaganda services "
Do you mean that blowing up people on a bus or in a disco is legitimate? Is blowing up people a kind of criticism?
Do you mean that blowing up people on a bus or in a disco is legitimate? Is blowing up people a kind of criticism?
Terorrist as a word carries with it a lot more than an accusation about individual actions. Its ofetn used to demonize a whole peopel rather than just those who carry out certain actions. During the Lebanese civil war all Palestinians (including civilians living in camps) were called terrorists byt he Christian militia and their press. One likewise hears any sympathy for Palestinians described as sympathizing with terrorists as if there are no innocent Palestinians... Because of the use of the word terrorist to justify wars and mass killings, it should never be used, just as one should never use other racist epithets like n***r, k**ke... You can try to say that there should be no problem using the term when describing actual mass murders of Israelis civlians but as with other racist epithets doing so comes across as hate speech. If a news show described a drive-by shooting as being carried out by n**rs there would be a huge outcry that the broadcast was racist even though nobody arguing would be defending the driveby. Was the school shooting in Minnesota terrorism? How about the Texas oil refinary that blew up? If BP knew there was a risk and ignored it to make more would that make an explosion at their plant that killed 15+ civilians terrorism? The use of the word "terorrist" is hate speech used to demonize ceratin groups of peopel for political reasons.
>>>"You can try to say that there should be no problem using the term when describing actual mass murders of Israelis civlians but as with other racist epithets doing so comes across as hate speech."
"The use of the word "terorrist" is hate speech used to demonize ceratin groups of peopel for political reasons."<<<
One rather Liberal writer in that bastion of leftist politicaql correctness, the NYT, would now beg to differ.
I say, branding a certain atrocity an act of terror is justified whether committed by a Palestinian or an Israeli Jew. Invariably, the same people worried about how the word sounds when employed to depict Arab actions aren't concerned the least when it's attached to Jewish acts.
>>>"Because of the use of the word terrorist to justify wars and mass killings, it should never be used, just as one should never use other racist epithets like n***r, k**ke..."<<<
There's no comparing racist slurs to a word which certain people find problematic due to its perceived negative connotations and potential derogatory character.
"The use of the word "terorrist" is hate speech used to demonize ceratin groups of peopel for political reasons."<<<
One rather Liberal writer in that bastion of leftist politicaql correctness, the NYT, would now beg to differ.
I say, branding a certain atrocity an act of terror is justified whether committed by a Palestinian or an Israeli Jew. Invariably, the same people worried about how the word sounds when employed to depict Arab actions aren't concerned the least when it's attached to Jewish acts.
>>>"Because of the use of the word terrorist to justify wars and mass killings, it should never be used, just as one should never use other racist epithets like n***r, k**ke..."<<<
There's no comparing racist slurs to a word which certain people find problematic due to its perceived negative connotations and potential derogatory character.
I DIDN'T WRITE THIS
Re:Sefarad
by Re:Sefarad Monday, Mar. 28, 2005 at 9:05 AM
Terorrist as a word carries with it a lot more than an accusation about individual actions. Its ofetn used to demonize a whole peopel rather than just those who carry out certain actions. During the Lebanese civil war all Palestinians (including civilians living in camps) were called terrorists byt he Christian militia and their press. One likewise hears any sympathy for Palestinians described as sy
I see: it was somebody hiding who sent the other post.
---------------------------------------------------
Yes, terrorist as a word carries accusation, and that's OK since terrorists have to be accused and demonized.
It is the terrorists themselves who search for shelter behind a "whole people" when they are called what they are, that is to say, terrorists. By doing so, they attempt to prevent people from calling terrorists by their true name.
During the Lebanese war stirred by the PLO, most of the Palestinians were terrorists. In fact, when the Christians Phalanges made the slaughter they killed terrorists but for a few women and children. Although we have to admit that not all the killed terrorists were Palestinians: there were terrorists from different Arab and Muslim countries.
And avoiding the use of the words "terror" and "terrorist", we play the terrorists' game: in the best of the cases, it is the same the criminal as his victim. Furthermore, in this case, the victim is converted into the aggressor, and the terrorist is converted into the victim.
As a result, the terrorists feel they are being backed, which encourages them to go on with their murders.
Could somebody explain to me what race has to do with terrorism? To link terrorism and race , isn't it racism?
---------------------------------------------------
Yes, terrorist as a word carries accusation, and that's OK since terrorists have to be accused and demonized.
It is the terrorists themselves who search for shelter behind a "whole people" when they are called what they are, that is to say, terrorists. By doing so, they attempt to prevent people from calling terrorists by their true name.
During the Lebanese war stirred by the PLO, most of the Palestinians were terrorists. In fact, when the Christians Phalanges made the slaughter they killed terrorists but for a few women and children. Although we have to admit that not all the killed terrorists were Palestinians: there were terrorists from different Arab and Muslim countries.
And avoiding the use of the words "terror" and "terrorist", we play the terrorists' game: in the best of the cases, it is the same the criminal as his victim. Furthermore, in this case, the victim is converted into the aggressor, and the terrorist is converted into the victim.
As a result, the terrorists feel they are being backed, which encourages them to go on with their murders.
Could somebody explain to me what race has to do with terrorism? To link terrorism and race , isn't it racism?
as "terrorist", without condemning the atrocities of US state sponsored violence around the world, violence that has killed far more people over the last 60 years, culminating in the recent carnage in Iraq, than any of the people branded as terrorists (Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, etc.), has ZERO credibility
likewise, anyone who would purport to assert the democratic rights of one group in a society, such as the Christians in Lebanon, without expressly acknowledging the same rights for others in Lebanon, such as Muslims, has ZERO credibility as well
--Richard
likewise, anyone who would purport to assert the democratic rights of one group in a society, such as the Christians in Lebanon, without expressly acknowledging the same rights for others in Lebanon, such as Muslims, has ZERO credibility as well
--Richard
"when the Christians Phalanges made the slaughter they killed terrorists but for a few women and children"
Wow, I doubt you would have heard ANYONE argue that just 10 years ago. Things are definitely getting worse and between the talk of the West Bank being an historical part of Israel, the now constant denial of Palestinian historical existance, the new arguments used to defend settlements.... it seems like the region is heading towards something bad
Wow, I doubt you would have heard ANYONE argue that just 10 years ago. Things are definitely getting worse and between the talk of the West Bank being an historical part of Israel, the now constant denial of Palestinian historical existance, the new arguments used to defend settlements.... it seems like the region is heading towards something bad
Have you forgotten the people murdered by Saddam? And what about those good people cutting off heads in Iraq? Are they the resistance so they have the legitimacy to behad journalists and cleaners?
"the now constant denial of Palestinian historical existance"
We cannot deny the Palestinian historical existance. The Romans called the Jews' land Palestine. And so the true Palestinians are the Jews.
We cannot deny the Palestinian historical existance. The Romans called the Jews' land Palestine. And so the true Palestinians are the Jews.
A two state solution is looking increasingly impossible. Many in Israel who in the past would have argued for a 2 state solution now talk about 2000 + year old Jewsh land claims on the areas where settlements have been built.
So what is the future. Where will the millions of Palestinians go if Israel doesnt want them as citizens and also doesnt wangt them in their own state? If Sabra and Shatila is now defended by supporters of Israel does that mean that the groundwork is being prepared for massacres on that scale in the Occupied Territories? Dont worry about the concentration camps, they are only intended for terrorists... Dont worry about those piles of corposes they were all terrorists. Dehumanization is a prerequisite for mass extermination and the rhetoric seems to have increased in a way where the future could be bleak.
So what is the future. Where will the millions of Palestinians go if Israel doesnt want them as citizens and also doesnt wangt them in their own state? If Sabra and Shatila is now defended by supporters of Israel does that mean that the groundwork is being prepared for massacres on that scale in the Occupied Territories? Dont worry about the concentration camps, they are only intended for terrorists... Dont worry about those piles of corposes they were all terrorists. Dehumanization is a prerequisite for mass extermination and the rhetoric seems to have increased in a way where the future could be bleak.
And what credibility may have a person who condemns the US "atrocities" and doesn't condemn the Islamic fundamentalists' atrocities?
That's exactly what neo-Nazis and the ISM are trying to do.
>>>"If Sabra and Shatila is now defended by supporters of Israel does that mean that the groundwork is being prepared for massacres on that scale in the Occupied Territories?"<<<
He probably graduated in honors from the moonbat prep school.
He probably graduated in honors from the moonbat prep school.
" two state solution is looking increasingly impossible. Many in Israel who in the past would have argued for a 2 state solution now talk about 2000 + year old Jewsh land claims on the areas where settlements have been built. "
That's funny. Why is it impossible now? Why didn't the Palestinians want it in 1948 and in Camp Davis and in other occasions? Why has it been impossible so far? Why the Palestinians kept on killing Israelis while Israel was making concesions?
And besides, do the Palestinians want a two state solution or a single state solution without Jews? Has Fatah removed from its constitution the goal of making ethnical cleansing of Jews and occupying Israel?
"So what is the future. Where will the millions of Palestinians go if Israel doesnt want them as citizens and also doesnt wangt them in their own state? "
The Palestinians should have thought of it earlier.
And they could go to Jordan, which has most of what should be the other Arab state. Or they ccould go to any other Arab country.
It seems that Israel is for the two state solution and giving the Palestinians the control over some places. A different matter is that I think they shouldn't.
"If Sabra and Shatila is now defended by supporters of Israel does that mean that the groundwork is being prepared for massacres on that scale in the Occupied Territories? Dont worry about the concentration camps, they are only intended for terrorists... Dont worry about those piles of corposes they were all terrorists. Dehumanization is a prerequisite for mass extermination and the rhetoric seems to have increased in a way where the future could be bleak."
I don't defend what happened in Sabra and Shatila. Neither do I defend what the Palestinian terrorists and their friends were doing there. Or is it legitimate to make ethnical cleansing of Christians and attacking Israel from Lebanon?
So you want to convince me that I have to worry about terrorists' corpses but not about the Christians slaughter in Lebanon or about the Jews slaughtered by those terrorists.
I didn't say all of them were terrorists. Don't make pro-islamofascist propaganda of my posts.
That's funny. Why is it impossible now? Why didn't the Palestinians want it in 1948 and in Camp Davis and in other occasions? Why has it been impossible so far? Why the Palestinians kept on killing Israelis while Israel was making concesions?
And besides, do the Palestinians want a two state solution or a single state solution without Jews? Has Fatah removed from its constitution the goal of making ethnical cleansing of Jews and occupying Israel?
"So what is the future. Where will the millions of Palestinians go if Israel doesnt want them as citizens and also doesnt wangt them in their own state? "
The Palestinians should have thought of it earlier.
And they could go to Jordan, which has most of what should be the other Arab state. Or they ccould go to any other Arab country.
It seems that Israel is for the two state solution and giving the Palestinians the control over some places. A different matter is that I think they shouldn't.
"If Sabra and Shatila is now defended by supporters of Israel does that mean that the groundwork is being prepared for massacres on that scale in the Occupied Territories? Dont worry about the concentration camps, they are only intended for terrorists... Dont worry about those piles of corposes they were all terrorists. Dehumanization is a prerequisite for mass extermination and the rhetoric seems to have increased in a way where the future could be bleak."
I don't defend what happened in Sabra and Shatila. Neither do I defend what the Palestinian terrorists and their friends were doing there. Or is it legitimate to make ethnical cleansing of Christians and attacking Israel from Lebanon?
So you want to convince me that I have to worry about terrorists' corpses but not about the Christians slaughter in Lebanon or about the Jews slaughtered by those terrorists.
I didn't say all of them were terrorists. Don't make pro-islamofascist propaganda of my posts.
Early on the morning of Purim 1994, when the Israel Defense Forces were busy making their final preparations for withdrawing from Gaza and Jericho under the Oslo Accords, Baruch Goldstein decided to do something to shuffle the deck and stop the withdrawal: He fired into a crowd of Muslim worshipers in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, killing 29 Palestinians.
In his testimony in court, Yigal Amir said that the idea of killing the prime minister first entered his head when he attended Goldstein's funeral and saw Goldstein's hundreds of admirers. At the time, the government declined to listen to then-attorney general Michael Ben-Yair's recommendation that it immediately evacuate all the settlers from Hebron, thereby demonstrating uncompromising determination.
Since then, the extremist camp has grown, and today, its members number in the thousands. It is currently girding up its loins to stop the disengagement - and once again, we are witnessing intensive violent activity whose goal is to fan the flames of hatred between Arabs and Jews. Now, as then, preparations for the disengagement are being accompanied by daily pogroms in Arab communities, destruction of property, harassment of soldiers, physical assaults on Palestinians, cutting down trees, beating and throwing stones at passersby, threatening nighttime patrols through Arab villages and even shooting with intent to kill. When such things happen under the guise of Purim celebrations, they are accompanied by a phrase that recalls the Goldstein affair: "The rioters were drunk."
It is inconceivable that no lessons have been learned - that the army and police are once again waiting for a commission of inquiry to describe after the fact what could have been prevented in advance. The job of the IDF, which is responsible for security in the territories, is not to describe the violence and warn against it, but to prevent it. The Purim rampage by Yitzhar residents was not exceptional; it followed seven other incidents that had been extensively reported in the media during the previous week.
Had it not been for the presence of human rights activists in the area, it is doubtful that the public would even know about what happened. These activists brought about the arrest of Avri Ran of Itamar; they are also the ones who reported the poisoning of livestock in the South Hebron Hills. The settlers, for their part, attacked the soldiers and policemen who came to arrest them and ultimately succeeded in chasing them off.
While the army debates the correct way to treat the settlers, and settler spokesmen exploit feelings of pity to cry about collective delegitimization, the next massacre is brewing almost openly. The principal lesson that should have been learned from Baruch Goldstein - who, like Yigal Amir, was no "wild weed," but rather someone who acted with the support and encouragement of many - is that there is no place for understanding and tolerance on this issue: The rioters belong in jail.
This is even truer when it is clear to everyone that the rioters are attempting to ignite a fire as the evacuation of settlements approaches. This is almost the last possible moment for action by IDF officers in the territories, who last week reported feelings of helplessness in their ranks. One can assume that stronger political backing would produce results. But attempts to ingratiate themselves with the right, and statements such as that of Major General Yair Naveh about the need to embrace the settlers, will lead to disaster.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/557468.html
In his testimony in court, Yigal Amir said that the idea of killing the prime minister first entered his head when he attended Goldstein's funeral and saw Goldstein's hundreds of admirers. At the time, the government declined to listen to then-attorney general Michael Ben-Yair's recommendation that it immediately evacuate all the settlers from Hebron, thereby demonstrating uncompromising determination.
Since then, the extremist camp has grown, and today, its members number in the thousands. It is currently girding up its loins to stop the disengagement - and once again, we are witnessing intensive violent activity whose goal is to fan the flames of hatred between Arabs and Jews. Now, as then, preparations for the disengagement are being accompanied by daily pogroms in Arab communities, destruction of property, harassment of soldiers, physical assaults on Palestinians, cutting down trees, beating and throwing stones at passersby, threatening nighttime patrols through Arab villages and even shooting with intent to kill. When such things happen under the guise of Purim celebrations, they are accompanied by a phrase that recalls the Goldstein affair: "The rioters were drunk."
It is inconceivable that no lessons have been learned - that the army and police are once again waiting for a commission of inquiry to describe after the fact what could have been prevented in advance. The job of the IDF, which is responsible for security in the territories, is not to describe the violence and warn against it, but to prevent it. The Purim rampage by Yitzhar residents was not exceptional; it followed seven other incidents that had been extensively reported in the media during the previous week.
Had it not been for the presence of human rights activists in the area, it is doubtful that the public would even know about what happened. These activists brought about the arrest of Avri Ran of Itamar; they are also the ones who reported the poisoning of livestock in the South Hebron Hills. The settlers, for their part, attacked the soldiers and policemen who came to arrest them and ultimately succeeded in chasing them off.
While the army debates the correct way to treat the settlers, and settler spokesmen exploit feelings of pity to cry about collective delegitimization, the next massacre is brewing almost openly. The principal lesson that should have been learned from Baruch Goldstein - who, like Yigal Amir, was no "wild weed," but rather someone who acted with the support and encouragement of many - is that there is no place for understanding and tolerance on this issue: The rioters belong in jail.
This is even truer when it is clear to everyone that the rioters are attempting to ignite a fire as the evacuation of settlements approaches. This is almost the last possible moment for action by IDF officers in the territories, who last week reported feelings of helplessness in their ranks. One can assume that stronger political backing would produce results. But attempts to ingratiate themselves with the right, and statements such as that of Major General Yair Naveh about the need to embrace the settlers, will lead to disaster.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/557468.html
"And they could go to Jordan, which has most of what should be the other Arab state. Or they ccould go to any other Arab country."
A Spaniard calling for the purging of Muslims from a region. Stop living in the 1400s and start recognizing all people as humans with rights to live in peace.
A Spaniard calling for the purging of Muslims from a region. Stop living in the 1400s and start recognizing all people as humans with rights to live in peace.
Who wants to make purges with whom?
What does religion have to do with the matter? Weren't we talking about Arabs and Israelis?
"Stop living in the 1400s and start recognizing all people as humans with rights to live in peace. "
It is not me who lives in the 1400s. But since you come out with it, there was no election: either they made ethnic cleansing of us or either we expelled them from our land, which they were occupying without legitimacy.
I recognise they are human beings but I am afraid the recognition is not mutual: after all, we are infidel dogs.
It is not me who lives in the 1400s. But since you come out with it, there was no election: either they made ethnic cleansing of us or either we expelled them from our land, which they were occupying without legitimacy.
I recognise they are human beings but I am afraid the recognition is not mutual: after all, we are infidel dogs.
Do you know who the victims of the Inquisition were? No, you have no idea.
Beware Nessie might turn up here and he would be very angry with you.
Beware Nessie might turn up here and he would be very angry with you.
And I guess that's the reason why you are hiding.
I think I know who you are.
I think I know who you are.
Warning: includes pictures of violence
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Arab-savagery.asp
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Arab-savagery.asp
[Credibility?
by Sefarad Monday, Mar. 28, 2005 at 10:04 AM
And what credibility may have a person who condemns the US "atrocities" and doesn't condemn the Islamic fundamentalists' atrocities?]
you could have said, as many of us on the left do, that the perpetrators of such violence, whether American, Israeli or Arab, should be condemned
you could have said, in regard to my additional comment about Lebanon, that Muslims should have the same political rights and privileges, based upon a one person, one vote system, instead of a gerrymandered one that benefits Christians
and, you have had many, many opportunities to do so on this site in recent weeks
but, you can't, because you don't believe it
I won't speculate on what you do believe, except to say that it seems, as this is a necesssary subjective, read between the lines analysis, to involve the belief that Arabs and Muslims are so inherently violent by nature that they can never be allowed to participate in society on equal terms with anyone else
so, again, maybe you might explain the following to me: if I lived, say, for example, in Indonesia over the last 50 years, I should have been more fearful of violent Islamic fundamentalists than the US and its surrogate Suharto, even though Suharto killed a huge number of Communists and their purported allies, and, in some cases, people falsely identified as "leftists", as many as 1,000,000 people in 1965, with the assistance of the CIA that provided lists of names
incidentally,as an aside, Suharto relied upon Islamic fundamentalist groups to carry out many of the killings, but, back then, neo-conservatives thought violent Islamic fundamentalism was a good thing, as long as they limited their killings to political opponents of the US
likewise, if I was East Timorean, or a labor or human rights activist during the Suharto era, I should have feared violent Islamic fundamentalists more than his police and military forces armed and trained by the US, who killed and jailed opponents over the course of his rule
of course, it's an absurd notion, and remains so to this day
for example, look at Iraq: since the war was launched in March 2003, as US/UK forces have killed, detained and totured people on a scale that a thug like al-Zarqawi can only envy
or, even the US itself: as a result of the war in Iraq, about half of the number of people who died in the WTC attacks have lost their lives (over 1,500), although the number may be closer to 2,000 or 2,500 hundred if private military contractors are involved (Titan Corp. in San Diego reports that it has lost 136 people in Iraq alone, although they may not have been all Americans), but meanwhile the number of wounded, many with brain injuries, lost limbs, lost hearing and lost eyesight is over 10,000, far beyond the WTC attack by al-Qaeda
so, within about a year or two, assuming no new conflict, say in Syria or Iran, the US will have lost as many people who died on 9/11, with many, many thousand more wounded
--Richard
by Sefarad Monday, Mar. 28, 2005 at 10:04 AM
And what credibility may have a person who condemns the US "atrocities" and doesn't condemn the Islamic fundamentalists' atrocities?]
you could have said, as many of us on the left do, that the perpetrators of such violence, whether American, Israeli or Arab, should be condemned
you could have said, in regard to my additional comment about Lebanon, that Muslims should have the same political rights and privileges, based upon a one person, one vote system, instead of a gerrymandered one that benefits Christians
and, you have had many, many opportunities to do so on this site in recent weeks
but, you can't, because you don't believe it
I won't speculate on what you do believe, except to say that it seems, as this is a necesssary subjective, read between the lines analysis, to involve the belief that Arabs and Muslims are so inherently violent by nature that they can never be allowed to participate in society on equal terms with anyone else
so, again, maybe you might explain the following to me: if I lived, say, for example, in Indonesia over the last 50 years, I should have been more fearful of violent Islamic fundamentalists than the US and its surrogate Suharto, even though Suharto killed a huge number of Communists and their purported allies, and, in some cases, people falsely identified as "leftists", as many as 1,000,000 people in 1965, with the assistance of the CIA that provided lists of names
incidentally,as an aside, Suharto relied upon Islamic fundamentalist groups to carry out many of the killings, but, back then, neo-conservatives thought violent Islamic fundamentalism was a good thing, as long as they limited their killings to political opponents of the US
likewise, if I was East Timorean, or a labor or human rights activist during the Suharto era, I should have feared violent Islamic fundamentalists more than his police and military forces armed and trained by the US, who killed and jailed opponents over the course of his rule
of course, it's an absurd notion, and remains so to this day
for example, look at Iraq: since the war was launched in March 2003, as US/UK forces have killed, detained and totured people on a scale that a thug like al-Zarqawi can only envy
or, even the US itself: as a result of the war in Iraq, about half of the number of people who died in the WTC attacks have lost their lives (over 1,500), although the number may be closer to 2,000 or 2,500 hundred if private military contractors are involved (Titan Corp. in San Diego reports that it has lost 136 people in Iraq alone, although they may not have been all Americans), but meanwhile the number of wounded, many with brain injuries, lost limbs, lost hearing and lost eyesight is over 10,000, far beyond the WTC attack by al-Qaeda
so, within about a year or two, assuming no new conflict, say in Syria or Iran, the US will have lost as many people who died on 9/11, with many, many thousand more wounded
--Richard
An unreasonable and mentally ill person wrote:
"If Israel is really interested in Peace, Why does it not do the few things that would bring that Peace?
1. If they want a wall on their Border...They should build it on the pre 1967 (Green Line) Border.
2. They should allow the Palestinian People to have their viable Palestinian State in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza, which is only 22% of what is today Israel, West Bank and Gaza.
A pro-Israel person responded: "Israel is occupying nothing ... It is the Palestinians who want to occupy Israel."
Then a rabid scummy anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic wanker resplied:
"Hmmmm. Let's look at this in graphic terms:
Go here: http://www.concert4palestine.org/palestine/c.html and then look at the maps on this page, which document the progression of the Israeli land grab. Actually, the whole presentation here is quite lucid. This a blatant simple invasion. What would you do if, say, the French came and did this to YOUR traditions, YOUR society, YOUR family? yadda yadda yadda"
Evidently the anti-Jewish wanker is basing his insanely mendacious insights on revisionist texts so immensely biased, it's obvious he's got no shred of credibility.
No, Jews DO count as THE native people on that land. They did NOT vacate the place 1600+ years ago and so they never lost neither their native status nor that claim.
"If Israel is really interested in Peace, Why does it not do the few things that would bring that Peace?
1. If they want a wall on their Border...They should build it on the pre 1967 (Green Line) Border.
2. They should allow the Palestinian People to have their viable Palestinian State in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza, which is only 22% of what is today Israel, West Bank and Gaza.
A pro-Israel person responded: "Israel is occupying nothing ... It is the Palestinians who want to occupy Israel."
Then a rabid scummy anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic wanker resplied:
"Hmmmm. Let's look at this in graphic terms:
Go here: http://www.concert4palestine.org/palestine/c.html and then look at the maps on this page, which document the progression of the Israeli land grab. Actually, the whole presentation here is quite lucid. This a blatant simple invasion. What would you do if, say, the French came and did this to YOUR traditions, YOUR society, YOUR family? yadda yadda yadda"
Evidently the anti-Jewish wanker is basing his insanely mendacious insights on revisionist texts so immensely biased, it's obvious he's got no shred of credibility.
No, Jews DO count as THE native people on that land. They did NOT vacate the place 1600+ years ago and so they never lost neither their native status nor that claim.
Richard: "you could have said, as many of us on the left do, that the perpetrators of such violence, whether American, Israeli or Arab, should be condemned "
Sefarad: You could have said that the perpetrators of violence, in the case we are dealing with, are Arabs, and you could have condemned that violence.
Richard: "you could have said, in regard to my additional comment about Lebanon, that Muslims should have the same political rights and privileges, based upon a one person, one vote system, instead of a gerrymandered one that benefits Christians "
Sefarad: You could have said that I didn't say that the Muslims should have fewer rights than the Christians. On the contrary, one day you asked me, I told you everybody should have the same rights.
Richard: "and, you have had many, many opportunities to do so on this site in recent weeks
but, you can't, because you don't believe it "
Sefarad: That's your own conclusion, which has nothing to do with me.
Richard: "I won't speculate on what you do believe, except to say that it seems, as this is a necesssary subjective, read between the lines analysis, to involve the belief that Arabs and Muslims are so inherently violent by nature that they can never be allowed to participate in society on equal terms with anyone else "
Sefarad: Here there have been people (I don't know if one or several, because they hide) who are always linking violence and race, which is not my case.
Richard: "so, again, maybe you might explain the following to me: if I lived, say, for example, in Indonesia over the last 50 years, I should have been more fearful of violent Islamic fundamentalists than the US and its surrogate Suharto, even though Suharto killed a huge number of Communists and their purported allies, and, in some cases, people falsely identified as "leftists", as many as 1,000,000 people in 1965, with the assistance of the CIA that provided lists of names
incidentally,as an aside, Suharto relied upon Islamic fundamentalist groups to carry out many of the killings, but, back then, neo-conservatives thought violent Islamic fundamentalism was a good thing, as long as they limited their killings to political opponents of the US
likewise, if I was East Timorean, or a labor or human rights activist during the Suharto era, I should have feared violent Islamic fundamentalists more than his police and military forces armed and trained by the US, who killed and jailed opponents over the course of his rule
of course, it's an absurd notion, and remains so to this day "
Sefarad: And what do you want me to tell you? Anyway, you have drawn your own conclusion. It is all the same if I declare myself a fervent enemy of every kind of totalitarism.
As for Iraq, one day we discussed the matter, or perhaps half-discussed it, because I think my post got missing.
Sefarad: You could have said that the perpetrators of violence, in the case we are dealing with, are Arabs, and you could have condemned that violence.
Richard: "you could have said, in regard to my additional comment about Lebanon, that Muslims should have the same political rights and privileges, based upon a one person, one vote system, instead of a gerrymandered one that benefits Christians "
Sefarad: You could have said that I didn't say that the Muslims should have fewer rights than the Christians. On the contrary, one day you asked me, I told you everybody should have the same rights.
Richard: "and, you have had many, many opportunities to do so on this site in recent weeks
but, you can't, because you don't believe it "
Sefarad: That's your own conclusion, which has nothing to do with me.
Richard: "I won't speculate on what you do believe, except to say that it seems, as this is a necesssary subjective, read between the lines analysis, to involve the belief that Arabs and Muslims are so inherently violent by nature that they can never be allowed to participate in society on equal terms with anyone else "
Sefarad: Here there have been people (I don't know if one or several, because they hide) who are always linking violence and race, which is not my case.
Richard: "so, again, maybe you might explain the following to me: if I lived, say, for example, in Indonesia over the last 50 years, I should have been more fearful of violent Islamic fundamentalists than the US and its surrogate Suharto, even though Suharto killed a huge number of Communists and their purported allies, and, in some cases, people falsely identified as "leftists", as many as 1,000,000 people in 1965, with the assistance of the CIA that provided lists of names
incidentally,as an aside, Suharto relied upon Islamic fundamentalist groups to carry out many of the killings, but, back then, neo-conservatives thought violent Islamic fundamentalism was a good thing, as long as they limited their killings to political opponents of the US
likewise, if I was East Timorean, or a labor or human rights activist during the Suharto era, I should have feared violent Islamic fundamentalists more than his police and military forces armed and trained by the US, who killed and jailed opponents over the course of his rule
of course, it's an absurd notion, and remains so to this day "
Sefarad: And what do you want me to tell you? Anyway, you have drawn your own conclusion. It is all the same if I declare myself a fervent enemy of every kind of totalitarism.
As for Iraq, one day we discussed the matter, or perhaps half-discussed it, because I think my post got missing.
[Richard: "you could have said, as many of us on the left do, that the perpetrators of such violence, whether American, Israeli or Arab, should be condemned "
Sefarad: You could have said that the perpetrators of violence, in the case we are dealing with, are Arabs, and you could have condemned that violence.]
This is a worthy dialogue. As background, I have condemned Islamic fundamentalist violence here in a variety of contexts here in the past year, most recent in regards to Iraq during a multilayered dialogue involve aaron, JA and Travis.
Earlier, after the death of Arafat, I expressed my view that Arafat cynically used violence as a way of maintaining his corrupt control over the Palestinians
The real problem here isn't that I support Islamic fundamentalists, instead, it's the fact that I don't reflexively respond to every violent episode and reflexively support the US and Israel in its responses to that violence
Nor do I, it should be noted, respond to every episode of Israeli violence against Palestinians, as my general views about the conflict should be pretty evident to long time participants here, and there are a lot of other issues that I follow on this site, and post comments
By contrast, I only recall one time where you have criticized the US, and the record of the US globally (where you criticized the US arming and training of fundamentalists in Afghanistan during the 1980s), despite the fact that it has been, and remains, far more violent and far more destructive than any of the usually Arab groups that you post about on a daily basis
For an earlier discussion that we had on this issue:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/03/1725957_comment.php
[Richard: "you could have said, in regard to my additional comment about Lebanon, that Muslims should have the same political rights and privileges, based upon a one person, one vote system, instead of a gerrymandered one that benefits Christians "
Sefarad: You could have said that I didn't say that the Muslims should have fewer rights than the Christians. On the contrary, one day you asked me, I told you everybody should have the same rights.]
My recollection is different. I recall that you said that they should have "freedom", but did not directly addresss whether Muslims in Lebanon should be free to particpate in the political system on the same terms as Lebanese Christians as I advocated
I'm not trying to play "Gotcha!" here. Quibbles do matter on issues such as these, as the Lebanese Christians no doubt claimed since the 1940s that the Shia already had "freedom" so why was there any reason to change the existing system, despite Shia unhappiness.
in any event, if this is your view, we are in agreement, but it does make me wonder why we had to go round and round about it a few weeks ago, when you seemed resistant to addressing the question directly, it would have saved both of us a lot of time
--Richard
Sefarad: You could have said that the perpetrators of violence, in the case we are dealing with, are Arabs, and you could have condemned that violence.]
This is a worthy dialogue. As background, I have condemned Islamic fundamentalist violence here in a variety of contexts here in the past year, most recent in regards to Iraq during a multilayered dialogue involve aaron, JA and Travis.
Earlier, after the death of Arafat, I expressed my view that Arafat cynically used violence as a way of maintaining his corrupt control over the Palestinians
The real problem here isn't that I support Islamic fundamentalists, instead, it's the fact that I don't reflexively respond to every violent episode and reflexively support the US and Israel in its responses to that violence
Nor do I, it should be noted, respond to every episode of Israeli violence against Palestinians, as my general views about the conflict should be pretty evident to long time participants here, and there are a lot of other issues that I follow on this site, and post comments
By contrast, I only recall one time where you have criticized the US, and the record of the US globally (where you criticized the US arming and training of fundamentalists in Afghanistan during the 1980s), despite the fact that it has been, and remains, far more violent and far more destructive than any of the usually Arab groups that you post about on a daily basis
For an earlier discussion that we had on this issue:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/03/1725957_comment.php
[Richard: "you could have said, in regard to my additional comment about Lebanon, that Muslims should have the same political rights and privileges, based upon a one person, one vote system, instead of a gerrymandered one that benefits Christians "
Sefarad: You could have said that I didn't say that the Muslims should have fewer rights than the Christians. On the contrary, one day you asked me, I told you everybody should have the same rights.]
My recollection is different. I recall that you said that they should have "freedom", but did not directly addresss whether Muslims in Lebanon should be free to particpate in the political system on the same terms as Lebanese Christians as I advocated
I'm not trying to play "Gotcha!" here. Quibbles do matter on issues such as these, as the Lebanese Christians no doubt claimed since the 1940s that the Shia already had "freedom" so why was there any reason to change the existing system, despite Shia unhappiness.
in any event, if this is your view, we are in agreement, but it does make me wonder why we had to go round and round about it a few weeks ago, when you seemed resistant to addressing the question directly, it would have saved both of us a lot of time
--Richard
Critical Bigot wrote: "One rather Liberal writer in that bastion of leftist politicaql correctness, the NYT"
As always, your perceptions are wildly warped to the right. The NYT is one of the most elitist, centrist, faux-progressive rags on earth. Like all the other major U.S. papers, it's a filtered homogenized pasteurized establishment propaganda tabloid. You need to recalibrate your sense of the spectrum by getting your hands on some REAL leftist journalism. Covert Action Quarterly, for instance. Ah, now that's the stuff. I wish I could watch you read it. It'd be such good fun to watch your head explode from apoplexy.
On subjects like terrorism, NYT is as conservative as your grandma's lace doilies. That's why you agree with them. They're also totally gun-shy about criticizing the Israeli extreme-right. Also to your taste. But a 'bastion of the left?' Puh-leeeeeez!
As always, your perceptions are wildly warped to the right. The NYT is one of the most elitist, centrist, faux-progressive rags on earth. Like all the other major U.S. papers, it's a filtered homogenized pasteurized establishment propaganda tabloid. You need to recalibrate your sense of the spectrum by getting your hands on some REAL leftist journalism. Covert Action Quarterly, for instance. Ah, now that's the stuff. I wish I could watch you read it. It'd be such good fun to watch your head explode from apoplexy.
On subjects like terrorism, NYT is as conservative as your grandma's lace doilies. That's why you agree with them. They're also totally gun-shy about criticizing the Israeli extreme-right. Also to your taste. But a 'bastion of the left?' Puh-leeeeeez!
"Keep Dreaming" is another obsessed "israel must be destroyed" idiot.
The Lebanese Christians DID attack the Palestinians in that S&S event. Sorry if the facts upset you.
Palestinian militias/terrorist groups ARE disgusting, uncivilized, obsessed, brainwashed scumbags. Sorry if this upsets you.
Parroting the same three or four anti-israel events over and over doesn't make them any more significant, either. Sorry if this upsets you.
Israel exists. It's a country. ANd it doesn't plan on "packing up and leaving" or "undoing its existence," or letting the scumbag terrorists destroy it. And I KNOW that upsets you.
You're no peace activist. You're just a hateful scumbag.
The Lebanese Christians DID attack the Palestinians in that S&S event. Sorry if the facts upset you.
Palestinian militias/terrorist groups ARE disgusting, uncivilized, obsessed, brainwashed scumbags. Sorry if this upsets you.
Parroting the same three or four anti-israel events over and over doesn't make them any more significant, either. Sorry if this upsets you.
Israel exists. It's a country. ANd it doesn't plan on "packing up and leaving" or "undoing its existence," or letting the scumbag terrorists destroy it. And I KNOW that upsets you.
You're no peace activist. You're just a hateful scumbag.
>>>That's funny. Why is it impossible now? Why didn't the Palestinians want it in 1948 and in Camp Davis and in other occasions? Why has it been impossible so far? Why the Palestinians kept on killing Israelis while Israel was making concesions?<<<
If the Palestinian People had been offered a fair and just solution (A Palestinian State in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza) with no strings attached we would not have the conflict we have today..And we would not need this new Road Map to Peace. We would already have two States living side by side in Peace...Y. Rabin was the closest we came to Peace and he was killed by a Jewish extremist.
And to those who say the Palestinian should go to Jordan, then the West Bank should go to Jordan since most of the Palestinians who live in the West Bank were born and have lived there since 1967 and some even before 1967.
If the Palestinian People had been offered a fair and just solution (A Palestinian State in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza) with no strings attached we would not have the conflict we have today..And we would not need this new Road Map to Peace. We would already have two States living side by side in Peace...Y. Rabin was the closest we came to Peace and he was killed by a Jewish extremist.
And to those who say the Palestinian should go to Jordan, then the West Bank should go to Jordan since most of the Palestinians who live in the West Bank were born and have lived there since 1967 and some even before 1967.
So here we have yet another Sabra & Shatila apologist ("Joe") spouting the same shit. Never mind that the IDF had set up a perimeter around the camp so no one could get out, transported the Phalange to the site, provided them with weapons, set up high intensity illumination so they could work around the clock, stood around looking the other way whistling as the automatic gunfire clattered away for 36 hours -- in short, did everything but jerk the triggers themselves
But WOOOO NOOOOO! The Phalange did it ALL on their own, yupper!
Even Israelis didn't believe this at the time! They wanted to see Sharon get hurled into Spandau right alongside Herman Hess. The incident sparked the largest mass demonstrations in Israel's history. Even your co-conspirator Critical Bigot has acknowledged this.
But WOOOO NOOOOO! The Phalange did it ALL on their own, yupper!
Even Israelis didn't believe this at the time! They wanted to see Sharon get hurled into Spandau right alongside Herman Hess. The incident sparked the largest mass demonstrations in Israel's history. Even your co-conspirator Critical Bigot has acknowledged this.
Richard : [This is a worthy dialogue. As background, I have condemned Islamic fundamentalist violence here in a variety of contexts here in the past year, most recent in regards to Iraq during a multilayered dialogue involve aaron, JA and Travis.
Earlier, after the death of Arafat, I expressed my view that Arafat cynically used violence as a way of maintaining his corrupt control over the Palestinians ]
I am so happy to know that, at least, we agree on those points.
Richard: [it's the fact that I don't reflexively respond to every violent episode and reflexively support the US and Israel in its responses to that violence ]
From my point of view, any country can be critizised. But when it comes to the Israel/Palestinian conflict I don't have to critizise a country which is being attacked and is fighting for its survival. Far from it, I think my moral obligation is to support the attacked country.
As for the US, if I condemn what it does or not should be discussed independently from the Arab/Israel conflict. Both cases are not at the same level.
Of course I don't like war, I don't like that people are killed. Although I am not a pacifist: I love peace, but I think sometimes war is necessary. We have the right to defend ourselves.
In any case, I am against torture. And I condemn what those American soldiers did to the Iraqi prisoners. However, aren't those soldiers being tried?
I don't like either that the US are critized for everything they do and for what they don't. I have nothing to do with the US, but for a few American friends, but I don't like that people or countries are unfairly critizised.
Richard: [ My recollection is different. I recall that you said that they should have "freedom", but did not directly addresss whether Muslims in Lebanon should be free to particpate in the political system on the same terms as Lebanese Christians as I advocated ]
Sefarad: And I remember you told me that "freedom" was only for Christians and not for Muslims. I told you then that if I said it was for everybody, Muslims were included. And, of course, I think all the citizens of a country have to have the same rights. And it is so for political participation or for anything.
Earlier, after the death of Arafat, I expressed my view that Arafat cynically used violence as a way of maintaining his corrupt control over the Palestinians ]
I am so happy to know that, at least, we agree on those points.
Richard: [it's the fact that I don't reflexively respond to every violent episode and reflexively support the US and Israel in its responses to that violence ]
From my point of view, any country can be critizised. But when it comes to the Israel/Palestinian conflict I don't have to critizise a country which is being attacked and is fighting for its survival. Far from it, I think my moral obligation is to support the attacked country.
As for the US, if I condemn what it does or not should be discussed independently from the Arab/Israel conflict. Both cases are not at the same level.
Of course I don't like war, I don't like that people are killed. Although I am not a pacifist: I love peace, but I think sometimes war is necessary. We have the right to defend ourselves.
In any case, I am against torture. And I condemn what those American soldiers did to the Iraqi prisoners. However, aren't those soldiers being tried?
I don't like either that the US are critized for everything they do and for what they don't. I have nothing to do with the US, but for a few American friends, but I don't like that people or countries are unfairly critizised.
Richard: [ My recollection is different. I recall that you said that they should have "freedom", but did not directly addresss whether Muslims in Lebanon should be free to particpate in the political system on the same terms as Lebanese Christians as I advocated ]
Sefarad: And I remember you told me that "freedom" was only for Christians and not for Muslims. I told you then that if I said it was for everybody, Muslims were included. And, of course, I think all the citizens of a country have to have the same rights. And it is so for political participation or for anything.
"told me that "freedom" was only for Christians "
I meant to say:
You asked me if I wanted freedom just for Christians.
I meant to say:
You asked me if I wanted freedom just for Christians.
Yes, it was the Christian Lebanese Phalanges which did it.
The NYT is a bastion of leftist political correctness, like it or not.
If anything, its elitism is leftist. You need to be careful lest foreign readers come away with the impression it's a rightist establishment paper. You never know who's reading your rants here.
Nowhere did I say it's an ultra-Left publication. I'm well aware of the nuances among the American Left. No need to fly off the handle. Oops...forgot you're incapable of reining yourself in...
>>>"On subjects like terrorism, NYT is as conservative as your grandma's lace doilies. That's why you agree with them. "<<<
Hugwash. One writer -- and his opinions on terror are probably far more lenient than mine; he was merely taking issue with his colleagues' refusal to employ the labels terror/terrorists -- hardly reflects the paper's position. The editorial staff seems to be at odds with his opinion.
>>>"They're also totally gun-shy about criticizing the Israeli extreme-right. Also to your taste."<<<
Balderdash. Your racist hatred is blinding you to the truth of the matter. Only the likes of J.A. would take your contention seriously.
>>>"Never mind that the IDF had... transported the Phalange to the site, provided them with weapons, stood around looking the other way whistling as the automatic gunfire clattered away for 36 hours -- in short, did everything but jerk the triggers themselves"<<<
This is false. The Phalanges had been provided with a tractor sans an operator.
>>>"Even Israelis didn't believe this [that the Phalange did it all by their own] at the time! They wanted to see Sharon get hurled into Spandau right alongside Herman Hess. The incident sparked the largest mass demonstrations in Israel's history. Even your co-conspirator Critical Bigot has acknowledged this."<<<
You wish. The Israelis weren't insisting that Israeli troops had a direct role in those massacres. Rather they were stunned that Sharon was so negligent as to have failed to prevent these atrocities from taking place.
Sorry to let you down, the figure of ~300,000 demonstrators has been broken already in Israel.
For more details on Sabra & Shatila: http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_sabra_shatila.php.
If anything, its elitism is leftist. You need to be careful lest foreign readers come away with the impression it's a rightist establishment paper. You never know who's reading your rants here.
Nowhere did I say it's an ultra-Left publication. I'm well aware of the nuances among the American Left. No need to fly off the handle. Oops...forgot you're incapable of reining yourself in...
>>>"On subjects like terrorism, NYT is as conservative as your grandma's lace doilies. That's why you agree with them. "<<<
Hugwash. One writer -- and his opinions on terror are probably far more lenient than mine; he was merely taking issue with his colleagues' refusal to employ the labels terror/terrorists -- hardly reflects the paper's position. The editorial staff seems to be at odds with his opinion.
>>>"They're also totally gun-shy about criticizing the Israeli extreme-right. Also to your taste."<<<
Balderdash. Your racist hatred is blinding you to the truth of the matter. Only the likes of J.A. would take your contention seriously.
>>>"Never mind that the IDF had... transported the Phalange to the site, provided them with weapons, stood around looking the other way whistling as the automatic gunfire clattered away for 36 hours -- in short, did everything but jerk the triggers themselves"<<<
This is false. The Phalanges had been provided with a tractor sans an operator.
>>>"Even Israelis didn't believe this [that the Phalange did it all by their own] at the time! They wanted to see Sharon get hurled into Spandau right alongside Herman Hess. The incident sparked the largest mass demonstrations in Israel's history. Even your co-conspirator Critical Bigot has acknowledged this."<<<
You wish. The Israelis weren't insisting that Israeli troops had a direct role in those massacres. Rather they were stunned that Sharon was so negligent as to have failed to prevent these atrocities from taking place.
Sorry to let you down, the figure of ~300,000 demonstrators has been broken already in Israel.
For more details on Sabra & Shatila: http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_sabra_shatila.php.
The NYTimes' unsigned editorials--from which we can glean the political viewpoint of the newspaper's publishers--consistently express a politics that is in no way leftist, despite what CretinThinker, stranded on the shoals of far-right zionowingnutism, would have us believe.
To give just a small sample, The NYTimes supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombing of Serbia, the so-called First Gulf War, NAFTA, and Clinton's "Welfare Reform."
To give just a small sample, The NYTimes supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombing of Serbia, the so-called First Gulf War, NAFTA, and Clinton's "Welfare Reform."
Little did we know that Clinton's "Welfare Reform" was a pure rightist scheme...
Next thing we know, this dolt will have us believe that Clinton was a Buchananite and the "reform" in question was performed entirely in accordance with Buchanan's ultra-rightist principles and in total contrast to any leftist tenet.
Next thing we know, this dolt will have us believe that Clinton was a Buchananite and the "reform" in question was performed entirely in accordance with Buchanan's ultra-rightist principles and in total contrast to any leftist tenet.
. . . a liberal newspaper, and not a leftist one
I read the NYT frequently, and the paper as described in this comment below is not the one that I have encountered
consistent with post-World War II liberalism, the NYT supported the Vietnam War, and most other American military interventions and coup efforts (such as, for example, most recently in Venezuela), and advocates global economic neoliberalism
also consistent with this liberalism, it is noteworthy that, for a paper described below as a bastion of "leftist political correctness", it has very few columnists of color, playing the game that most newspapers do, a lot of white male columnists, a columnist of color (Herbert) and a female columnist (Dowd)
not surprisingly, the variation between Herbert, Dowd and the others is much greater than the bland distinctions between people like Brooks, Friedman and (before he retired from the editorial pages) Safire
so, if the paper does display "political correctness" from time to time (not that I've seen much of it), it tends to serve as a subterfuge for the fact that the NYT is not very different from most American mainstream media, a preserve for well educated, socially connected, moderate to conservative white males
the fact that NYT disagrees with the Bush/Sharon hardline, unilateral approach periodically does not, in any sense of the word, make the paper "leftist", as the basis of the disagreement is a dispute over the most effective means of maintaining US military and economic hegemony
--Richard
[The NYT is a bastion of leftist political correctness, like it or not.
If anything, its elitism is leftist. You need to be careful lest foreign readers come away with the impression it's a rightist establishment paper. You never know who's reading your rants here.
Nowhere did I say it's an ultra-Left publication. I'm well aware of the nuances among the American Left. No need to fly off the handle. Oops...forgot you're incapable of reining yourself in...]
the NYT's editorial worldview (so to speak) is planted somewhere between the Democratic Party's most rightest margins and it's most leftist ones. I understand that a person firmly planted in far leftist ideology (though they'd be loath of admitting this much) wouldn't be so keen on considering the most rightist Democratic margins Left, but the fact that some might consider these people centrists or "liberals" doesn't preclude them from being leftists in the bigger picture.
"the NYT's editorial worldview (so to speak) is planted somewhere between the Democratic Party's most rightest margins and it's most leftist ones. I understand that a person firmly planted in far leftist ideology (though they'd be loath of admitting this much) wouldn't be so keen on considering the most rightist Democratic margins Left, but the fact that some might consider these people centrists or "liberals" doesn't preclude them from being leftists in the bigger picture."
Thats a pretty shallow view of what Right and L:eft mean. The NYT was more proWar when it came to Iraq than many Americaqn conservativs who question the idea of nation building. Neoconservatives are in many ways an outgrowith of a center left ideology that is more in tune with the NYT than the Wall Street Journal or muich of the traditional Right. Pehraps this can be seen most clearly when one realizes that the same logic behind the nocons who supported Iraq was the same logic behind Kosovo and Somalia and the US right were opposed to those wars.
Right and Left are pretty meaningless terms. The NYT represents a portion of the academic elite in the US that is for Free Trade, and believes in the basic goodness of US foreign policy. Since it represents the academic elite (and New York) it is more pro gay rights, more prochoice and more opposed to the death penality and more willing to support the idea that the government can be a force for good in both the lives of US citizens and the lives of those in other countries. The general public is more sceptical about military actions as well as government programs in the US. The NYT sees a world of noncorrupt elites who have to deal with rogue states and those in need wheras the general public is more likely to have had to face the fact that corruption and things like torture are part of every culture and not specific to a less -educated other that just needs to be civilized.
Thats a pretty shallow view of what Right and L:eft mean. The NYT was more proWar when it came to Iraq than many Americaqn conservativs who question the idea of nation building. Neoconservatives are in many ways an outgrowith of a center left ideology that is more in tune with the NYT than the Wall Street Journal or muich of the traditional Right. Pehraps this can be seen most clearly when one realizes that the same logic behind the nocons who supported Iraq was the same logic behind Kosovo and Somalia and the US right were opposed to those wars.
Right and Left are pretty meaningless terms. The NYT represents a portion of the academic elite in the US that is for Free Trade, and believes in the basic goodness of US foreign policy. Since it represents the academic elite (and New York) it is more pro gay rights, more prochoice and more opposed to the death penality and more willing to support the idea that the government can be a force for good in both the lives of US citizens and the lives of those in other countries. The general public is more sceptical about military actions as well as government programs in the US. The NYT sees a world of noncorrupt elites who have to deal with rogue states and those in need wheras the general public is more likely to have had to face the fact that corruption and things like torture are part of every culture and not specific to a less -educated other that just needs to be civilized.
[Right and Left are pretty meaningless terms. The NYT represents a portion of the academic elite in the US that is for Free Trade, and believes in the basic goodness of US foreign policy. Since it represents the academic elite (and New York) it is more pro gay rights, more prochoice and more opposed to the death penality and more willing to support the idea that the government can be a force for good in both the lives of US citizens and the lives of those in other countries. The general public is more sceptical about military actions as well as government programs in the US. The NYT sees a world of noncorrupt elites who have to deal with rogue states and those in need wheras the general public is more likely to have had to face the fact that corruption and things like torture are part of every culture and not specific to a less -educated other that just needs to be civilized.]
And, when necessary, the NYT accomodates changes in the political power structure. For example, it is believed that the NYT missed Watergate because it removed Tom Wicker as Editor and replaced him with Max Frankel when Nixon won the 1968 election, because it wanted someone perceived as likely to be less confrontational with the new administration.
Similarly, the paper hired David Brooks to write columns during Bush the 2nd's presidency. (For something similar, look to the LA Times, where the sleep inducing columns of neo-conservative Max (we need foreign mercenary troops) Boot grace their pages weekly, under the bland stewardship of Michael Kinsley.)
Socially, the NYT is dedicated to the the preservation of an old line white liberal view of the world, pretty embarassing when you compare the paper, and the diversity of its writers and coverage, to the city that it purportedly represents. It increasingly appears that, given the political decline of these liberals in the real world outside the paper, that the NYT seems to pathetically preserve a pretense of its influence by marketing its liberal credentials in the service of a neo-conservative foreign policy.
Which is part of the reason it seems to get more and more stories wrong, the WMDs in Iraq and the emergence of the resistance, the belief that there was an angry majority of Venezuelans willing to support the removal of Chavez, the willingness to credulously describe political upheavals in the Ukraine and Lebanon as democratic reform movements.
--Richard
And, when necessary, the NYT accomodates changes in the political power structure. For example, it is believed that the NYT missed Watergate because it removed Tom Wicker as Editor and replaced him with Max Frankel when Nixon won the 1968 election, because it wanted someone perceived as likely to be less confrontational with the new administration.
Similarly, the paper hired David Brooks to write columns during Bush the 2nd's presidency. (For something similar, look to the LA Times, where the sleep inducing columns of neo-conservative Max (we need foreign mercenary troops) Boot grace their pages weekly, under the bland stewardship of Michael Kinsley.)
Socially, the NYT is dedicated to the the preservation of an old line white liberal view of the world, pretty embarassing when you compare the paper, and the diversity of its writers and coverage, to the city that it purportedly represents. It increasingly appears that, given the political decline of these liberals in the real world outside the paper, that the NYT seems to pathetically preserve a pretense of its influence by marketing its liberal credentials in the service of a neo-conservative foreign policy.
Which is part of the reason it seems to get more and more stories wrong, the WMDs in Iraq and the emergence of the resistance, the belief that there was an angry majority of Venezuelans willing to support the removal of Chavez, the willingness to credulously describe political upheavals in the Ukraine and Lebanon as democratic reform movements.
--Richard
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$40.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network