Why Do Poland & Russia Not Have to Give Back Territory...

[Jack Weber]

They often go hand in hand with the Julius Streicher's of the planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_St%C3%BCrmer

Good 'ol Jules..

I've got a photo of "Baldy" Streicher leading the 10th anniversary parade of the Munich Beer Hall Putsch infuul brownshirt regalia in my abridged copy of Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich.(I also have the unabridged version,as well)...

What a piece of work he was...

[DogOnPorch]

Good 'ol Jules..

I've got a photo of "Baldy" Streicher leading the 10th anniversary parade of the Munich Beer Hall Putsch infuul brownshirt regalia in my abridged copy of Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich.(I also have the unabridged version,as well)...

What a piece of work he was...

A great book. I watched Conspiracy the other night...ever seen it?

[Jack Weber]

A great book. I watched Conspiracy the other night...ever seen it?

No I have'nt...

[DogOnPorch]

No I have'nt...

I'll PM you the link.

[eyeball]

Whenever I hear the word 'Zionist' used by someone like you it screams Jew-baiter.

Whenever I hear the word Jew-baiter used by someone like you I roll on the floor and laugh my ass off.

[DogOnPorch]

Whenever I hear the word Jew-baiter used by someone like you I roll on the floor and laugh my ass off.

That you find bud's obvious agenda humorous is not my problem.

[eyeball]

That you find bud's obvious agenda humorous is not my problem.

That you think that's what I did is your problem, and just as humorous too.

[bloodyminded]

What I'm saying is that contemporarily, the left is the loudest voice of anti-Semitism. I'd go so far to say this phenomenon is at least a century old. I already stated that as we go further to the left or right on the spectrum, both sides converge on this issue. Are a lot of leftists anti-Semites? I didn't say that. Is the left today's loudest group of anti-Semites? Without question. Do you really want to go into detail? I realize that many obvious truths are not as self-evident to people such as yourself.

I know, some people's uneducated opinions frequently clash with your objective and sober knowledge on all matters.

This is an ongoing phenomenon, isn't it?

I can buy that, the media is biased towards "power", at least in certain instances. And you're right about this being a mixture of both left (expanding government power) and right (covering for business abuses under the guise of free-market). In other words, support for power can transcend left/right categorizations. Still, I find the media biased to the left. Whether it's the CBC, CNN, the BBC or Channel 1 in Israel, it's all leaning to the left. I'm not sure exactly why, but it's a phenomenon I see every day, day in and day out.

No, that's incorrect. Certain media outlets arguably have what we might term a mild liberal-Establishment bias...which is scarcely discernible from a conservative bias. It's not a "leftist" bias.

For example, Mark Steyn is much closer to the worldview of Obama and Clinton that is any actual "left."

As far as your assertion that corporate media is beholden to big business advertising interests and is unwilling or unable to report on them in an objective manner, your point is minuscule.

If that was my point, you'd be correct. Advertising is only one aspect, and has less of a direct influence (though it does indeed happen) as it is a component of a larger whole.

It's a two-way street. BP can't just bail out on spending money on PR. I would argue that the corporate media has as much influence over the large companies and vice versa.

Sure, but my point is that they're not distinct. The media are corporations themselves, or are sunsidiaries of larger conglomerates...so that they part of the culture of the Big Business elite.

By definition.

Further, Busines and political power are a nexus (rather than mortal enemies, as some people bizarrely claim).

Although of course there is a conflict of interest when they are actually owned by the same entity, like GE's ownership of media. Anyways, it's complicated - but your assertion is simplistic, and moreover, it cannot be reconciled with the leftist bias many of us see every day in most of the media.

My assertion is simplistic. I offer a vanishingly brief precis on the infinitely complex matters of institutional tendencies...while you say "leftist bias" is something you "see every day," and furthermore, some journalists agree with you!

Who's being simplistic about complex institutional structures?

Edited July 11, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Black Dog]

What I'm saying is that contemporarily, the left is the loudest voice of anti-Semitism...Is the left today's loudest group of anti-Semites? Without question. Do you really want to go into detail? I realize that many obvious truths are not as self-evident to people such as yourself.

It's amazing to me that in a world of eastern European Neo-Nazis and radical Islamist firebrands, its the western liberal left that wins the belt. But, given how your side has twisted the concept of antisemitism into a partisan rhetorical device, it's not really that surprising, I suppose. These days, if you're uttering a disparaging word about the policies of the Israeli state, why you might as well be the one pushing the button for the gas chamber.

[Bob]

Well Black Dog, you're a perfect example of the anti-Semitic left, even if you don't realize. You regularly reject Jewish national rights, effectively wishing to condemn us to living at the mercy of others as a fragmented minority around the world. Of course it'll be different this time, right? That whole Nazi thing, that was just an anomaly and it'll never happen again, right?

The Western liberal left, that you seemingly represent, is keen to condemn us to that fate by rejecting Jewish national rights. Moreover, you're the one providing political and material support to terrorists which masquerades as "humanitarian aid". Whether it's the constant handouts that place the "Palestinians" as the highest per-capita recipients of foreign aid on the planet, or American and Israeli funds and energies going towards training "Palestinian security services". You're the one making excuses for mass murder and terrorism, regularly describing it as "retaliation" against "occupation", or "desperate acts of desperate people". You're the one accepting the Palestinian narrative of them being displaced as a product of "Zionist aggression" rather than their own hostilities. You're the one that attacks Israel's legitimate blockade on Gaza, while ignoring the reasons for its establishment and persistence. You're the one suggesting that Israel is the bad guy because more Palestinians have been killed in conflict, as if the Jewish body count isn't high enough.

I could go on and on, but there is no doubt, not for even one second, that the Western liberal left carries the torch of anti-Semitism in the sense that this seemingly covert racism, whether malicious in intent or simply a product of massive ignorance, is the most damaging to Jewish people. Basically, the modern left is in bed with the Islamists, in both the Israeli and broader contexts.

[Black Dog]

Well Black Dog, you're a perfect example of the anti-Semitic left, even if you don't realize.

Thank goodness I have you to show me the way.

You regularly reject Jewish national rights, effectively wishing to condemn us to living at the mercy of others as a fragmented minority around the world.

Nope.

Of course it'll be different this time, right? That whole Nazi thing, that was just an anomaly and it'll never happen again, right?

Probably not.

The Western liberal left, that you seemingly represent, is keen to condemn us to that fate by rejecting Jewish national rights.

Strawman.

Moreover, you're the one providing political and material support to terrorists which masquerades as "humanitarian aid". Whether it's the constant handouts that place the "Palestinians" as the highest per-capita recipients of foreign aid on the planet, or American and Israeli funds and energies going towards training "Palestinian security services". You're the one making excuses for mass murder and terrorism, regularly describing it as "retaliation" against "occupation", or "desperate acts of desperate people". You're the one accepting the Palestinian narrative of them being displaced as a product of "Zionist aggression" rather than their own hostilities. You're the one that attacks Israel's legitimate blockade on Gaza, while ignoring the reasons for its establishment and persistence. You're the one suggesting that Israel is the bad guy because more Palestinians have been killed in conflict, as if the Jewish body count isn't high enough.

Wow. I'm a lot more productive than I thought. I don't remember doing any of this stuff.

I could go on and on, but there is no doubt, not for even one second, that the Western liberal left carries the torch of anti-Semitism in the sense that this seemingly covert racism, whether malicious in intent or simply a product of massive ignorance, is the most damaging to Jewish people.

And we're back to the redefinition of antisemitism to mean, well, whatever you want it to mean. Such a convenient tool. And flexible!

[Saipan]

bob and the rest of the zionist propagandists will continue to play the victim card with the bs cries (want to push us into the sea

Extermination of Jews is centuries long historical fact.

all they want to do is for people to accept one of the worst and longest human rights violations since world war 2.

Extermination of Gypsies in Kosovo by Moslems?

Permanent occupation of Tibet?

[jbg]

....all they want to do is for people to accept one of the worst and longest human rights violations since world war 2.

Tibet, Sudan, the Arab World? All those don't count?

[bud]

Tibet, Sudan, the Arab World? All those don't count?

of course they count. just like israel, they're also some of the worst human rights violators.

Edited July 13, 2011 by bud

[jbg]

of course they count. just like israel, they're also some of the worst human rights violators.

Then, aside from maybe Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland what countries aren't among "some of the worst human rights violators"?

[bud]

Then, aside from maybe Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland what countries aren't among "some of the worst human rights violators"?

i'm glad that you're finally admitting that israel is one of the worst human rights violator. this is a big step for you.

[jbg]

i'm glad that you're finally admitting that israel is one of the worst human rights violator. this is a big step for you.

Obviously you can't read. My point is that almost all countries are in that crew.

[dre]

Its amazing quite frankly that people keep trotting out poland and russia and these idiotic examples.

If I was that stupid, Id just wanna go die somewhere.

[bud]

Obviously you can't read. My point is that almost all countries are in that crew.

which of these 'almost all countries' have been occupying and annexing another group of people's land for over 40 years? which country has created an illegal blockade which even the red cross has called a clear violation of international humanitarian law? which of these countries have been receiving both political and economic support from western countries?

[DogOnPorch]

Its amazing quite frankly that people keep trotting out poland and russia and these idiotic examples.

Why are these countries viewed as 'idiotic examples' by you?

If I was that stupid, Id just wanna go die somewhere.

No comment.

[DogOnPorch]

which of these 'almost all countries' have been occupying and annexing another group of people's land for over 40 years? which country has created an illegal blockade which even the red cross has called a clear violation of international humanitarian law? which of these countries have been receiving both political and economic support from western countries?

...which of these involves Jews?

[M.Dancer]

illegal blockade

No such thing as an illegal blockade. There are two kinds of blockades, enforceable and unenforceable..in other words, an unenforceble blockade...is not a blockade ....am I going to fast for you?

International law defines a lawful blockade as a blockade that is enforceble ( you getting this?)

here it is....and Iam afraid you won't like it...

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE

Blockade

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94.

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or

( the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and

( the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument

[bud]

No such thing as an illegal blockade. There are two kinds of blockades, enforceable and unenforceable..in other words, an unenforceble blockade...is not a blockade ....am I going to fast for you?

International law defines a lawful blockade as a blockade that is enforceble ( you getting this?)

here it is....and Iam afraid you won't like it...

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument

i'm glad that you're pointing to a document from ICRC, because this is what the ICRC has said about the blockade. okay, now, stay with me:

Israel's blockade of Gaza is a clear violation of international humanitarian law, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has said.

Key message

The ICRC, a traditionally neutral organisation, paints a bleak picture of conditions in Gaza: hospitals short of equipment, power cuts lasting hours each day, drinking water unfit for consumption.

"The whole of Gaza's civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law," the agency said in the statement.

And the ICRC blames differences between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority for some of Gaza's shortages.

But the key message from the body which rarely publicly criticises governments is that Israel's blockade of Gaza must be lifted.

[M.Dancer]

i'm glad that you're pointing to a document from ICRC, because this is what the ICRC has said about the blockade. okay, now, stay with me:

Israel's blockade of Gaza is a clear violation of international humanitarian law, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has said.

So they agree with me. They may feel it is a violation of humanitarian law, they may feel many things...as a non judicial body, they are quite free to feel...but to enforce...judicate ...they feel they can't.

...but the blockade itself conforms with every article of the treaty.

[bud]

So they agree with me. They may feel it is a violation of humanitarian law, they may feel many things...as a non judicial body, they are quite free to feel...but to enforce...judicate ...they feel they can't.

...but the blockade itself conforms with every article of the treaty.

they agree with you? sure. if you also believe that israel's blockade violates human rights laws.

again, i'm glad you pointed to the document from ICRC.