Yes, it's time once again for I Hate Jews Week!

[ToadBrother]

Bombing Damascus back into the stone age necessitates a catastrophic human tragedy.

Good. The Syrian people need to feel the pain of their leadership's decisions.

And remember, anyone who advocates for "preemptive war" is a servile, indoctrinated fool.

Period.

BS. Syria and Iran have been waging an undeclared war on Israel for years, using proxy groups for it. I think it's high time that the people of these countries comprehend that proxy wars are still wars.

It has entered popular usage directly and only because of the Bush administration's disingenuousness.

Because "preemptive" is (at best!) a euphemism for "preventive"--which is a whole different animal.

If Israel--with or without "the world community" (which means only whichever countries the proponents of the phrase wish it to mean at any given point--it usually means less than ten...that's the "world community")--bombed Damscus right now, we are talking about a war of aggression. Which is the supreme international crime.

How odd that you think that would be an international crime, but you have little to say on the fact that Damascus has been waging a war on Israel for years. That they have been clever enough to keep their support non-obvious (that is, to anyone who spends their days blaming Israel) seems an odd defense.

You see. The world, in general, has little interest in protecting Israel, but keeps demanding that Israel play by some set of rules that non of those seeking Israel's destruction care to. Why wouldn't you advocate the destruction of Hamas's and Hezbollah's puppet masters?

[bloodyminded]

Good. The Syrian people need to feel the pain of their leadership's decisions.

BS. Syria and Iran have been waging an undeclared war on Israel for years, using proxy groups for it. I think it's high time that the people of these countries comprehend that proxy wars are still wars.

How odd that you think that would be an international crime, but you have little to say on the fact that Damascus has been waging a war on Israel for years. That they have been clever enough to keep their support non-obvious (that is, to anyone who spends their days blaming Israel) seems an odd defense.

You see. The world, in general, has little interest in protecting Israel, but keeps demanding that Israel play by some set of rules that non of those seeking Israel's destruction care to. Why wouldn't you advocate the destruction of Hamas's and Hezbollah's puppet masters?

A more interesting question--since you're the one advocating for war, not me--is why you fail to mention that you wholeheartedly support wars against the United States, Canada, the UK, France, and fuck knows how many others?

In fact, so as to keep it simple, let's remain for the moment with the US and Canada.

You support attacks on these two countries. We have done far worse than Iran or Syria...objectively worse.

We have been using proxies that make Hamas and Hizbollah look like Gandhi in comparison.

Overthrowing democracies in favour of tyrannies. Fighting democratic movements. Arming and funding terrorists.

Intentionally supporting genocide, even. Hizbollah is a joke.

So it's high time the Canadians and Americans "feel the pain of [our] leadership's decisions."

I'm not trying to be cute about this: I am 100% serious: if you are right about Iran and Syria, then this applies to Canada--and even if you wish to argue that (incorrectly), it applies MORESO to the U.S.

MORESO than to Iran or Syria.

So, your cavalier notions of destroying all these people's lives for their master's misdeeds is either nativist/nationalistic...or you aren't even serious about what you're saying.

Why should we be held to a LOWER standard on this than the Syrians?

Hell, if anything we are MORE responsible for our leaderships' misdeeds than they are!

[ToadBrother]

A more interesting question--since you're the one advocating for war, not me--is why you fail to mention that you wholeheartedly support wars against the United States, Canada, the UK, France, and fuck knows how many others?

In fact, so as to keep it simple, let's remain for the moment with the US and Canada.

You support attacks on these two countries. We have done far worse than Iran or Syria...objectively worse.

We have been using proxies that make Hamas and Hizbollah look like Gandhi in comparison.

Overthrowing democracies in favour of tyrannies. Fighting democratic movements. Arming and funding terrorists.

Intentionally supporting genocide, even. Hizbollah is a joke.

So it's high time the Canadians and Americans "feel the pain of [our] leadership's decisions."

I'm not trying to be cute about this: I am 100% serious: if you are right about Iran and Syria, then this applies to Canada--and even if you wish to argue that (incorrectly), it applies MORESO to the U.S.

MORESO than to Iran or Syria.

So, your cavalier notions of destroying all these people's lives for their master's misdeeds is either nativist/nationalistic...or you aren't even serious about what you're saying.

Why should we be held to a LOWER standard on this than the Syrians?

Hell, if anything we are MORE responsible for our leaderships' misdeeds than they are!

The difference is we won. The Arab states lost. That Palestinians still hitch their cart to despots like that idiot dentist who runs Syria suggests maybe that they have no desire to ever win. But if Syria threatens Israel, why shouldn't Israel bomb Damascus back to the Stone Age?

[bloodyminded]

The difference is we won. The Arab states lost. That Palestinians still hitch their cart to despots like that idiot dentist who runs Syria suggests maybe that they have no desire to ever win. But if Syria threatens Israel, why shouldn't Israel bomb Damascus back to the Stone Age?

The difference is we won????

So, we're not talking about principles, or about justifications for war....

???????

Yet you couched your support for Israel's "right" to kill anyone they please (a "right" shared only by two or three countries...another interesting dilemma)...as a moral argument.

You can't have it both ways.

If Israel, with the help of the "world community" (ie the US, Canada, and the UK, i guess...you know, "the world") has the "right," then surely countries who have been victimized a thousand times worse than Israel...by us (and with Israel's help in some instances) then they too have the "right" to kill us. Because of our leaders' actions.

Unless we're going to openly say "We are monumental hypocrites and outright moral relativists, and also moral degenerates"...then there is some level of universality of this principle about "right" to attack.

Also...I'd love to know when was that golden age of history when WE did not "hitch our carts to despots."

Edited March 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

...Unless we're going to openly say "We are monumental hypocrites and outright moral relativists, and also moral degenerates"...then there is some level of universality of this principle about "right" to attack.

No need to say anything unless you vote with your feet and move to Syria or Palestine. Otherwise, welcome to the "hypocrite" club.

[bloodyminded]

No need to say anything unless you vote with your feet and move to Syria or Palestine. Otherwise, welcome to the "hypocrite" club.

Yeah, that's a stupid remark.

[ToadBrother]

The difference is we won????

So, we're not talking about principles, or about justifications for war....

???????

Yet you couched your support for Israel's "right" to kill anyone they please (a "right" shared only by two or three countries...another interesting dilemma)...as a moral argument.

I support Israel's right to assure its safety. Since Syria and Iran are the leaders of the proxy war, they should feel the real effects. Wouldn't it be better to make the idiot dentist in Damascus feel the pain of his decisions, rather than the Palestinian people?

You can't have it both ways.

If Israel, with the help of the "world community" (ie the US, Canada, and the UK, i guess...you know, "the world") has the "right," then surely countries who have been victimized a thousand times worse than Israel...by us (and with Israel's help in some instances) then they too have the "right" to kill us. Because of our leaders' actions.

Who exactly has Israel victimized that didn't first try to overthrow Israel?

Did the Arab world on multiple occasions try to exterminate Israel? Yes or no.

Unless we're going to openly say "We are monumental hypocrites and outright moral relativists, and also moral degenerates"...then there is some level of universality of this principle about "right" to attack.

Also...I'd love to know when was that golden age of history when WE did not "hitch our carts to despots."

We did lots of bad things. We also won the Cold War, which strikes me as being a good thing. Perhaps you feel differently and regret that we're not all living in the workers paradises that the Soviets wanted to put in place.

I'm simply tell you that it would be better to directly attack Syria and Iran than to continue to wage war against the Palestinians.

Alternatively, and more realistically, the Palestinian people could take care of the puppet armies that Tehran and Damascus have installed among them. Might be a bit of a civil war, but hey, it's not like Hamas has exactly delivered anything but misery and criminality anyways.

[bloodyminded]

I support Israel's right to assure its safety. Since Syria and Iran are the leaders of the proxy war, they should feel the real effects. Wouldn't it be better to make the idiot dentist in Damascus feel the pain of his decisions, rather than the Palestinian people?

But we weren't talking about the Syrian leader, but the Syrian people. You were very clear about that. Teach 'em a lesson, sort of idea.

Who exactly has Israel victimized that didn't first try to overthrow Israel?

One of the ways Israel has been very useful to its boss--the United States of America--has been to provide weapons to dictators (used to suppress their populations) that the US cannot do thanks to US law. So Israel supplied weapons to apartheid South Africa (and was in fact the very last developed nation to have good relations with the racist regime...no small irony there); to Nicaragua's Somoza dictatorship; to Marcos; to the murderous Duvaliers of Haiti. And so on.

However, by international Power standards, they do not match the sheer murderous audacity of the UK, France, the US, etc.

Did the Arab world on multiple occasions try to exterminate Israel? Yes or no.

Did we try to exterminate the people of East Timor? Yes or no.

We did lots of bad things. We also won the Cold War, which strikes me as being a good thing. Perhaps you feel differently and regret that we're not all living in the workers paradises that the Soviets wanted to put in place.

Come on, TB. I know this argument is heated, but this is beneath you. I oppose all dictatorships. Period.

Unlike, say, official Canadian, American, UK policy...who not only supports them, but often defends them from democratic movements.

As to the "Cold War"--this phrase must be talismanic, because whenever someone talks about mass murder, terrorism, rape, torture, even genocide--even genocide, for Christ's sake...the justification is always "the Cold War."

Are you saying that the intentional support, through arms and diplomacy, of the Indonesians to attempt the genocide of the East Timorese people--is justifiable because of the Cold War?

How was it necessary to defeat the Soviets? How did those hundreds of thousands of dead East Timorese help in the fight agaisnt the Soviets?

What if Canadians or Americans were told to suffer under the boot of awful tyranny...with hundreds of thousands murdered by the tyrants? (Well...millions, actually, once we adjust for population). Would we say, "Well, our murderous oppressors were allied with the Good Guys in a noble cause...so even though we were murdered with the good guys' weapons, it's all for the best"?

Ah, it's moot anyway, because we did not support this genocide for the sake of the Cold War.

Syria has done nothing comparable to any of this. Not even close.

[bush_cheney2004]

One of the ways Israel has been very useful to its boss--the United States of America--has been to provide weapons to dictators (used to suppress their populations) that the US cannot do thanks to US law. So Israel supplied weapons to apartheid South Africa (and was in fact the very last developed nation to have good relations with the racist regime...no small irony there); to Nicaragua's Somoza dictatorship; to Marcos; to the murderous Duvaliers of Haiti. And so on.

Very useful indeed...just like Canada's Gerald Bull of SRC fame working through Spain as import agent for high tech artillery (e.g. GC-45 howitzer). South Africa and Iraq loved them!

[bush_cheney2004]

What if Canadians or Americans were told to suffer under the boot of awful tyranny...

We already know what the Americans would do.

[M.Dancer]

Very useful indeed...just like Canada's Gerald Bull of SRC fame working through Spain as import agent for high tech artillery (e.g. GC-45 howitzer). South Africa and Iraq loved them!

Israel was very found of Bull too....sort of..in a lets stop proliferation way

[bloodyminded]

Very useful indeed...just like Canada's Gerald Bull of SRC fame working through Spain as import agent for high tech artillery (e.g. GC-45 howitzer). South Africa and Iraq loved them!

Ok, but I wasn't setting Canada apart as some beacon of goodness. That's for the patriotic cowards. In fact, I expressly included Canada among the nations that act as big rogue criminals. So you're singing to the choir.

[DogOnPorch]

Past events...precious memories: 2006 UC Irvine

Let 'im have it, lady.

[eyeball]

"Give Ireland back to the Irish,

Give Lapland back to the Laps.

Give China back to the Chinese

And give Yoko back to the Japs!"

It's just too bad there isn't an alien invasion force in orbit, that might smarten us up...maybe. No doubt the big powers would try to sell each other out and cut a side deal for themselves.

[Argus]

Why is it that when a Jewish person criticizes Israel he is deemed a "self-hating Jew"?

Are you suggesting there are no self-hating Jews?

I think it's a profoundly unfair form of debate...

Drivel. Such people use the fact of their Jewishness as a shield to hide behind. "I'm Jewish and I want Israel dismantled and driven into the sea! So you can see this view is entirely legitimate because, I'm Jewish. By the way, did I mention I'm Jewish?"

And most of these little Nazi groups love to find Jews they can push up and hide behind, snickering and smiling and leering while the Jew says nasty things about Israel - or Jews, so they can they step up and say "See!? See!? I'm not an anti-Semite! Even this Jew boy agrees!"

I recall Iran's delight when they held a so-called "Holocaust Conference" and six members of a Jewish anti-Zionist movement participated. They were so gleeful being able to point at the Jews and say "See!? See!? We're not anti-semites! We've even got Jews here!"

Edited March 4, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

Actually, I agree with you at least this far. The aggression of Arab states has been all too real, and has been counterproductive even from a coldly practical viewpoint.

Are you assuming the Arab states have been in any way concerned with the welfare of Palestinians? Because I have seen no such concern or interest. The Arab states have been more concerned with using Israel - ie, Jews - as "THE OTHER" to distract their local populations and incite them to united hatred of "THE OTHER", much the same way Hitler did, actually.

[bloodyminded]

Are you suggesting there are no self-hating Jews?

Drivel. Such people use the fact of their Jewishness as a shield to hide behind. "I'm Jewish and I want Israel dismantled and driven into the sea! So you can see this view is entirely legitimate because, I'm Jewish. By the way, did I mention I'm Jewish?"

And most of these little Nazi groups love to find Jews they can push up and hide behind, snickering and smiling and leering while the Jew says nasty things about Israel - or Jews, so they can they step up and say "See!? See!? I'm not an anti-Semite! Even this Jew boy agrees!"

I recall Iran's delight when they held a so-called "Holocaust Conference" and six members of a Jewish anti-Zionist movement participated. They were so gleeful being able to point at the Jews and say "See!? See!? We're not anti-semites! We've even got Jews here!"

No doubt a trivial little nothing of a minority are self-hating Jews. Irrelevant.

As to the rest...do you not know that you could find all kinds of agreement with many of your views from the uber-patriotic, uber pro-American, pro-family military fetishists that inhabit the White Supremacist movement?

Unsavoury people who agree with some of your views, or even who use you for their own purposes, do not instantaneously discredit opinions.

If it did, all opinions would be instantly discredited.

[Argus]

In 1948 they had a state. The Brits didn't leave them hanging. The Mandate was split into two pieces, one for the Jewish state, one for the Palestinian state.

To be more exact, it was split into four pieces. Two were given over to the creation of a Palestinian state to be called Jordan" and of the remaining two, one was to be Jewish, and the other was to be a second Palestinian state.

[DogOnPorch]

Plus the Frenchies were dividing-up their mandate at the time making more Arab states.

[Argus]

Ie. Israel is blameless.

This is of course preposterous--seriously, it doesn't even rise to elementary levels of decency, much less reason and understanding.

I don't believe I've ever encountered that view. Do you happen to have any citations which show this view? I'm sure that, given the ideological hard-lines which have been drawn on this issue there might be people who believe Israel is always right but I haven't yet encountered them and I don't think they're a major part of the discussion.

[DogOnPorch]

That chunk of Nazi human filth known as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem deserves 99% of the blame for the current situation. That doesn't mean Israel is blameless...but had this evil f**ker been kicked to the curb and hanged as he deserved, there'd be a Palestine right now and it'd probably be full of tourists enjoying the lovely warm Med.

[Argus]

If Israel--with or without "the world community" (which means only whichever countries the proponents of the phrase wish it to mean at any given point--it usually means less than ten...that's the "world community")--bombed Damscus right now, we are talking about a war of aggression. Which is the supreme international crime.

Funny, most of us would have thought something like like genocide was the supreme international crime.

If Israel was to invade or bomb Syria in order to take territory away from them that would be a war of agression. If Israel was to invade or bomb Syria because it perceived that Syria was about to take violent action against them, or was positioning itself to do so, or was aiding and abetting - even funding - others to do so, that would be a defensive measure.

[DogOnPorch]

Funny, most of us would have thought something like like genocide was the supreme international crime.

If Israel was to invade or bomb Syria in order to take territory away from them that would be a war of agression. If Israel was to invade or bomb Syria because it perceived that Syria was about to take violent action against them, or was positioning itself to do so, or was aiding and abetting - even funding - others to do so, that would be a defensive measure.

Israel made that mistake once before in 1967. In 1973 they were told in no-uncertain terms that in order for the US to continue support, the Arabs had to throw the first grenade no matter the tactical situation at the front line.

Edited March 4, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Argus]

We have been using proxies that make Hamas and Hizbollah look like Gandhi in comparison.

Overthrowing democracies in favour of tyrannies. Fighting democratic movements. Arming and funding terrorists.

Intentionally supporting genocide, even. Hizbollah is a joke.

Leftist caterwauling with little basis in fact. Most of the 'democratic' governments you people snivel about were rather far from the democratic ideal and had prescious little respect for democratic rights. Canada and the US supported genocide? Which historical event are you going to twist into supporting that suggestion? Western interference in other nations was, by and large, at least over the last half centuries, largely the product of attempting to make things better in the world, and the lineup of those who were the "victims" of such interference is a lineup of some pretty nasty folk.

[DogOnPorch]

Plus, the actions of Red China, Cuba, the USSR and its Warsaw Pact buddies (etc) are always overlooked as a non-event when discussing the evils of the West by this lot. Similar to Moon Hoaxers.