kuzadd

How telling..... yes, it is , it tells us , you don't read what is posted. Figleaf said " nothing in these excerpts" a reference to the original excerpts posted in the intiating post. take note this is the original post: "Shame on the Left and its vicious hatred of Israeland shame on those who give ideological comfort to these enemies of democracy, so-called socialists and islamofascists.. Didn't Martin Luther kIng Jr. argue that anti-Zionism is simply a mask for anti-Semitism. An anti-Israeli rally in Iran - increasing numbers of the British left are joining them in their hate excerpted ANTI-RACISM is supposed to be one of the guiding principles of our society, preventing discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin or nationality. Yet it is a bizarre paradox of modern Britain that there is now a climate of increasing hostility towards Jews, particularly in those Left-wing intellectual circles which otherwise make a fetish of their concern for racial sensitivities. Dressed up as criticism of the state of Israel, anti-Semitism is becoming not just tolerated but even fashionable in some of our civic institutions, including the universities and parts of the media. Thanks to the Left’s neurotic hatred of Israel, we now have the extraordinary sight of self-styled liberal campaigners launching McCarthyite witch-hunts against anyone deemed to have Israeli connections, as in this week’s debate at the University and College Union’s annual conference at Bourne mouth calling for a boycott of all Israeli academic institutions. another excerpt========================= They are guilty of the most bizarre double standards. While they scream about the Jewish state, they remain silent about human rights abuses carried out by brutal regimes across the world. And it is ironic that, on the day the lecturers debated a boycott of Israel, they also voted to refuse to co-operate with any attempt to crack down on radical Islam on campuses, claiming such a move would be an infringement of free speech. Given some of the lecturers’ enthusiasm for silencing Israeli opinion such a position is laughable in its hypocrisy. United by anti-Semitism, the bigots of the academic Left and Muslim fundamentalism are destroying freedom of thought in this country."

Check it out, Kuzadd. Look what you just said. Colvin may be in a position to know....and since he is in a position to know, obviously he is not sticking his neck out about something that he knows is not conclusive! Therefore, this is just an allegation! Check out the definition of "allegation." Betsy: I know exactly what I said, and I know what allegation means. let's move along and read what I wrote in it's entirety ok? What gives this story credence is: 1.David Colvin, was in a position to know. 2.He put the allegations to paper, which would indicate he took them quite seriously, or he would not have bothered. 3.He then sent the message to the British Foreign office, again an indication, this was serious and he trusted his info. 4. the information was also independantly verified through another source "but later officials ( british foreign office) recorded that a journalist from the Liverpool Post, Leo Murray, had also told them that a splinter group of PFLP was planning a series of spectacular incidents to disrupt contacts between the PLO leader Yasser Arafat and the US." which in fact validates David Colvin's story. there was second independant validation, from a journalist at the time name Leo Murray.Who also informed the British foreign office, that a splinter group of PFLP was planning a series of spectacular incidents to disrupt contacts between the PLO leader Yasser Arafat and the US." This journalist validates and further lends credibility to David Colvin's claims. Ignore as you may, and I get the impression you will. ------------ But as I went through all the points that lend's this claim credibility, based on the actions that David Colvin took, in notifying, the British Foreign Office at that time, he obviously got the information, from a reliable enough source to take it seriously enough to pass it on. This is point A to point B kinda stuff, it's not difficult. if this information was far flung, he would NOT have gone to the trouble of notifying the British Foreign office, he would have dismissed it, He DID NOT dismiss it. Again not difficult to grasp.? again:there was second independant validation, from a journalist at the time name Leo Murray.Who also informed the British foreign office, that a splinter group of PFLP was planning a series of spectacular incidents to disrupt contacts between the PLO leader Yasser Arafat and the US." This is not difficult to grasp is it? Secondary independant information from a journalist? who notifies the Brit gov and verifies the David Colvin info. Also notice each party, put there name to there information received, David Colvin and the Journalist both. These are important details that add to the validity of the claims. Then I went even further to recount an additonal false flag precedent set by Israel the Lavon Affair. No matter how you may wish the information cannot be dismissed out of hand. For the numerous reason I listed above.

But your quotes supporting your view were: I give up. Pat yourself on the back. Insha'Kuzadd. You could have clicked the link and checked the writer and magazine. The author of the article I posted, did quote TWO other writers,"They write" but that quotation was but a small part of the entire article written "In these Times" by Doug Ireland

There is nothing in these excerpts that shows criticism of Israel to be driven by anti-semitism. The suggestion seems quite slanderous, really. have you noticed the page is unavailable when one clicks the link? I am unable to get it. wondering if it is, because it was slanderous?

The word claim denotes nothing,( negative or positive) it is an adjective for something someone said or wrote. I am a stickler for defintions, myself. What gives this story credence is: 1.David Colvin, was in a position to know. 2.He put the allegations to paper, which would indicate he took them quite seriously, or he would not have bothered. 3.He then sent the message to the British Foreign office, again an indication, this was serious and he trusted his info. 4. the information was also independantly verified through another source "but later officials ( british foreign office) recorded that a journalist from the Liverpool Post, Leo Murray, had also told them that a splinter group of PFLP was planning a series of spectacular incidents to disrupt contacts between the PLO leader Yasser Arafat and the US." which in fact validates David Colvin's story. 5. these type of false flag ops have been perpetuated previously by Israel, (to be sure Israel is not alone in this as one of the most recent exposures of false flags is the Gulf of Tonkin incident, perpetuated by the US) One which come to mind is the Lavon Affair http://educate-yourself.org/cn/LavonAffair10jul05.shtml "In the early 1950s, agents of an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities. They left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits. The ruse would have worked, had not one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to capture and identify one of the bombers. This led to a round-up of the entire ring. Why would our Jewish friends do something like this to their greatest benefactor? The story begins when the United States began pressuring the British to withdraw from the Suez Canal and leave Egypt, something the U.K. eventually agreed to do. Israel was strongly opposed to British withdrawal, as it feared this would remove a check on Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser in his defense of Arab interests against the Zionist menace. But diplomatic methods failed to sway the British. And so, in the summer of 1954 Colonel Benyamin Gibli, the chief of Israel's army intelligence, intiated Operation Susannah in order to reverse that decision. The plan called for bombing British and American facilities in Egypt, with the intent that they would be attributed to the Egyptian government, to show what a "threat" it posed. Operatives had been recruited several years before, when the Israeli intelligence officer Avram Dar, alias John Darling, arrived in Cairo under a British cover. The recruits came from the local Jewish population and were trained in the techniques of covert terror operations. On July 2 they struck. A post office in Alexandria was firebombed, and on July 14 the U.S. Information Agency libraries in Alexandria and Cairo, as well as a British-owned theater, were also bombed. The bombs themselves were homemade, consisting of bags containing acid placed over nitroglycerine. They were inserted into books and placed on the shelves of the libraries just before closing time. Several hours later, as the acid ate through the bags, the bombs exploded. When one bomb ignited prematurely in his pocket, Egyptian authorities arrested suspect Robert Dassa. In searching his apartment, they found incriminating evidence and the names of his accomplices in the operation. Several suspects were arrested, including Egyptian Jews and undercover Israelis, who admitted their roles in the plot, which had been authorized at the highest levels of the Zionist entity. Israeli authorities reacted to the incident with vociferous denials and charges of "anti-Semitism." But the fact that the Jewish state was behind the bombings could not be concealed, and in 1960 Israel's Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon was brought down by the scandal, along with the entire Israeli government."

despite the denials here, the cops were clearly wrong! They knew this and hence there attempt to cover up, there actions. The cover-up on there part is an ackowledgement of there wrongdoing, through an attempt to save there own arses. There is NO proof, this lady KNEW it was police breaking into her house. One cannot assume, she was intentionally trying to shoot at police officers, She clearly knew someone person/people were breaking into her house. http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/April/07_crt_299.html Officer Gregg Junnier, of Woodstock, Ga., and Officer Jason R. Smith, of Oxford, Ga., pleaded guilty in state court to The third officer, Arthur Tesler, of Acworth, Ga., was indicted on state charges of "“The killing of Kathryn Johnston by Atlanta police officers was a horrible and unnecessary tragedy,” said David E. Nahmias. “While the police officers involved were attempting to rid the streets of drug dealers, their means toward that end violated their oath, the Constitution, and the civil rights of the citizens they are sworn to protect, and it was inevitable that one day someone would get seriously hurt. This conduct demands accountability. Beyond holding the officers responsible for their crimes, however, Ms. Johnston’s family has made clear that they want some good to come out of her death. We are committed to working with the FBI to find out just how wide the culture of misconduct that led to this tragedy extends within APD and to bring any other officers who have violated the law to justice.” it is quite clear the police in this case took ALOT of wrong and unlawful actions. FBI Special Agent in Charge Gregory Jones: "The conduct of these police officers is both troubling and deplorable. As law enforcement officers we take an oath to uphold the law and to protect the innocent. These officers chose to break the law and in doing so, they took the life of an innocent elderly woman. " the cops were wrong and they broke numerous laws.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/ The magazine is In these Times is doesn't appear to be communist, nor satirical. The author is Doug Ireland so far you are wrong on every count. But the article was NOT written by this person Toscier,no is it from this magaizne, so what is your point again? good for you, In terms of credibility, I certainly would not choose you at all, nor Mr Levy for that matter. sympathy is NEVER a foreign policy objective, purely nonsensical Morality does not equal a desire for stable democratic processes, that is pure service of political interests. It was a pipeline, for starters, control of the pipeline, control of the flow of oil, having an obedient governement, obedient to US/British interests. It was NOT to help Afghanistan or Bosnia Since you were passing him of as an intellectual, he , as an intellectual should have known his premise was bogus. You guess? Don't you read any history? There was NO naievete on the part of the Bush/Blair govs wrt Iraq, they lied, they fixed the intelligence, this is calculated and in no way can even remotely be construed a naive, except in a "opinion" piece, where one can write whatever they want despite KNOWN facts. This writer , like yourself, conveniently denied known history,( or was unaware of it , due to a lack of informing oneself) so he was able to gloss over reality, and write his opinion using 'morality' as justification, for the attack on Iraq. The moral issue is nothing new, it came straight out of the Bush/Blair government mouths.

True enough!

Betsy, the documents being discussed were released at the UK national archives, they are here http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documen...Edoc_Id=7705218 they are the British gov's own documentation.

I'll admit to being a bit of a defintion stickler, but, the honest reason is, if a defintion is agreed upon,or understood, the discussion based around that can be clearer. Hopefully anyway? i think my issue was this, the author of this piece said "Or to put it another way, the neo-conservatives' error was to nourished what I call the mirage of democratic messianism. That's roughly the idea that it's enough to decree democracy for it to come about, and that you don't need the patient work we call politics." He seems to be putting forth the idea that, the neo-cons error (?)was that they nourished a "mirage" of democratic messianism. Mirage meaning illusion, IMO. Back to the meaning of "Messianic democracy is a neologism originally used by Jacob Talmon is his book Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (1951) to describe the "democracy by force" doctrines of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and its philosophical decendents, [/b]as an effective tyranny that demotes democratic principle to rhetorical use only" In fact there would seem to be no error, and no mirage, the neo-cons did in fact bring about democratic messianism, no illusion, at all. They certainly have tried to bring 'democracy by force' as an effective means of tyranny, that has demoted the principal's of democracy to rhetoric. One can't deny it must seem tyrannical to the people of Iraq, under the guise of democratic rhetoric. What it leaves me wondering is if the author is counting on people to not understand the correct meaning of the term, so he can pass it off as something else "it's enough to decree democracy" Like the neo-cons are passing a law or something, and they most certainly have not just passed a law, they have done much more then that to/in iraq. I guess, I am left wondering, if the author is attempting misrepresentation of what the neo-cons are doing?

so I trod off to see who is this B.H Levy, what is his story, where is he from, etc., what has made this man?? (influences, experiences) a number of writers point out he is hugely narcissistic, interesting. This was was quite the eye-opener, though. http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/the_li...enri_leacutevy/ The Lies of Bernard-Henri Lévy Two French journalists—Nicolas Beau of Le Canard Enchainé and Olivier Toscer of Le Nouvel Observateur—have just published in Paris Une Imposture Francaise (A French Imposter), an inquest into how BHL has built his success. They write: "A philosopher who’s never taught the subject in any university, a journalist who creates a cocktail mingling the true, the possible, and the totally false, a patch-work filmmaker, a writer without a real literary oeuvre, he is the icon of a media-driven society in which simple appearance weighs more than the substance of things. BHL is thus first and foremost a great communicator, the PR man of the only product he really knows how to sell: himself." "a journalist who creates a cocktail mingling the true, the possible, and the totally false" Figleaf, he appears to be a revisionist. Interesting, so is he an intellectual or a salesman??? He, IMO, appears to be an excellent pitchman, based on the, massaging of reality he does in article that starts this thread.

a theocracy doesn't mean" God's government" here's a number of defintions.......... # A government ruled by or subject to religious authority. # A state so governed #Government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. #the belief in government by divine guidance

And false. Spreading democracy was the last reason tendered, practically post-facto. They first falsely attempted to paint Iraq as a conspirator in 9/11, then fabricated the weapons-of-mass-deception gambit. This BH fellow is either sloppy, ignorant, or revisionist. (Edit: Or, of course, some combination of all three, bearing in mind the slight responsibility academics display for sense or wisdom of their statements.) Yes, the fact that it was blatantly false, was what made it hilarious. It is very much like the author set's up this false premise of justifiable moral warfare, to topple a dictator, when absolutely nothing could be further from the truth, then this faulty premise is his entire arguement in defense of the neo-cons and there colonialism. Throw in some insults against Arab/Muslims as undesirables, and it is all justified in a moral sense. Hooey!

so you assume. You do that alot. IMO, he discredits himself, by writing this opinion piece, despite facts and history. this is his opinion, it isn't anything else.

Sorry, but there is no inconsistency, just your inability to comprehend basic facts and history, all war is fought for control of resources, what ever resources are deemed necessary, then the war mongers wrap themselves in morality. In other words morality in war is the sales pitch. The reality, is entirely something else.

the author of the article defines Messianic democracy interestingly also." That's roughly the idea that it's enough to decree democracy for it to come about, and that you don't need the patient work we call politics." but when I checked out the meaning of it, below is what I find. Messianic democracy is a neologism originally used by Jacob Talmon is his book Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (1951) to describe the "democracy by force" doctrines of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and its philosophical decendents, as an effective tyranny that demotes democratic principle to rhetorical use only It's not about decreeing democracy, it is democracy by force,as an effective tyranny, which demotes democratic principle, to rhetoric only. slightly different?

Since control of oil has always been the issue, Arab/Muslims must continually be demonized , so 'intervention' on the basis of "democracy' or 'human rights', can be used by western powers, to sell good old fashioned colonialism, to the inhabitants of the western interventionists. It's got nothing to do with morality, just control of resources.

"Their reasons for starting this war were neither base nor immoral! They started it for the reason they gave: the naive idea that in doing so they would spread democracy in the Arab world!" This alone is hilarious. Spreading democracy and human rights too??? If this fellow starts from there he is on the wrong foot, from the get go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Inte...the_Middle_East "On August 8, 1944, the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement was signed, dividing Middle Eastern oil between the United States and Britain. Consequently, political scholar Fred H Lawson remarks, that ‘by mid-1944, U.S. officials had buttressed their country’s position on the peninsula by concluding an Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement that protected “all valid concession contracts and lawfully acquired rights” belonging to the signatories and established a principle of “equal opportunity” in those areas where no concession had yet been assigned.’ Furthermore, political scholar Irvine Anderson summarises American interests in the Middle East in the late 19th century and the early 20th century noting that, ‘the most significant event of the period was the transition of the United States from the position of net exporter to one of net importer of petroleum.’ By the end of the Second World War, the United States had come to consider the Middle East region as ‘the most strategically important area of the world’.[9]and ‘…one of the greatest material prizes in world history’. For that reason, it was not until around the period of the Second World War that America became directly involved in the Middle East region. Politically, the Middle East was experiencing an upsurge in the popularity of nationalistic politics and an increase in the number of nationalistic political groups across the region, which was causing great trouble for the English and French colonial powers. History scholar Jack Watson explains that ‘Europeans could not hold these lands indefinitely in the face of Arab nationalism’. Watson then continues, stating that ‘by the end of 1946 Palestine was the last remaining mandate, but it posed a major problem’. In truth, this nationalistic political trend clashed with American interests in the Middle East region, which were, as Middle East scholar Louise Fawcett argues, ‘about the Soviet Union, access to oil and the project for a Jewish state in Palestine.Hence, ‘‘‘Arabist’ ambassador Raymond Hare’ described the Second World War period, as ‘the great divide’ in United States’ relation with the Middle East, because these three interests would later serve as a backdrop and reasoning for a great deal of American interventions in the Middle East and thus also come to be the cause of several future conflicts between the United States and the Middle East. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine Carter Doctrine "The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 23 January 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. " what are the US's national interests? oil! http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html "After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.(3) The United States, as the heir to British imperialism in the region, has been a frequent object of suspicion. Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region's political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. The most recent part of that record, which includes U.S. alliances with Iraq to counter Iran and then with Iran and Syria to counter Iraq, illustrates a theme that has been played in Washington for the last 45 years." It's always been control of the oil, for varying reasons, to have it forthemselves, to keep it away from others, whatever.

Granny discharged a fire arm in the vicinity of police officers while they executed a legal no-knock warrant. Granny got a first hand lesson in police tactics for the application of deadly force. Granny pulled the first trigger. Cops pulled the last. Poor Granny.....maybe she should have shot at Canadian constables instead...nah...same result: DEAD Granny. you continue advocate for corrupt police, and it's amazing. The cops were corrupt, and they knew it, that's why the covered up. no defence, IMO.

This is a good example why having a gun can get you killed. If granny had no gun probably would be alive today because she would have either hid or ran out the back door. Baloney!

It's just a regurgitated thread from another forum that tries to make the so called "War on Drugs" look silly. Gun toting granny is absolved of any responsibility..natch! and yet it's about so much more. citizens right to be safe in there own home, protect themselves, corrupt cops, etc., The 'war on drugs' needs no help to look silly, it just is

Nonsense....there is nothing to win even in your self proclamation, not to mention your ignorance of the law, municipal liability, and police training. "Mistakes" are part of the occupation...doesn't mean you're supposed to eat granny's bullets without a life preserving response. Granny shot at police officers...granny is dead. Granny hit porch roof repeat Granny hit porch roof all the cops had to do was take the gun away, from this old gal. There is no defence for these guys despite, BC's claims.

I'm not sure what case you are referring to. The Nov 2006 case involved a legal no-knock warrant by three Atlanta narcotics officers, issued after officers purchased drugs from the same house. She did manage to shoot three of the officers. Way to go Granny...just chose the wrong people to shoot. no she didn't , she got off one shot, and she missed! "Johnston got off one shot, the bullet missing her target and hitting a porch roof. The three narcotics officers answered with 39 bullets." "Some pieces of the other bullets -- friendly fire -- hit Junnier and two other cops." in other words the cops in there zeal shot one another. the cops fired a hail of 39 bulletsat the woman. and they purchased NO drugs there either.

More "Booga Booga"? LOL! Shooting at cops is a request for police assisted suicide. What's this obsession with age (92 year old). You seemingly have no problem with ripping the limbs from an 8 month old fetus! (Handcuffs would be too small.) you assume she knew they were cops, not necessarily, she may have thought her house was being broken into, which is the more likely scenario. amazingly you seemingly still side with these crooks. Crooks/murderer's is what they are.

I remember the story well, and remember upon reading it, thought it stunk to high heaven. All full of oddities. I had actually heard this follow up somewhere, also. Also recall BC, on the forum was like , oh well , shoot at the police, too bad. Those dirty cops, are really just criminals. Handcuffing a 92 yr old woman they have just shot! I love when I am right, and I am so often *big smirk* war on drugs & war on terror = BS