Actually, ace, it looks like that's a fan site, not the actress's own blog.

But she's still a fuckin' moron.

Loose colo-rectal discharge Ace.

This is what she said: 9/11 was a terrible tragedy and of course it goes without saying that I grieve along with every American for everyone who suffered and everyone who died in the catastrophe. But for those of us who were spared, it was also an occasion to be brave enough to ask some serious questions about America's role in the world. Because it is always useful, as individuals or nations to ask how we may have knowingly or unknowingly contributed to this conflict. Not to have the courage to ask these questions of ourselves is to betray the victims of 9/11."

Now, that does not seem exceptionately unreasonable, given polls in Islamic countries where America was very well regarded and every American could safely travel up until the 70's show tremendous disappproval of America.

What happened beginning in the 70s? We supported the most repressive elements, pushed our culture on those countries, and above all, blindly supported Israel's aggressive land grabs and establishment of colonies against all UN pressure. We started a substantial military presence in Saudi Arabia.

Most people in Islamic countries disapprove of Al Qaeda's tactics, don't want a theocracy - but agree that bin Laden's grievances about American policies are valid.

So "Maggies" questions have been repeated by Republicans and Democrats. It is no accident that the Administration is now addressing those bin Laden grievances seriously.

Any informed American who did any reading into the matter after 9/11 knows that Muslims dislike us for our policies, not the insipid slogan "they hate us for our freedoms". We can help blunt radical Islam by acting as fair, moral Americans again and get away from cynical realpolitiks and our Zionist favoring ME policies that we started in the 70's.

Will you just fuck off to Saudi Arabia already?

God help me, but I agree with Cedarford.

Well for Christ's sake snap out of it.

I don't.

Blow me, Cedarford. I'm tired of your Lyndon LaRouche screeds.

Can't they hate us for our policies *and* our freedoms?

And by freedoms, I of course mean boobies.

pushed our culture on those countries

What the fuck does this mean, douchebag?

We supported the most repressive elements

As opposed to, what, exactly? Their scary-influential liberal-democratic elements? Their burgeoning, freedom-loving productive middle classes? What, douchebag? WHAT?

What the fuck do you offer except supercillious bile and bullshit?

Let me use a profanity favored by Demure Thoughts Jen:

Twat. Fucking twat.

It wasn't a "terrible tragedy". Losing a brother in a car wreck is a terrible tragedy. It was a viscious attack carried out by evil bastards who should be hunted down and killed.

And I suppose Cedarford, I am what you would call an uninformed American, but I can't find anything in the history of our support for Israel that justifies 9/11... not one damn bit. I will give you this though, George Bush agrees with you that our history of buying off despots is a failed policy (with the possible exception of paying Egypt bazillions of dollars to stop launching wars across the Sinai). He has come up with a new policy. It appears to be getting results.

If Maggie thinks we are responsible for 9/11, why doesn't she go to Iraq or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia [or whoever we wronged in her eyes] and apologize in person. Be like Hanoi Jane and take pictures with insurgents who fire IED's at US soldiers. Hang out with the Taliban, go wild. Just leave. Now. Please.

Why exactly should we try to stop Egypt from starting a war with Israel, anyway? Let's encourage all those filthy bastards to start another (open) war instead. It'd solve all our problems nicely, probably in even fewer than six days this time.

It's not like Israel needed our help before.

Another douchebag dumbass Hollywood liberal. Nothing to see here; move along.

We can all celebrate in a few years when she shows up some soft-core straight-to-video "art" film and congratulate ourselves on seeing her obvious shallowness first.

THANK YOU ACE.

Seriously though, what does that bitch have to offer? In a larger picture, what the fuck does today's left have to offer? Besides antagonism. When was the last plan those motherfuckers came up with that was more than "well, no to whatever they said". Today's left (cedarford included) is just a bunch of ballless demagoguing sycophants.

Fucking useless.

/rant.

ACE: What the fuck do you offer except supercillious bile and bullshit?

And...What the fuck are you offering other than unthinking regurgitation of what your Dear Leader said on Sept 12th 2001?

Even he is now realizing there is more to this than finding a "few evildoers" and convincing Islamic nations to love Hollywood's spew and America's "freedom" to abortion, alchohol, women acting like tramps, etc.

Bush is pulling the troops out of Saudi Arabia. He has said that America erred in favoring the most repressive factions and is now seriously pushing democracy and modernization there, the 1st to do so in that area since JFK. He has reluctantly come around on Israel, being dragged past his initial Christian Zionist views that Israel can do no wrong, to support, kicking and screaming the whole way.... Tony Blair's vision that the Road Map is vital to winning the War on Radical Islam. And trying to mend fences with some very ticked off Asians, Europeans, and Latin Americans who have "rebelled" in many ways to the dripping arrogance of the Bush neocons.

Point by point, without saying so, Bush is addressing each grievance from bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa - because he knows there is truth to those grievances in the eyes of most Muslims. And also to Binnie's earlier statements on America's being under the sway of advocates of Israel.

BTW, neocon hardliner Bolton's nomination was a shock after all the conciliatory gestures. It appears to be a test case by the Bushies..."do the neocons still have Centrist support"? It doesn't look that way. Bolton appears to be going down as a symbol of hardliner policy making excess.

Well for Christ's sake snap out of it.

I'm trying, believe me. But I can't help but observe that CedarfordTheLyndonLaRoucheTwat has a point. There was a time when America was admired By Iranians. Does anyone really doubt that the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran was a direct consequence of America propping up a tyrant like the Shah?

Go ahead, give me the non sequitur that the ayatollahs are worse. Of course they are, but that argument doesn't exonerate us. The point is -- when Iran under the Shah was our pet Middle Eastern regime, we ignored our values and did nothing to promote something better than the ayatollahs. We just rode the Shah into the ground, and pretty much ended up with what we deserved.

Dave in Texas makes a good point -- the current administration has at least seen the folly of buying off despots. So when do we take on the Saudi monarchy? How long do we collaborate with a regime which milks it's country for billions in order to support a royal family that is prinicipally devoted to a lifestyle of gambling and hookers in London? By what standard is the Saudi monarchy better than Saddam? By all accounts, they are more complicit as sponsors of Islamic fascism than Saddam ever was.

Cedarford, I have in the past paid you the backhanded compliment of being a well-informed troll. But you're not. Bolton is an old-fashioned conservative suspicious of US international involvement and all international institutions.

He's not a neocon. He's not even Jewish. You of all people ought to get a teeny tiny beat in your dull shriveled loins for this guy.

Or do you love the UN all of a sudden?

Michael, by and large, the Iranian people still do admire and love America.

Megan's right. There's more admiration among Iranians for the US than any other middle eastern country--unless maybe you polled Kurdistan separately.

See-Dubya,
In his eyes, what's not to love about the UN? I bet all those resolutions condemning Israel make him go all swoony.

I'd rather have Bush for a "Dear Leader" than your crazy felon Lyndon LaRouche.

Tell me, what else does The Watchtower have to say today, Cedarford?

That is the name of their little newspaper, isn't it?

Dave in Texas - our history of buying off despots is a failed policy (with the possible exception of paying Egypt bazillions of dollars to stop launching wars across the Sinai).

We really weren't paying off despots so much as providing them security against commies and "internal dissidents". Except for the bribes we offered to Israel's front-line opponents to lay off our "special friend", the money flow went the other way...security for cheap oil.

Egypt is a special case because Jimmy Carter decided to give Israel billions for Camp David agreements, and Egypt held it's hand out and said, us too!! Although it was never a formal law, never a treaty obligation to pay billions a year forever so they wouldn't kill one another - the powerful Zionist lobby managed to institutionalize billions in aid to Israel, hence billions to its co-welfare queen Egypt, every year, for the last 25 years. 5 billion to the Zionists, 2 billion to the corrupt Egyptian elite and military.

Half of all American foreign aid every year goes to those two shitty countries.

You can't get rid of aid to the Eyptians without a commensurate reduction in aid to Israel. So Zionist lobbying power and large sums of money slipped to American politicians by them makes the Zionist Lobby Egypt's real Sugar Daddy..

reluctantly agree with cf's analysis, but not necessarily for the reasons he's giving.

Colin Powell's departure should tell you, cf, that the "hardliners" aren't on the outs.

But the point remains that the Lyndon LaRouches and the Badanariks and the Buchanans have no positive vision. Saying "let's pull out of the ME" does nothing to ensure the stability of say, moderate Jordan. Or the continued "moderating" influence of Mubarak in Egypt. You want ot se ethe Muslim Brotherhood in charge in Egypt?

I know you hate the Jews with an irrational fervor. But the bottom line is that if push comes to shove we'll need a beachhead to secure the oil fields. What's your plan for establishing one outside of Israel

Megan:

I've heard that too. I'm guessing they love Americans, because they used to have so much contact with us and learned something about our character. But I bet you would have a hard time finding many Iranians who don't deeply resent the way our government treated their country during the Shah's regime.

Oh, go fuck yourself Michael. None of the nineteen hijackers (twenty if you count Moussaoui) was Iranian. Iranians - the actual people, not the government -- admire us now. As for the 9/11 hijackers, they were either Egyptian or Saudi, and didn't give a shit about Iran. They were to a man from upper middle class backgrounds and made plenty of money. They didn't want democracy and justice and puppies for their people, they wanted to crush the US so we'd leave the Middle East to the likes of them and their oppressor-wannabe, who is the hero to the sort of people who kill their own sisters over photos on a cell phone. All they and their ilk want is power; all that talk about the "bad US that is destroying our culture and propped up awful dictators" is just another way of saying "we're pissed because we wanted to do that." Read the fuck around instead of feeling all nobly remorseful and shit.

Sorry for the swear words, Ace, but fuck Cedarford; if he told me I was the Goddess of the Universe I'd piss in his mouth, and on his fans' heads. And "Arianna Huffington's Def Celebrity Jam." -- hell, I wish I'd thought of that.

Blaming the US for 9/11 is ridiculous. Most Americans have never been or lived outside of the United States. Most of us are spoiled brats and don't realise how good we, in this country, have it. Even the worst that Americans have is far better than 80% of the rest of the countries on the earth.

A lot of the resentment that the Islamist terroists have is jealousy. Most Americans do not understand that the agenda of these people is that it is okay to lie, steal from, cheat and kill anyone to further the cause of Islam. Anyone who opposes these actions is believed to be an infidel and the enemy. That includes those who profess to be Muslims and that the side of the non-Muslim. That goes for men, women, and their children.

Those who say Muslims do not believe this way are either not real Muslims or are lying,

Read the Koran.
Read Satanic Verses by Salmon Rusti(sp).
Why do you think there is a price on his head?
Because he writes the truth.

Michael, read this article - it addresses some of your concerns, and adds first-hand experience to the impressions we all get from news reports.

This comment thread makes me want to vomit.

You degenerates have fun debating just how debased your cognitive dissonance is.

I'm out.

Andrea, you cussing is OK, but this "on [Cedarford's] fans' heads is ove rthe fucking line.

No one here likes what cf says about all sorts of topics. But even the debbil mixes lies with truth (thanks, Dave @ GR), and sometimes cf is maginally right.

In this case, it's FAR more marginal than some other cases, as the Islamists hate us no matter WHAT we do.

Cf, in his incandescent hatred of the JOOO can't realize that, but it bears looking at that we've occassionally sided with some shady characters in teh desert.

We've needed to, and Israel is our best friend in that godforsaken sandbox. That's why it's incumbent upon folks like cf to explain what ELSE we could do in the situation we're IN, instead of just bitch about Camp Fucking David.

Ace's instincts about Huffer's blog and Gyllhoolllley are spot on here, even if this was a fan site. In my recent turn guestblogging at Patterico's I linked to the NYTimes story on this:__
They acknowledge up front that fragile celebrity egos may be bruised by the brutal frankness of the blogosphere:

Another trick will be balancing the bloggers’ ability to put forth their ideas with their desire for protection from abusive comments. Jonah Peretti, who is overseeing the site’s technology, said the bloggers would decide for themselves whether to engage with readers. “It’s something we’ll experiment with,” he said. “We want to make sure there’s a productive, interesting dialogue and not just people ranting.”

No ranting. These celebloggers are much too important to have commenters ranting at them, wasting their precious time. No one challenges them all the doo-dah day as they spout their goofy aphorisms to squadrons of doe-eyed yes-men and sycophants. Why should their blogging be any different?
__

Ace:

The Watchtower is the official publication of the Jehovah's Witnesses. How is that relevant?

It strikes me that 90% of the "bile and bullshit" in this thread is coming from you.

You obviously need some PURE HERBAL VIAGRA. Please drop to thread below.

Hey guys, thought I'd weigh in on this one...

wait...don't feel..soo..good...

whats happening to me??

Zederfurd, I am zooo proud off youu. Keep up zee fight and ve vill exterminate ALL ZEE JOOOSSS!...

Holy Shit...I Hitler's ghost just came into my body...

I really gotta stop drinking, man.

But really.

Gobbelsford, your rant about how our political dealings in the 70's and 80's makes us deserving of terrorism is about what i've come to expect from bigots like you. Yes, I realize we did support Saddam (barely) and the shah, but even I you concede that this was a negative endeavor, you simply CANNOT play this "we deserve it" game if you want to be taken seriously in the international community.
Gobbelsford, you need to wake up and realize that we are not up against a group of people who don't like our political policies, or our wealth, we are fighting a people who were raised to HATE US. ALL OF US. In the koran it directs them to seek and destroy all who do not give praise to allah, and mentions numerous incentives for success (ALA virgins) and consequences for failure. Islamofacists are not to be reasoned with, they are to be crushed. If you would take off your Joo hating specs for a second, you could see that.
In conclusion, I want to break down what you just read, gobbelsford, because I know if id doesn't contain references to a swastika or have a picture of hitler, you seem to lose interest. Here goes:
Islamofacists do not give a FUCK about our political policies. They could care less who we like or don't like. Islamofacists are not motivated by anger towards our political policies, they are enraged by their religion and bred to kill all infidels.

But you keep on hatin' deem JOOOS, gobbelsford, cause you're NEVER gonna make it in hollywood, or be able to get a loan from a bank EVER AGAIN.

Son of America.

P.S. if the guy who produces 'that 70's show' happens to be here and is jewish, please note that I wasn't talking about you and I hope you like my 8'X10'

Megan:

Thanks for the link. I have the sneaking suspicion we're saying the same thing.

The AP just picked up the story. Expect Gylley to turn up on this week's Bill Maher show for a speakin'-truth-to-power extravaganza!

Blaming the US for 9/11 is ridiculous.

Gobbelsford, your rant about how our political dealings in the 70's and 80's makes us deserving of terrorism is about what i've come to expect from bigots like you.

Will you guys get a grip? Neither Cedarford nor anyone else has suggested that we "deserved" or that we should be "blame" ourselves for 9/11.

Cedarford has come to the defense of the inestimable Maggie Gyllenhyllenhallenaal, who had the temerity to suggest the 9/11 was an opportunity to rething our policies and consider the possibility that a different approach might have led to a different outcome than our current posture.

Oh, go fuck yourself Michael.

Thanks for the suggestion, Andrea, but really, no encouragement is necessary.

Hobgob-

I think the very valid point Andrea was making is that nothing Cedartwat says should be taken seriously or considered "right," marginally or otherwise. The source does matter. Even if the Devil mixes truth with lies, the truths he cites are placed in an evil context for evil purposes, and by listening to him in the first place you damn any possible conclusions.

"it bears looking at that we've occassionally sided with some shady characters in teh desert."

No, it really doesn't, not if people like Cedartwat and Alwaleed bin Talal tell us to, because "that's what caused 9/11." In that case, the necessary and sufficient response is that of Mayor Giuliani: "Go fuck yourselves."

"it's incumbent upon folks like cf to explain what ELSE we could do in the situation we're IN"

Again, I couldn't care less what "CF" has to say about anything. Because at the back of anything he says is a murderous hatred for Israel, and an objectively pro-terrorist, pro-appeasement, and fundamentally anti-American worldview.

"Cedarford has come to the defense of the inestimable Maggie Gyllenhyllenhallenaal, who had the temerity to suggest the 9/11 was an opportunity to rething our policies and consider the possibility that a different approach might have led to a different outcome than our current posture."

Michael: once again, context matters. In the context of 9/11, anything and everything anyone could possibly say about American policy is absolutely and utterly irrelevant.

Whatever else we might agree on, the second 9/11 enters the conversation, you will not get me to listen to ANY justifications, rationalizations, or explanations. Not now, and not ever.

Mayor Giuliani understood this. So should you.

Michael (and I'm somewhat on your side here), for a sub-retard actress to thrust her opinion of geopolitics on the public is moronic. To defend her "blame game" isn't quite as bad, but it must be balanced by a real inquiry into what to do NOW.

We could have just legislated love back in the 1910s and avoided all of the messy 20th century. But we didn't. What, oh what to do NOW.

And I think you're right in pointing out the Saudi problem. But maggie Gwlynhllyhwlhgwnl has no conception of any of this. And cf HAS come close to saying just that (we deserved 9/11) in relation to our support of Israel.

She's just a fucking line reader.

OK, Megan, how about if just I say it?

And not in a 9/11 context.

Does that help?

Read another take on this point here . I disagree with the author on a thousand different policy questions, but on this one we (and, I believe, a few hundred million other Americans) are in absolute agreement.

In other news, Nilla Wafers are said to be pursuing a defamation suit against you, Ace.

We can help blunt radical Islam by acting as fair, moral Americans again and get away from cynical realpolitiks and our Zionist favoring ME policies that we started in the 70's. -gobbelsford

Wow. What a wrong motherfucker you are.

So, let me get this straight. WE get attacked. WE lose over 2,000 civilians. And instead of concentrating on tracking down those responsible and introducing them to the boom stick of justice, WE should instead "be introspective" so as not to piss of the big, bad terrorists again?

Fuck that. As a member of the USMC I say again FUCK THAT. I've seen what these terrorists do to those who try to bargain and compromise with them.
They take pleasure in knowing that a portion of our population gets a weak stomach when it comes to having to fight, because it gives them hope that they can one day wipe us out. And before those of you who disagree with me label me as some kind of bloodthirsty maniac, let me say that I would support any non-violent solution that would be effective in forging a peace. But, guess what? THERE ISN'T ONE.

The only thing these terrorists understand is death. So, rest easy, because there are many more like me who got their Phd in death and are more than willing to go to the middle east to teach them.

Son of America

And cf HAS come close to saying just that (we deserved 9/11) in relation to our support of Israel.

Suggest that we pause the Cedarford-bashing for a sec and distinguish between (1) support for Israel, i.e., its right to exist and be recognized as a sovereign nation by its neighbors, and (2) Israeli settlement policy, which many regard as a "land grab." (And which, by the way, has more to do with water rights than land. Middle Eastern politics is driven by water, not land.)

Michael, Israel has the absolute right of conquest to every acre she honorably won in every defensive war she has ever fought. That is to say, all of them.

And as for pausing the CF-bashing, not in this lifetime.

I'm with Megan on that last point.

The reason why celebridiots with room temperature IQ's like Maggie Goin'Halal say such stupidities is because they see 9/11 as a marketing opportunity.

If she grieves for the loss of life, let her donate her movie earnings to the families of the NYPD and NYFD officers who died trying to save others.

None of them were personally responsible for any foreign policy so they should meet her standards.

Megan,

It's not that I agree with the conclusions or the premise of cf's rants, I just recognize that he's raising logical arguments that should be refuted.

Were I king of the America, I would respond to an attack like september 11 the old Roman way, except with modern military hardware. I'd sow the ruins of the enemy's cities with plutonium salts, delivered from 70,000 feet.

Oil would be 2 cents a gallon, because we'd own the fields.

Not even teh combined might of the entire rest of the Earth can stand against us, or remove us from territory we genuinely wish to occupy.

But if cedarford is going to pose a question like "why do you think htey attacked us? it's b/c of X, Y, and Joooo," then to respond to his arguments and make him propose a course of action is reasonable.

His answer is to abandon Israel.

Surprise.

But that "solution" won't work, as the Islamists want a global caliphate. They don't give a right rip about Israel in the final analysis, b/c under the global caliphate, Israelli Jooos would just be dhimmies to tax.

What cedarford doesn't realize is that so would he.

So, in actuality, I'm calling out cedarford, and Michael, too, to defend a course of action. What should we do now, since siding with strongmen was a bad idea (I actually don't think it was, but it had consequences)?

Michael is seeing a micro picture. (Israel) He's not seeing the global pretentions of the Islamists. I'm willing to believe that Bush sees the global problem and is tactfully undermining the radicals' base of support. I would do things differently, but that's because (a) I'm not actually in power, and (b) my impression of Arab psychology is like Churchill's view of the Krauts---i.e. grovelling at your feet or putting a knife to your throat.

I'd make em grovel. Bush, likely better advised than me, is trying his own way.

Hob, fair enough - you just have way more patience than I do. Best of luck.

She's just a fucking line reader.

Hate to challenge someone who's even "slightly" on my lonely side in this discussion.

But, um, do you know her? Do you have any reason to think she's dumber than either one of us? Dumb or not, is there any reason why she should not voice her opinion? Maybe I'm as dumb as a stump, but that's what I'm doing right now. Got a problem with that?

And before those of you who disagree with me label me as some kind of bloodthirsty maniac, let me say that I would support any non-violent solution that would be effective in forging a peace. But, guess what? THERE ISN'T ONE.

You're not a bloodthirsty maniac, and I totally agree that after 9/11 there was no alternative to kicking ass. God bless you for being willing to take up the cudgel on our behalf.

But that begs the question. Could we have made 9/11less likely if we had approached the Middle East with a policy other than our they're-not-ready-for-democracy-and-need-a-strongman paternalism? Might we have better results in the future if we consistently stand for our democratic prinicpals and foreswear the expediency of consorting with despots?

Some of you here like to think cedarford is like the blind squirrel who occassionally finds a nut. Very naive of you I think.

Michael,

stop asking questions and logically defend a position. are YOU saying "we [will] have better results in the future if we consistently stand for our democratic prinicpals and foreswear the expediency of consorting with despots"?

Because I think that's an increadibly naive worldview, and one that would leave us with one---and only one---ally in teh ME. Israel.

Not Jordan. Not Pakistan.

No one satisfies our "standards" in the develping world. Do we just impose our will with hard power?

Brewski

THE DEVIL MIXES LIES WITH TRUTH!

but that doesn't mean the truth isn't "true"

In persuasive argument, you must fight an enemy on his ground. If I as a man of faith believe something, you cannot persuade me otherwise unless you speak in terms of that faith.

If cedarford's right about our support of Israel being a "root cause" of 9/11 (which is wrong, I think), then he must explain a viable alternative, or reconsider his opposition to the Jewish State. And if the Islamists are gonna hate us anyway, then he needs to account for that in his "plan"

See-Dubya --You don't have to be Jewish to be a Zionist, and a neocon. Bolton drifted over in the early 90's and became part of the neocon structure. Woolsey, Cheney and Bennett are three other non-Jews in the same position. Bolton was in the neocon organizations AEI, a signatory to the PNAC urging Clinton to go with the "Clean Break". Bolton has a long time relationship with the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs and is on their Board.

Hobgoblin - Israel is not our friend but a treacherous nation similar to France, motivated solely by self-interest and willing to stab us in the back to advance that. The latest Israeli spy scandal is breaking, and we just found another piece of critical American weapons technology they sold to China for bucks.

Andrea Harris - A fine exercise in your brainless jingoism. Even more brainless and jingoistic than normal. And you also ranted off on "Michael" in your ignorance, when he was quite right that America is strongly resented for 25 years of significant meddling in Iran's affairs - from the 1953 Coup to 1979 and the Shah's fall. Even by Iranians that hate the Mullahs, and wish to have the Americans back. Talk to some Iranians sometime rather than just wave your flag and pom-poms, you bimbo.

Son of Israel & ndd - So you have discovered that all Muslims have provisions in the Hadiths saying it is OK to lie and steal from infidels. Jews have the same dispensation in the Talmud that it is OK to lie to Goyim and cheat them in business. Not all Muslims are scum, nor are all Jews. Son of Israel thinks either ALL Muslims are Islamofascists, or that only a small number are and we can go after them with no regard for dialogue over the many grievances Muslims have with America and the billion or so Muslims that are not radical Islamists will never take sides.

ACE - You confused the Larouche followers with the Jehovas Witnesses - indicating you are as clueless to both organizations functions as you are to my membership in either organization. Given I'm a .......drumroll......Reagan-loving centrist Republican. Love of Zionism and Dubya is not a prerequisite for being a Republican.

Michael-

A democracy in Pakistan would be fucking scary. I think General Musharraf is the best option we'll have there for a good long time, and so far, frankly, it's working out better than I would have expected. Their relations with India are surprisingly stable and still improving, they're helping us out far more than any other country with comparable demographics, and we're making steady headway in the war as a result.

The democratic alternative to a strongman there would be the first radical Mohammedan regime armed with nuclear missiles, not to mention F-16s armed with nuclear bombs, in the history of the world. For whom exactly would that prove "more workable?"

I'm not purposely being obtuse hobgoblin but can you point out a single truth amongst the lies? Everything he said in this thread is factually inaccurate or is a fact used out of context. Its really laughable; he doesn't even get his date correct regarding when we started our support of the Zionists. You'd think he could get that right!

Cedarford,

And the alternative to Israel is what?

No matter what we do NOW, the arabs will hate us and the Islamists among them will actively plot against us. We could bomb israel ourselves and not make those fuckers happy.

They want to control the entire world from Mecca.

So Israel keeps tabs (spies) on us. Surprise there too. So does England, but admittedly they're not selling stuff to Red China (that we know of). And it's not like Islrael's spying is all that clandestine. Perhaps this was deliberately leaked to determine the communication lines? Who knows.

Bottom line is there's no pacifying the arabs, and the Jews aren't attacking us at every turn. We need oil, and if the whole region goes south, Israel will provide us with a beachhead.

Like you, I'll readily admit my biases. I think arabs are a treacherous, conniving, cowardly lot. And the use of Islam is just a screen for they perpetual desire for domination. My own people, the Germans, had to get massacred in 2 World Wars to break them of their world domination habit.

I think the arabs will have to learn the same painful lesson.

Brewski,

The truth is that lots of muslims have grievances (real or imagined) against the US. That's a fact (not opinion, verifiable, etc). It's a fact that we have supported despots in the Middle East (but contrary to others' assertions, not solely on the side of the Islamists). That's a fact that pisses off the radical muzzies.

From these facts, cf argues (incorrectly I think) that our actions have some causal relationship with 9/11. I don't think that's true, but that's a conclusion to argue based on these facts.

He also thinks that abandonment of Israel would benefit our geostrategic position. Again I disagree, but that conclusion is drawn from these facts. To not argue about it at all would be to allow some who might be persuaded to cf's side by our silence.

I don't think cf's the actual Devil, but I do think he's wrong. And deeply so on some issues. But when he mixes enough thet's correct with enough that's poisonous speculation, I think it's reasonable to respond.

I've had an Iranian brother-in-law for 20 years, and through him made friends with several dozen other Iranians. At Thanksgiving dinner my in-law and 3 or 4 other Iranian friends in their 30s and 40s were arguing with me over politics. I was the only conservative and I was having a great time pounding on their liberal positions. After an hour or so my in-law's father, Majid, told them all to quiet down and expressed his great admiration for Bush and what he is doing. It's the young people in Iran that love Americans, but it is the old timers in the US who see the difference between modern Iran and how it once was and love the US. The youngsters in the US are like the French only with a sense of humor and a love of vodka. The saying that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged (and the Ayatolla was a mugger) is easily applied to the Iranians I know.

The rape victim bears no responsibility for the crime committed against her, regardless of the clothes she wears.

There is no rational justification for flying an airplane full of innocent people - who woke up earlier that day, put on their clothes, drove to the airport, and got on the plane for work, or vacation, or to visit their children or a sick relative - into a building full of innocent people, who were there to earn a living for themselves and their family, just for the express purpose of killing them all and sending a message.

Have we, and our government, done questionable things over the years? Of course we have. But nothing we have ever done justifies what was done to those innocent people on 9/11. Nothing.

Hobgoblin,

I got nothing against Israel, but I am not such a fan that I think we ought to ignore them passing tech we give them to, say, China. I have no trouble supporting them against their enemies, but it ought to be real clear to our allies that they double-cross us, we'll throw them to the fucking wolves. No reason in the world to say it's OK for our 'friends' carve slices of us off to sell to our enemies.

Michael,
stop asking questions and logically defend a position.

OK. Didn't occur to me that I was being obtuse by asking rhetorical questions. I think we should (1) "tactfully undermine the radicals' base of support," which we are doing, and (2) violently undermine the radicals ability to breathe as suggested by Son of America, which we are doing, and (3) "consistently stand for our democratic prinicpals and foreswear the expediency of consorting with despots," which we are starting to do.

On the third point, am I the only one who senses the inherent racism in the remarks about "Arab psychology" in this thread? Why is a democracy in Pakistan "fucking scary"? I don't buy it. I don't think Arabs, or Muslims, are any less attracted to the vision of democracy, freedom and human rights than any other people. Check out Megan's link above regarding why the Iranians actually like America (OK, they're Persians and not Arabs, but you get the point).

And as for pausing the CF-bashing, not in this lifetime.

Go girl. I appreciate your dedication to a cause. Will join you in the next thread.

The truth is that lots of muslims have grievances (real or imagined) against the US. That's a fact (not opinion, verifiable, etc).
True. But this becomes a lie when cedarford asserts the 'grievances' are a result of our foreign policy and fails to recognize the huge role that a half-century of propaganda and indoctrination have in creating those 'grievances'.

It's a fact that we have supported despots in the Middle East (but contrary to others' assertions, not solely on the side of the Islamists). That's a fact that pisses off the radical muzzies.
Again, true. But its a big strawman when you talk about 9/11 and the context cedarford wants to put it in.

Your observation in a preceding comment as to the real agenda of the islamists is spot on, imho.

Alex

"throw them to the fucking wolves"

OK, how?

how do we throw them to teh wolves for some piece of tech stolen (or more likely merely passed through illegally (i.e Israel's entitled to it but China's not))?

bomb em?

declare it "free beat a Jew day" in the ME? (I can already see cedarford buying a ticket)

It's global fucking politics. It's a cold, cruel world. Even allies may one day be enemies, when the nation is on the line. OK, fine. It's wrong. It's mean. It's a baaaaaadd thing. How do we respond?

I think we are responding in quiet, forceful ways, but that's just a guess.

What do you propose Alex?

Michael, I never claimed not to be "racist," but it's not genetic.

I believe culturally that the arab psychology is shaped by the desert trader history and the influence of a violent religion. They are a people, culturally, of raiders. Arabs do not attach to occupy (except where it is completely defensible or vital to survival), they attack to wear down and plunder. Islam incorporated these values and gave them a patina of religious observance.

Persians are in fact different. As are the English, French and Germans. As are the Chinese. Different cultures have developed different traits of dealing with adn conducting aggression. That's a recognition of reality. If that makes me morally culpable, fine. If I'm a racist for saying certain cultures act in certain ways, call me a racist.

But until I argue that a person is genetically inferior to another based on ancestry alone, I won't consider myself one.

BrewFan,

and that's why I felt a need to respond, b/c those things are true. and being twisted.

Before we get too far into this geopolitical debate, let's remember that Ace owes an apology to the Jehovah's Witnesses for associating them with Lyndon LaRouche and Cedarford.

As the self-appointed defender of Jehovah's Witnesses, I am willing to accept a simple apology from Ace along with a massive order for PURE HERBAL VIAGRA.

Megan - Michael, Israel has the absolute right of conquest to every acre she honorably won in every defensive war she has ever fought. That is to say, all of them.

Only the 1973 war was a defensive war, you lying Zionist pig.

Anyone can look up where and when the Jewish Haganah started the civil war of 1948 and when the 5 Arab Armies came in (a month later) in an attempt to stop the Zionist ethnic cleansing occuring in the Arab areas of Partition.

1956 was a colonialist attack on Egypt started by the Israelis, British, and French - with Israel making the 1st blow and forced to slink off without their Sinai acquisitions

1967 started with Israeli sneak attacks on Egyptian airfields then two armor columns inside Egypt. When Jordan responded to Nasser's pleas for help against the Israeli attack, ready IDF forces seized the West Bank.

1982 War with Lebanon started with an Israeli ground invasion that finally stalled outside Beruit

Well, we now know that History needs to be emphasized more in our special education curriculums.

So now, because I present muslim terrorists in a negative light, I am a zionist. Gobbelsford, you are amazing.

Your little semantic slight of hand with what I said aside, I have to agree with hobgoblin's point that all you offer is criticism of America through their dealings with the JOOS, but never offer an alternative. And, by alternative, I mean other than concentration camps, because that was tried by your great father and failed. (sorry to burst your bubble).
You say that I am lumping all muslims together because of 'a few' lines in the koran, and then go on to compare it to the talmud. Fine. And while I realize the there are isralei terrorists, I DON'T SEE ANY OF THEM BLOWING UP OUR FUCKING CITIZENS. Therefore, they do not concern me at this point.

No one that I have seen on this blog has EVER tried to say that the JOOS are blameless. This includes me. What I am saying is, that in the grand scheme of things, i'm going to worry about the worthless fucks that killed 2,000 of my fellow citizens, not sit on my ASS and try to think of how we mistreated the poor terrorists and how there are JOOS that are just as bad. Because if we become a nation of pacifists, we have NO chance at long term international survival.

America was built on the ideals of freedom (yeah, I know we all know this) and it is evident that we have had some dark times in our history. But, we must not become involved in reveling in the errors of our past, lest they become a detriment to future successes.

So, spin my words, and create your strawman arguements, gobbelsford, but realize that the only reason you are sitting in line waiting for the Star Wars movie,typing on a computer next to a refrigerator full of fattening shit while dressed like princess Leia costume made by your mom all the while wondering why is it that all women think 'you have a great personality, but you're just a GOOD friend' is because someone in our past listened to your pathetic arguement and said "FUCK THAT"

Son of America

Michael asked: Why is a democracy in Pakistan "fucking scary"

Uh, maybe because a substantial majority of the population has been highly radicalized over a long period of time through a combination of staggering poverty, political repression, and most of all, a huge influx of Saudi money funding thousands of Wahhabi madrassas throughout the country?

Recognizing that some cultures, religions, and social institutions are inherently and irredeemably evil is not "racism."

Michael continued: "I don't think Arabs, or Muslims, are any less attracted to the vision of democracy, freedom and human rights than any other people. "

Or more precisely, to quote Dr Condoleezza Rice:

"And we should never indulge in the condescending voices that allege that some people are not interested in freedom, or aren't ready for freedom's responsibility. That view was wrong in 1963 in Birmingham, and it's wrong in 2004 in Baghdad."

Absolutely correct. But allowing evil institutions and evil people to dominate a democratic process is not the same thing as promulgating freedom.

Democracy is a process, not a goal. It is a means and not an end. A representative democratic republic is the best means we have found in America to ensure the enduring liberty of our citizens. It does not follow that instituting a representative democratic republic in Pakistan tomorrow will turn Islamabad and Karachi into Iowa and Kansas.

Freedom and liberty? Sure. Democracy? If it'll work to ensure freedom and liberty. If it'll work primarily to ensure a nuclear strike against India, a war in Kashmir, and the proliferation of WMD materiel, training, and technology around the world, well, not so much.

In short: we'll support your freedom the moment you stop chanting "Death to America." Until then, we don't care if you're oppressed. UBL claims he's oppressed too, and we don't listen to him either.

Cedarford,

we won American Samoa and Guam in an offensive War. As well as most of the north American Continent in offensive wars against he Indians. Can we keep those ill-gotten gains?

Offensive conquest is just as valid. (of course that's not the point of your argument with Megan, but bear it in mind)

They are a people, culturally, of raiders. Arabs do not attach to occupy (except where it is completely defensible or vital to survival), they attack to wear down and plunder.

I don't dispute your basic point about raider cultures, and I don't think it's racist. The problem is, you're talking about Comanches 250 years ago in Texas, or Indonesian pirates today. You're not talking about Arabs. Go to southern Spain; visit the Alhambra. You can still see the civilizing influence of the Kingdom of Cordoba, long after the Arabs were chased out by Ferdinand and Isabella.

-Hobgoblin,

Nothing that dramatic. As much as I joke that our foreign policy ought to have two settings, "Ignore" and "Shithammering" there are other ways to go about this sort of thing. Frankly, I think cutting the Israelis off, or threatening to, or some combination of degrees, would do the trick. Israel depends alot on our hardware. If they can't restrain themselves from sticking it to us, then they don't get it anymore, or don't get the new toys.

Cold, hard foreign policy decisions go both ways. If an ally is doing something to endanger us, there is no reason for us to ignore it or play it down. The United States is threatening to end technology transfers to the EU if they drop the arms embargo against China. I see no reason why Israel should get a pass. Hell, given their situation they'd take it as a much more serious threat. If they can't keep from selling our secrets to our enemies when their nation is at serious risk from the repercussions, then that isn't our problem.

Only the 1973 war was a defensive war, you lying Zionist pig.

I gotta hand it to you, Cedarford. You're making it a real adventure to be your sorta-ally on this thread.

Fully fifteen minutes after Cedarford's allegation that the Six Days War wasn't a defensive war and no one's called him on it yet?

There's a lot of work to be done here. A lot.

Life under dhimmitude cannot be considered "civilization" Michael, unless you're willing to accept that large parts of black Africa were "civilized" by the European slavers.

Dhimmitude was and IS quasi-slavery. Just b/c the moslem invaders of the 12th -16th centuries bathed more frequently than the Europeans and built pretty mosques does not mean that the Arab culture (not necessarily moslem culture, but the two are closely tied) is not one of attacking and fading away. That's what we're fighting, tied to the back of a globalist "religion" of conquest, as interpreted by ib al Wahhab.

And were the Alhomads (sp?) Arabs? guess so, but can't recall.

Allah,
I did, albeit in a roundabout (and in hindsight, not very clear) manner. But I've learned that facts and cedarford are mutually exclusive so why waste perfectly good keystrokes.

I doubt they're getting a pass, Alex, but maybe they are. I'd just imagine it's on a level a few clearance levels above your average citizen's though, so I don't know.

Gotta go, all.

Allah, I think he admitted that the Yom Kippur War was defensive (amazingly)

Hob, CF doesn't have an argument with me, because I can't really be bothered to acknowledge the existence of someone who uses the word "Zionist" in the first place - let alone someone who thinks it's an insult.

But, just for the heck of it, here's a link to the facts about the highly amusing Six-Day War. (Plus, if he clicks through, CF just might get an aneurysm on seeing the domain name.)

Basically, Egypt had built up forces on the Sinai Peninsula, Jordan had just joined the Egypt-Syria military alliance, and Iraq, Algeria, and Kuwait had all deployed military contingents to the area.

There were something like 500 thousand troops on Israel's borders, 3000 tanks, and 800 aircraft, and CF is claiming that Israel started the war with "sneak attacks" just because she launched a pre-emptive strike before the Arabs could wipe her off the face of the earth.

I think that should tell any reasonable person just about all she'd need to know about the value or validity of CF's input on any subject under the sun.

Oh, and the Arabs attacked first in 1948 as well. Just like always.

Quoth Allah: "Fully fifteen minutes after Cedarford's allegation that the Six Days War wasn't a defensive war and no one's called him on it yet?"

Sorry old man, I just start laughing helplessly whenever I'm reminded of the hilarious way all those idiot Arabs were spanked at once. It took me a little while to recover.

It's like a bunch of would-be gang-rapists finding out all of a sudden that their intended victim has an Uzi in her purse. The looks on their faces must've been priceless.

Good, clean fun all around. We should have more wars like that!

Only the 1973 war was a defensive war, you lying Zionist pig.

Wow. do people really use that word anymore? I didn't think it was common outside of the United Nations.

While we're on the subject of demonizing Arabs, let's just pause a second to relflect that during the "Dark Ages" it was those uncivilized Arabs who kept Western Civilization alive in their libraries while Europe descended into barbarism (hat tip to the Irish monasteries).

Jeebus but there is a lot of loose history shit happening here tonight! So Michael, the Renaissance really started when the Italians ran over to the Arab library and checked out some how-to-paint books? Weren't their library cards expired?

Yes, after the fall of Rome, long before the Renaissance, long before the Reformation, the Visigoths and Ostrogoths let their library cards expire.

Hobgoblin -

1. Terms of the Road Map are met. Israel abandons all it's colonies save for East Jerusalem and minor border adjustments and pays (not it's American Sugar Daddy) for compensation with cash to the Palis or in land swaps.

2. Islamic countries sign a formal treaty recognizing Israels right to exist. All bordering countries plus Iran, Turkey, Iraq. Israel signs the same treaty abandoning the expansionist goals of Zionism.

3. Israel is on fair to good terms with Britain, America, China (those technology transfers help!), Russia, and India. Those nations sign on to be Israel's guarantors if any Arab WMD attack or ground invasion happens inside Israel Proper.

4. Palestinian refugees lose the Right to Return, but so do Jews outside Israel..who no longer are compromised as dual citizen/dual loyalty. In addition, the refugees are given compensation, factoring in the offsets from Jews that got the boot from Muslim countries after the initial Zionist cleansing of 1948. Along with agreement of Syria, Egypt, and Jordan to offer citizenship to those Pal refugees seeking it in return for getting part of the Palestinian compensation. Israel and any overseas Jews who care to chip in pay the compensation over 50 years time...not the American Sugar Daddy.

******

All this is close to King Abdullahs plan and the Barak offer -----the EU backs this as Road Map PLUS addressing the vexing issues of Right of Return. So this is not unrealistic. Hard core Zionists and Islamists hate it, but it seems acceptable to most others...

Criticism of Arabian culture and the Mohammedan religion is equivalent to the "demonization" of a race or its past accomplishments in what way, Michael?

You think that when I say Islam's treatment of women is a vile and inhuman disgrace, I'm denying the existence of gorgeous 12th century Islamic metalwork, a lot of which is currently on display in the Sackler & Freer galleries? Huh. (I've been to the exhibit 3 times to date.)

You think when I say there's an inherent disposition in specifically Arab practices that lends itself to tyranny and an incompetent military, I'm talking through my hat because I hate "darkies" or something? Try reading this.

You think I'm denying the existence of the philosophical debates sponsored by Akbar the Great, or Saladin's strategic genius, or Khawarizmi's accomplishments in early mathematics (though he didn't "invent" zero), just because I think their current culture is debased, medieval, barbaric, and cruel?

Fine, I guess there's little more to say. You tend to shut people out when you call them racists, explicitly or otherwise.

The real heroes of the Renaissance were all those nameless generations of monks, copying and recopying scrolls for hundreds of years. I'm not saying that some of the Classical works didn't come from Arab libraries, but the vast majority were in Christian monasteries. The classical enthusiasts who named the era were more often than not book thieves who had no compunctions about stealing works from monasteries while on visits, then crowing about how they "saved" a priceless work of (name here).

Arab technological advances, like the lateen sail, algebra, etc. along with techniques in various other disciplines preserved from Roman times were definitely useful to the Europeans. However, I like overcrediting a group about as little as I do undercrediting a group.

Or an era. The so-called "Dark Ages" were nothing of the sort in intellectual or cultural terms.

I come of German stock, by the way, so I'm reluctant to admit the fact that my ancestors were so culpable in the near-extinction of western civilization, and it pains me to admit that our depradations were offset by the heroic efforts of Arabs and Irish monks. (Especially the Irish, a bunch of drunken fools with a gift for poetry and song who are entirely unworthy of any noble place in the course of human history, but dammit, there they are.)

Anyone can look up where and when the Jewish Haganah started the civil war of 1948 and when the 5 Arab Armies came in (a month later) in an attempt to stop the Zionist ethnic cleansing occuring in the Arab areas of Partition.

Questionable interpretation

1956 was a colonialist attack on Egypt started by the Israelis, British, and French - with Israel making the 1st blow and forced to slink off without their Sinai acquisitions

I can give you that one

1967 started with Israeli sneak attacks on Egyptian airfields then two armor columns inside Egypt. When Jordan responded to Nasser's pleas for help against the Israeli attack, ready IDF forces seized the West Bank.

This is the one that got me giggling. A "sneak attack" on Egyptian forces, massed at the border, presumably having a peaceful 'jamboree'.

1982 War with Lebanon started with an Israeli ground invasion that finally stalled outside Beruit

I would call this a war with Hezbollah and Syria, and point out attacks from Bekaa that had been going on for months, which when repulsed, Israel stopped their advance. You seriously think they couldn't have continued through Beirut if they were so inclined? Hell, they could have taken Damascus if they had been feeling really bitchy.

I still don't see the justification for 9/11. Are you just giving us your take on history or are we talking about the topic at hand?

And incidentally, three of your examples of Zionist aggression occurred before settlements in 'disputed territories'. Having a tough time squaring that one with overall angst about American support of Israel. I think most of us can look at a map and figure out who was most threatened since 1948.

When the leading Egyptian newspapers, reporting on the 1960 capture of Eichman use the headline "Israelis Capture Eichman, Who Had the Honor of Killing 6 Million Jews", I understand what I'm dealing with.

Andrea, you cussing is OK, but this "on [Cedarford's] fans' heads is ove rthe fucking line.

Aw boo hoo. Not to mention, what the fuck? You know, if you want to criticize something I wrote, why don't you fucking quote what I actually fucking wrote instead of playing around with brackets and stuff. Then again, I take your point: my piss is too good to waste on Slobberford or his fans.

Khawarizmi's accomplishments in early mathematics (though he didn't "invent" zero)

Totally off-subject, but I just got back from vacation in Belize and visited Tikal on a day trip. I have heard that the Mayans invented zero. True?

And with that, it's time for the 2nd Semi-Official (since Ace dropped in the last time) Ace of Spades HQ Chat!

Service: AIM
Room: chat41089100020066391058
Contact: Cancer Marney

Allah, technically Israel did *start* the war. They were surrounded, and the longer they waited the worse of a strategic situation they were put in, but (and let me go re-research this before you bite my head off) but I'm about 60% sure that Israel fired the first volley per se.

Now, FWIW that is officially the closest I'll ever come to defending CF - I still think he's a repulsive douche....

To be clear though, it was a pre-emptive defensive war. Fully justifiable by any sane person.

-Michael,

The Mayans may very well have invented zero themselves, just as people round the world invented things like metalworking independently of each other. However, the concept of zero has been bounced around for a long time in the Mediterranean and other places, I imagine.

Quite right, FK. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a defensive war. Megan's comment at 9:38 provides the necessary context.

And with that, it's time for the 2nd Semi-Official (since Ace dropped in the last time) Ace of Spades HQ Chat!

Megan:

Gee, sooooooo sorry. Why don't you spend an evening loosely aligned with Cedarford just for kicks? You'll get goofy too.

I have better taste. :)

The last time this bullshit came up (Churchill), Cedartroll tried to blame America-hating on the J00z (remember "red diaper babies"?).

This time, since that whole angle has been discredited, Naziford hoists his true colors.

Michael, OTOH, needs to be disabused of a bunch of PC myths (no, classical civ. was never in the hands of the Arabs).

Oh, no. They fucking started it:

-Continued terrorist raids inside Israel.

-Continual bombarding of Israeli settlements by the Syrians from the Golan Heights.

-Massing of troops on the Egyptian border.

-Massing of troops on the Syrian border.

-Blockade of Israeli shipping by Egypt.

Cedarford -

It's people like you that make me want to convert to Judaism, just to piss you off.

Ditto Knemon.

I had forgotten about the Egyptian blockade.

cf, I take it back. Sorry dude.

I have better taste. :)

You're right. What's wrong with me? Will I prostitute myself and advocate a hopeless position, agreeing with Cedarford, just for a cheap thrill on some stupid comment thread?

Will I actually spend my hard-earned dollars on PURE HERBAL VIAGRA in the forlorn hope that one day I can meet LauraW?

I am such a mess.

On the other hand, Megan, at least I have managed to consistently address you with courtesy and respect, despite your many provocations (you stupid, slope-headed, retard ball-busting bitch).

Come say that to my, uh, screen-name's face, you ignorant, effeminate, Jew-hating inarticulate jerk.

2nd Semi-Official (since Ace dropped in the last time) Ace of Spades HQ Chat
Service: AIM
Room: chat41089100020066391058
Contact: Cancer Marney

:)

you ignorant, effeminate, Jew-hating inarticulate jerk.

Effeminate? Jeez, can't I live down the fact that I own a Tommy Hilfiger tux? I own an Ace teeshirt. Doesn't that count for anything? I would think that even a bull dyke like you, Megan, would have a little respect for someone who wears the Ace teeshirt.

So, spin my words, and create your strawman arguements, gobbelsford, but realize that the only reason you are sitting in line waiting for the Star Wars movie,typing on a computer next to a refrigerator full of fattening shit while dressed like princess Leia costume made by your mom all the while wondering why is it that all women think 'you have a great personality, but you're just a GOOD friend' is because someone in our past listened to your pathetic arguement and said "FUCK THAT"

man, I must be getting old. I forgot, gobbelsford probably HATES star wars. I mean, come on, Vader is such a fuckin JOO man. And what kind of name is Han, anyway?

Man, I fucking HATE nazis.

Son of America

Fat Kid - I don't have a problem with Israel attacking in 1967 with provocation. I just have a problem with the usual Zionist lie-spinning like Megan did that "Israel was attacked 5 times by Arabs, and fighting back, won 5 wars" or spun as "5 times Israel was forced to fight defensive wars".

If you look closely, much of what the Zionists have put out to the American public have been total whoppers.

"A Land with No People for a People With No Land"...Oh, the 700,000 refugees? Trust us, the So-Called Palestinians never existed ignore the Ottoman and Brit Mandate Census figures saying otherwise."

Secret Radio Broadcasts made the Arabs Flee! The Brits demolished that codswalloping pail of bullshit back in the early 60's. How the Big Zionist lie was deconstructed was the subject of perhaps Chris Hitchens best essay - "Broadcast".

Dave in Texas - There was no blockade of the Straits. There was a threatened blockade. As for the the two armored divisions, more Nasser saber rattling, with no intent to attack. They were just on the other side of the Suez, 200 miles away from Israel Proper with no logistic support or air cover. Israeli leadership admitted that. And admitted that the two divisions were left so vulnerable that Israel would have been stupid not to launch a preemptive war and take advantage of the sitting ducks Nasser set up with his saber-rattling. Taking out the 2 divisions Nasser exposed was admitted in public as the reason why Israel started the 1967 War.

"Oh, the 700,000 refugees?"

And the Jewish refugees from Arab nations?
Zionists, every last filthy one. They were asking for it. Running around with those big noses and filthy, greedy souls of theirs.

The Mufti of Jerusalem, acting all buddy-buddy with Hitler? Decent chap. Pacifist to the core. Can't think of anyone I'd rather spend an afternoon with.

Say hi to David Irving for me, Cedarford.

As for the people behind 9/11, I have no problem killing all of them. Nor of treating anyone who wishes to attack Americans here in our Homeland on behalf of a foreign entity as "Unlawful Combatants" with no rights to Habeas Corpus as per Ex Parte Quirin. Including traitorous Americans working with the terrorists.

But understanding the enemy's motives are essential to winning the war and winning the peace. Many successful counter-terror or counterinsurgency efforts have stemmed from particularly the Brits, Indians, recent SA nations, and Americans of earlier generations having the courage to realize that many of the grievances on the other side are valid and working to defuse them.

Which is exactly what Bush is doing quietly along with Tony Blair and other allied parties - realizing that many of bin Laden's grievances are as valid as those of the Iranian dissidents in the 70's and trying to not be in denial until the whole area rises up. It's not the 4-5,000 "Evildoers" that are the problem. It's the 1.2 billion Muslims that are mostly neutral or partially sympathetic joining them and launching a global war as bad as WWII that is the real worry. And Blair has done a job of courage and vision and kept Bush from completely groveling to Israel and the Christian Zionists by telling Bush that if he doesn't work towards a constructive solution to the Israeli-Palestine problem he will have no allies left. Not Britain, not Australia..

The actress Maggie Gyllenhaal is just saying that you can deplore 9/11 and seek payback, but you also have to see what policies America had on behalf of itself or Israel - that caused us to go from friendly relations with Muslims to quite antipathetic relations with them in in just 30 years - and what we might be willing to reconsider to avoid a global war between the West and Islam. I didn't see a word in her post that said blame America and only America. I give her credit for having the courage to say we need to be more than just crybaby victims in the throes of a temper tantrum convinced all fault lies with others. And realize we "only" lost ~5,000 Americans so far in this war from 1980 onwards. Less than a typical European or Asian country lost in a typical week of war in the 20th Century. Far less than "real wars" that killed off 1/10th -1/3rd of 3rd world countries.

And for the goal of prevailing over those I like to think of as the "Islamoids" who are incompatable with the West - we have to know the Muslims as well as we did the Soviets and those susceptible to their communist lures. And convince Muslims that America is their friend still and radical Islam is no solution.

Cedarford, I agree with you there.

It's when you get on the whole "Zionist pig" kick that the electronic spittle starts flying from your e-mouth, and I get a bit frightened.

It's when the little fucker starts revealing his true colors with comments about "dual loyalties" and "Zionists" that you should get a bit frightened. Remember who he is no matter how reasonable he pretends to be otherwise.

Knemon - Yeah, "lying-Zionist-pig" sounds like it flew from the mouth of a Arab fanatic, but it's exactly what Megan is. She's just dishing out deceitful crap concocted by Stalins propaganda meisters, who were permitted to emigrate to Israel after Old Joe died.

Let's see-- I'm a Jew-hating Nazi, paleocon on foreign policy, strong libertarian on the right of an adult to copulate with consenting livestock in the privacy of his own home, and to enshrine that relationship within a civil union.

And so is my partner Porky. As you can guess, we're both quite strong advocates for Poland-China relations, if you know what I mean!

Other than that Porky's not too political, although he is for immunizations for swine flu, and he's a Quaker. At least he is once I have had some of that sweet,sweet herbal vyagra! Yowza!

Oh wait--this is supposed to go in the "liberal or conservative" thread above. Sorry.

CF,

Tone down the antisemitism posthaste or I'll do it for you in a fairly unsubtle manner.

I'm a little tired of it. I've been willing to put up with it on general principles, feeling that a jackass has the right to jackass around if he so pleases, but I'm just tired of it.

If you're unable to talk about Jews or Israel without slipping into a Joseph Goebbels impersonation, perhaps it's best to avoid the topics entirely, and stick to one of the myriad other topics you know absolutely jack-shit about.

Thank you for your kind understanding.

...

"Stick to one of the myriad other topics you know absolutely jack-shit about."

Bwahahaha. I am so stealing that someday.

Egyptians called it a blockade.
President Johnson called it a blockade. The NYT called it a blocade.
CF quotes radioislam and sez it wasn't a blockade!

Dave in Texas - There was no blockade of the Straits. There was a threatened blockade. As for the the two armored divisions, more Nasser saber rattling, with no intent to attack. They were just on the other side of the Suez, 200 miles away from Israel Proper with no logistic support or air cover. Israeli leadership admitted that. And admitted that the two divisions were left so vulnerable that Israel would have been stupid not to launch a preemptive war and take advantage of the sitting ducks Nasser set up with his saber-rattling. Taking out the 2 divisions Nasser exposed was admitted in public as the reason why Israel started the 1967 War.

Tiran was blocked, if you want to pick nits here.

We have a difference of opinion as to what Nassar was up to. Look, you're entitled to your point about who started shooting first, but you are ignoring the reality of Arab intentions. It's intellectually dishonest.

Considering your "zionist pig" bullshit remark, that's a kinder criticism than you deserve.

Like day leading into night, any conversation of the 'sins' and 'punishment' of America always leads into some asshole blaming the Jooos.

I hope that stupid bitch liked her movie career, because she can kiss it goodbye. I will never see another movie that she is in, unless and until she completely apologizes for her remarks.

We have not even had one day of mourning for each person slaughtered that day, nor will we until after the next president is elected into office.

Cedarford,

your "plan" is decent, up to #4. we don't need to be the "neutral broker" in Israel, but we do need to account for current realities. The stopping of settlements and the recognition of Israel, respectively, are reasonable steps.

With arafart dead, there's an opportunity there. That vile thing was largely the cause of much of the world's suffering on the whole ME issue.

this comment, I think, is wrong.

"but you also have to see what policies America had on behalf of itself or Israel - that caused us to go from friendly relations with Muslims to quite antipathetic relations with them in in just 30 years - and what we might be willing to reconsider to avoid a global war between the West and Islam."

Ibn al Saud made his deal with ibn al Wahhab in the 1930s(?). Wahhabist ideology (essentially the Reformation Calvanism of Islam) has always looked to a reconstitution of the Caliphate. Only in the last 30 years has the ideology percolated through the hardline madrassas in sufficient "purity" to create the new hashishin. And only in that time has oil wealth created a vast leisure class of Arab youth, drawn to the lure of martyrdom via murder. This mentality appeals to the Arab mind (in its native culture).

What we are seeing is therefore NOT attributable to our foreign policy, except insofar as it gives a vehicle to the Islamists for the hate of the Crusaders that is perpetual in Wahhabism. We've been at war with Wahhabist Islam from the beginning of the sect.

So fine, Gwylynhylynhylngwyl can ask about our foreign policy vis a vis 9/11, but doing so makes her look like a poory informed, reactionary Leftist.

Back to your #4. Palis aren't arguing for a right to return to the territories, but Israel proper. Israel settlers bought most of that land formerly owned by palestinians after the end of the mandate. While there was no doubt some "cleansing" (certainly not Rawanda style, so that's a HIGHLY loaded term there), the Palis were lawfully compensated for the vast majority of Israel proper. It's disingenuous to say that the Israelis are the modern-day conquistadores.

Plus, it's the Jews' country now, and even you advocate recognition. A country with sovereignty can grant citizenship to whomever it pleases. The Palis will grant citizenship to the whole of the Pali people woldwide once they get a "Palestine"

So the "right of return" for Palis is tied to land that we all agree is no longer theirs. That's apples and oranges to Israeli "dual citizenship"

And Michael,

The rest of the gang has hammered on you for the "dark Ages" thing, but having read "How the Irish Saved Civilization" and numerous early medieval textbooks, I will simply echo that the Arab gift of the lost Greek writings merely served to legitimize Plato as the teacher of Aristotle (whose works were not lost), and gave us more of the Greek playwrights.

And allow me to gently add that the Islam of the 9th and 10th centuries was one that fully explored ijtihad, or interpretation, in the reading of the Koran, and thus was far more open and liberal that today's Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi Islam.

Hob:

Not a history buff myself, really, but I happened upon "How the Irish Saved Civilization" a few years ago and thought it was a fabulous read. And mistitled. The title gives no clue to the scope of the author's insights ranging from St. Augustine to the fall of Rome, to human sacrifice, to St. Patrick and on and on. It's stunning how much got packed into a relatively slim volume.

Michael, try Sailing the Wine Dark Seas about the Greeks. Fascinating exploration of the Greek cultural mindset.

Defense Guy -

The victims of 9/11 are the most mourned over victims in American history and their families the most well-compensated of any victims of terrorism/warfare in human history. By your logic of a day of morning for each victim, the year 3508 will mark the official end of mourning for each victim of the American Civil War. The year 3096 will signal the end of "a victim a day" mourning for Americans lost in WWII.

We have 2.5 million Americans die every year. Several hundred thousand of that number utterly tragically, before their time. The 9/11 victims, tragic as they were, have to be put in perspective. We lose 95,000 Americans a year from medical errors. In war, 3,000 victims was a bad hour in WWI or WWII, a bad day in the Civil War, a bad month or two in Vietnam.

We still have some payback to issue with bin Laden and about 20 others directly involved in 9/11, but 3,000 dead is no more a justification for an ongoing war on all Islam as 300,000 Union soldier dead is justification for eternal war against the South.

"3,000 dead is no more a justification for an ongoing war on all Islam "

sorry, cf, but you're wrong on that one, too. 20 : 3,000 casualty ratio is a significant victory in battle, even if it was a civilian massacre (that would have been much worse with flight 93)

But you're missing the point. A small operation is all the Wahhabis can field at the moment. The ultimate goal of global conquest remains undimmed. We need to either permanently dissuade Islamists from this goal (by granting as many of them martyrdom as possible), or capitulate.

We can't continue on blithely unconcerned with their global ambitions in the hopes that we can always prevent them form succeeding. Our infrastructure is becoming more and more attenuated from the physical. The loss of two buildings cut out (if one accepts $1 trillion in causally related loss and economic slowing) almost 5% of our GDP for the following two years.

Just b/c they can't land divisions doesn't mean they can't hurt us or cause our economy to collapse. Islamists are at War with us, dude.

You can accept it or not, but remember they'd slit your throat if they could but get close enough.

ACE -

You equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. You conflate any criticism of Israel, or those Jewish Americans that place the interests of Israel above America's - with religious bigotry.

The 2nd biggest "desk" managing counter espionage at the FBI, after Russia, is the Israel desk. A new major spy scandal is in grand jury, involving Jewish Americans and Israel penetrating DOD and State. The last big spy scandal was the Pollard Affair, where top secret American satellite technologies were sent to Israel, which then sent them on to the Soviet Union in exchange for Jewish dissidents.

Now the Russians too have real problems with Israel, which is sheltering Jewish oligarchs which plundered Russia of billions then fled to Israel with their loot.

http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=908463&fid=942

Explain why only Israel should be given a pass from criticism, of all nations Americans are free to criticize, including their own.

Explain why only Zionism is to be immune from harsh words Americans are free to make about any other political philosophy.

No, I equate you with a vicious anti-Jew bastard.

It's that simple.

And all your codewords like "Zionist" aren't going to change that.

And yeah, stupid, I fucking know Israel spies on us like crazy. If you weren't so Jew-obsessed, you might mention that so do the British and the Dutch...

Hobgoblin - Israel settlers bought most of that land formerly owned by palestinians after the end of the mandate. While there was no doubt some "cleansing" (certainly not Rawanda style, so that's a HIGHLY loaded term there), the Palis were lawfully compensated for the vast majority of Israel proper

Only about 4% of the land of the Palestine Mandate was bought lawfully and "redeemed" for Zionism. The rest was state land seized by Israel or the Jewish agency after 1948 and reserved for Jewish settlement only. The Palestinians inside Israel proper own about 8% of the land. As for money, the original 700,000 were never compensated, despite Israel promising to do so as a condition for being accepted into the UN back in 1948 and signing UN Res 138 calling for fair compensation of cleansed people.

If Israel had a philosphy of saying let bygones be bygones, tough luck on the 700K displaced Palestinians - I could respect that. But they have been most litigious in suing for every scrap of value of lands and property they were displaced from in WWII Europe.

As for bygones being bygones, I'm not saying forget the 3,000 killed on 9/11 - but to recognize what perspective the rest of the world places on our small loss of thousands vs. their losses of 100's of thousands or millions in war. Perspective, hobgoblin, perspective....

ACE -

There was never a case of the British or Dutch governments passing on American secrets to our Soviet enemies in the Cold War or to China these days. That is because the Brits and Dutch are allies of the USA.

Nor am I a vicious anti-Jew bastard.

You on the other hand, are an uncritical knee jerk apologist for a foreign country and their sympathizers here that frequently work against America's vital interests.

and your services are growing increasingly unneeded here, Nazi.

cedarford, you worte "The rest was state land seized by Israel or the Jewish agency after 1948 and reserved for Jewish settlement only". Then it's dishinest for you to say thr eland was ethnically "cleansed" in any real meaning of the term. Admit you were being inflammatory and MoveOn.

I'm not disagreeing that like every independent Nation, even our "allies" will spy on us. That's the way nation-states work. I'm not happy, but neither am I incandescent with rage at it. I'm certain that some steps are being taken behind the scenes.

And I'm not arguing that 3,000 was some immense number. It was small as far as massacres go. (that was the darkest of black humor, by the way) My point is that Islam presents a far more immediate and dangerous threat than Israel, China, or the NorKs. To fixate on Israel as the centerpiece of the Islamic War (which I think it is) is to reject an ally out of hand.

Does Israel have bad blood with the Arabs? Sure, adn teh 1200 years of calling Jews pigs and monkeys doesn't help, especially when quoted from the Koran. But, unlike every Arab State, Israel is on our side against the terrorists in an effort to eradicate them, not just redirect them (as our Arab "allies" are).

My perspective is far grander than you think. I'm looking in terms of centuries of conflict. Billions of people. Thousands of miles of Islam's "bloody borders," and the global ambitions of our foes.

A "shitty little country" as your French pal said is not even in that picture, let alone one that has her own very good reasons for helping us to the utmost.

As for the reparations stuff, I say bully for them. If the Germans are enough of guilt ridden pussies to cave, then let them. I don't expect such cravenness from anyone else, and do not consider it hypocrisy to keep a population of destroyers outside my borders.

The Pali "refugee" population (it's been 5 decades, enough with the refugee bullshit) would pose a demographic timebomb to Israel. They have a right to secure their country, just as the USA has a right to keep out the Mexicans.

You're essentially demanding that the Jews never be fallible or self-interested. If I didn't know better, I'd think you believe they ARE the "Chosen People," and must act accordingly.

Really, cf, unless you buy into the "Jewish Conspiracy" thing (and I think you're too smart for that), there's little logic to having such animus toward Israel. It is, to put it mildly, the least of our fucking problems.

"the centerpiece of the Islamic War (which I think it is)"
I think the WoT is an Islamic war, not that Israel's really a major part of it, aside from the Islamists use of Israel as propaganda

You can post on her guestbook.

I'm number 372:
Maggie-
I whacked off to your Secretary movie...

James Spader is hot! You, on the other hand, are just an annoying idiot!

"You conflate any criticism of Israel, or those Jewish Americans that place the interests of Israel above America's - with religious bigotry. "

*Any* criticism?

Watch this. I'll make some criticisms, and we'll see whether Ace calls me a religious bigot.

Here goes: Israel is bad at PR.
Israel foolishly decided to stop treating Arafat as Enemy Number One, and set him up as the Palestinians' legitimate representative, in a panicked reaction to the first intifada.

The "land without people" thing, viewed 100 years later, is creepy. Israelis went way too long before realizing that the Palestinians exist as a people NOW, even if they didn't have national consciousness at the launching of the Zionist project, and that they aren't going anywhere.

Israel is sometimes too paranoid. It has yet to accept that, while it does have many enemies, not every critic wants to put all the Jews on boxcars again.

If the terror and incitement thereto and the "pigs and monkeys" shit were to stop, I would be much more neutral on the Is-Pal issue.

IF.

Okay. see how that works?

Now here's you: "Israel is a vile nasty little country which spies on us, causes Jews to have double loyalties, lies and cheats and steals and oppresses. Zionism is racism, Zionists are really just Stalin's propagandists in new clothing. Jews start all wars. Feith Perle Wolfowitz. Heeby Ben JewSpy and his evil minions."

See the difference?

Ace, am I a bigot?

"Heeby Ben JewSpy and his evil minions"

LMAO

I'll be here all week - and folks, the 9:30 show is completely different from the 5:30 show!
... the 9:30 DOES get a little blue ...

"I hope that stupid bitch liked her movie career, because she can kiss it goodbye. I will never see another movie that she is in, unless and until she completely apologizes for her remarks."

Defense Guy, I love you, but I'm gonna disagree with you on this one.

Nothing would make me believe that any apology she offers is sincere.

No, she would only sorry she got caught telling her true beliefs and that people noticed it and were appalled. I will not forgive her.

Love to be a fly on the wall at her P.R. firm though!

Heeby Ben JewSpy

BWAAAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAA

[Please... no private phone numbers.]

congrats mate! Fine job and fine site!

casino online