IAN PACE, THE NEONAZI MOUTHPIECE OF HAMAS
SG
Ian "Goebbels" Pace wrote:
> It's quite telling that our resident Romanian neo-fascist usually only
> emerges from the sewers when there is an opportunity to spout his
> Arab-hating racist propaganda, which is amply demonstrated in his latest
> post. By his reckoning, for Jews and Palestinians to live together is for
> Jewish people to 'commit national suicide'.
The piece of rejected garbage answering to the name "Ian Pace" puts
words in my mouth I have never uttered such as "Palestinians are all
mass murderers". Given the reality on the field of the fact that
letting palestinians enter Israel for work and humanitarian reasons had
as a result THOUSANDS of attempted terrorist attacks, out of which
hundreds were successful, while a simple fence between Israel and
palestinians reduced the incidence of the said attacks to
next-to-nothing, THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES as to what is more
secure for Israel to do. Otherwise, I have no generalized, positive or
negative feelings for Arabs, for the Japanese, for the Swedish or for
the Senegalese. However, as I mentioned, that Ian Pace praises in the
same breath Hamas and Daniel Barenboim does not say anything we didn't
know about Hamas, but says a lot about both Ian Pace and Barenboim.
The little prick Ian Pace also dreams of me being deported because I
refuse to be a Jew-hater as he is. Fortunately the US is a country of a
freedom of speech other countries can't even dream of. Mass deportation
and murder are the traces of Pace's political idols infesting his sick
and hateful mind.
As for Ian Pace making overt propaganda in favor of the likes of Hamas,
which is against the British law, and for condoning the infamous
antisemitic concoction called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (used
both in Nazi and in Arab countries antisemitic propaganda), I wouldn't
bother to threaten the son of a bitch with anything. For one thing,
nothing and nobody can harm Ian Pace more than Ian Pace can. Secondly,
the British law is made for real threats not for lunatic armchair
cunts, who vicariously and cowardly drool at the thought of Hamas
terrorists doing their dirty work.
Ian Pace
"SG" <SGG...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125872564.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ian
Richard Loeb
Just a suggestion - Make sure its Ian Pace and not the fucked up Studer
troll, who, as you know, likes to latch onto this anti-semitic material
using other posters names. If properties show the address as
http://google.com, then definitely beware. best Richard
>
SG
"Just a suggestion - Make sure its Ian Pace and not the fucked up
Studer
troll, who, as you know, likes to latch onto this anti-semitic material
using other posters names."
No, it's not the f.u. Studer troll, it's the other f.u. troll. Le style
est l'homme même.
regards,
SG
Ian Pace
"> As for Ian Pace making overt propaganda in favor of the likes of Hamas,
> which is against the British law,
Poor Samir can't even read - I refer the honourable gentleman to the comment
that Hamas are a bunch of religious nuts.
> and for condoning the infamous
> antisemitic concoction called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (used
> both in Nazi and in Arab countries antisemitic propaganda),
And also to the statement that the citation of the Protocols is anti-semitic
nonsense.
But we should expect poor li'll Samiry-poos to be able to read, should we?
All his racism seems to be damaging his brain cells.
John Harrington
<foaming-at-the-mouth bullshit snipped>
> As for Ian Pace making overt propaganda in favor of the likes of Hamas,
> which is against the British law, and for condoning the infamous
What a disgusting display of deliberate defamation. I don't know about
the rest, but Pace specifically denounced the Protocols as
"anti-Semitic nonsense" (http://tinyurl.com/adlom).
Let the record show that you, sir, like many of your ideological ilk in
this NG, are a liar.
J
SG
> As for Ian Pace making overt propaganda in favor of the likes of Hamas,
> which is against the British law, and for condoning the infamous
> antisemitic concoction called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion...
<<I don't know about
the rest, but Pace specifically denounced the Protocols as
"anti-Semitic nonsense" (http://tinyurl.com/adlom).>>
Yeah, it was his best friend who lauded the Protocols and Pace who
lauded anything else quoted in the Hamas charter. Big difference.
By the way, why "don't you know about the rest"?! Because it's not
convenient, I gather.
Ian Pace
>
> IAN PACE THE LIAR:
>
>
>> "> As for Ian Pace making overt propaganda in favor of the likes of
>> Hamas,
>> > which is against the British law,
>>
>> Poor Samir can't even read - I refer the honourable gentleman to the
>> comment
>> that Hamas are a bunch of religious nuts.
>
>
> CHARTER OF HAMAS (which Hamas would be "no different" from the Israeli
> army, in Pace's filthy "vision"),
A source for the alleged claim that the IDF and Hamas are "no different"
would be appreciated.
Perhaps you should meet my mother, as you're so interested in the issue of
shagging her.
SG
"A source for the alleged claim that the IDF and Hamas are "no
different"
would be appreciated."
With all Ian Pace's efforts to backtrack on his slandering of IDF and
propagandizing for Hamas, the record is there for all to see.
For the sake of these groups you pollute with your Jew-hatred, I will
ignore you... until the next time you spout your venom. It won't go
unnoticed.
"Perhaps you should meet my mother, as you're so interested in the
issue of
shagging her."
No, thanks. I wouldn't know whether to blame the poor woman for what
odd beast she's brought up or to pity her for having it around in her
last moments.
Ian Pace
>
> "A source for the alleged claim that the IDF and Hamas are "no
> different"
> would be appreciated."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.classical.recordings/browse_frm/thread/c42ea740ee2cc1c4/9aff9ce9e9cdb465?q=HAMAS+difference&rnum=10#9aff9ce9e9cdb465
>
a specific matter. Barenboim, rightly, wants to avoid being seen as
associated with military participants on either side. Good for him.
Ian
Tom Deacon
On 9/4/05 6:22 PM, in article
1125872564.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "SG"
<SGG...@gmail.com> wrote:
What language!
Is this really necessary?
TD
John Harrington
> > As for Ian Pace making overt propaganda in favor of the likes of Hamas,
> > which is against the British law, and for condoning the infamous
> > antisemitic concoction called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion...
>
> <<I don't know about
> the rest, but Pace specifically denounced the Protocols as
> "anti-Semitic nonsense" (http://tinyurl.com/adlom).>>
>
> Yeah, it was his best friend who lauded the Protocols and Pace who
> lauded anything else quoted in the Hamas charter. Big difference.
He specifically said the Protocols were "anti-Semitic nonsense". That
is indeed a big difference from "condoning" them, you liar.
> By the way, why "don't you know about the rest"?! Because it's not
> convenient, I gather.
Because I don't know about the rest. Period.
J
Raymond Hall
>
> Fortunately the US is a country of a
> freedom of speech other countries can't even dream of.
Maybe because they have free speech, take it for granted, and have no need
to dream of it. Unlike the US, where propaganda machines "a la Goebbels"
such as Fox seem to hold sway, and people like O'Reilly froth at the mouth
at any form of real discussion.
> Mass deportation
> and murder are the traces of Pace's political idols infesting his sick
> and hateful mind.
>
> As for Ian Pace making overt propaganda in favor of the likes of Hamas,
> which is against the British law, and for condoning the infamous
> antisemitic concoction called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (used
> both in Nazi and in Arab countries antisemitic propaganda), I wouldn't
> bother to threaten the son of a bitch with anything. For one thing,
> nothing and nobody can harm Ian Pace more than Ian Pace can. Secondly,
> the British law is made for real threats not for lunatic armchair
> cunts, who vicariously and cowardly drool at the thought of Hamas
> terrorists doing their dirty work.
Such language. Surely Barenboim, in his acquired wisdom, and slightly
idealistic naivity, at least is pointing the way forward. All other ways,
such as frothing at the mouth, and apoplexy, will get nobody, nowhere.
Afaik, Ian Pace hasn't resorted to such tactics. Therein lies a big
difference to all who read this thread objectively.
Ray H
Taree
SG
For the record (I mean for the record of those who don't have their
mind made up already, the others don't interest me), the "language"
employed by the neonazi Pace slanderer had it coming:
"The Arab-Hating Racism of Samir Golescu
It's quite telling that our resident Romanian neo-fascist usually only
emerges from the sewers"
etc. etc.
Pace will always reap as he sows. I am a gentleman with the gentlemen,
and, as an act of mercy toward the needy, respond in comprehensible
language to the fruit of the brothels.
Ian Pace
Pineapples? Pomegranates? Maybe brothels are something you know a lot about?
Anyhow, the 'gentleman' Golescu seems to find that statements of hatred and
disdain towards Arabs and Muslims don't breach the codes of 'gentlemanly'
behaviour, idle allegations of holocaust denial or neo-Nazism against any
criticism of Israel, nor such quaint expressions as 'terrorist cunt scum'.
That's about all we get from him on r.m.c.r. these days.
Poor Golescu - he's getting increasingly desperate as his racism is exposed
for what it is.
Room 101
pianist!news:1125872564.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SG
<<Anyhow, the 'gentleman' Golescu seems to find that statements of
hatred and
disdain towards Arabs and Muslims>>
You're a bloody liar, (did I mention neo-Nazi scum? I believe I did).
To hate a person BECAUSE she or he is Arab or Muslim (or anything else)
is one of the lowest states a human being can go. To defend the
besieged state of Israel - the both old and young, the small, the ONLY
statal refuge Jews have had in almost two thousand years, that's a
different story.
I believe anti-Arab racism to be as bad as antisemitism. But I cannot
forget that, were, say, Europe to become fascist again as it did in the
past, European Arabs would have an immensity of territory to find
refuge in/go back to, while the only safe haven for Jews is called
Israel.
To deny that IS antisemitism.
You, Ian Pace, are an antisemite.
Spam Scone
Asia, Africa, North America, Australia, and South America are not safe
havens?
Spam Scone
Spam Scone wrote:
> SG wrote:
> >
> > I believe anti-Arab racism to be as bad as antisemitism. But I cannot
> > forget that, were, say, Europe to become fascist again as it did in the
> > past, European Arabs would have an immensity of territory to find
> > refuge in/go back to, while the only safe haven for Jews is called
> > Israel.
>
> Asia, Africa, North America, Australia, and South America are not safe
> havens?
Sorry, forgot to change the subject line. My apologies to Mr. Pace.
Ian Pace
>
> <<Anyhow, the 'gentleman' Golescu seems to find that statements of
> hatred and
> disdain towards Arabs and Muslims>>
>
> You're a bloody liar, (did I mention neo-Nazi scum? I believe I did).
> To hate a person BECAUSE she or he is Arab or Muslim (or anything else)
> is one of the lowest states a human being can go. To defend the
> besieged state of Israel - the both old and young, the small, the ONLY
> statal refuge Jews have had in almost two thousand years, that's a
> different story.
>
> I believe anti-Arab racism to be as bad as antisemitism.
In which case, why did you say that:
'U.S. did have a hardly discriminating pro-Muslim,
exaggeratedly and irrationally tolerant and generous foreign policies
that took her nowhere -- or to 9/11. One might wonder rhetorically whether
the foreign-policy makers in U.S. were bought off by the Muslims or
something, but hopefully U.S.' foreign policies will change. '
Which, as I pointed out before, if 'Muslim' were replaced by 'Jew', would
become:
'U.S. did have a hardly discriminating pro-Jew,
exaggeratedly and irrationally tolerant and generous foreign policies
that took her nowhere -- or to 9/11. One might wonder rhetorically whether
the foreign-policy makers in U.S. were bought off by the Jews or
something, but hopefully U.S.' foreign policies will change '
Would anyone in their right mind deny that the latter is a blatantly
anti-semitic statement, worthy of the Nazis?
> But I cannot
> forget that, were, say, Europe to become fascist again as it did in the
> past, European Arabs would have an immensity of territory to find
> refuge in/go back to, while the only safe haven for Jews is called
> Israel.
Actually, the possible safe havens of Britain and the US were in large
measure closed off to Jewish refugees; support for the foundation of the
state of Israel was one way in which both these countries could 'pass the
buck', and not feel any pressure to take in refugees themselves.
Ian Pace
"Spam Scone" <Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125877832.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Palestinians in other Arab states is anything to go by, I'm by no means
convinced that such people would have easy safe havens in the event of a
resurgence of the far right in Europe (which could quite easily happen).
Ian Pace
"Spam Scone" <Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125877832.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
round the corner from me by far right skinheads, this all comes to home very
vividly. He's actually Hindu, not Muslim, but to these people anyone who
looks Asian is to be attacked, on the grounds that 'they are trying to
destroy us' or the like. And this isn't an isolated incident, such prejudice
is having its violent enactment all over the Western world.
SG
"I don't know (or care) about his politics, but Ian Pace is one
kick-ass pianist!"
I didn't hear him, but I wouldn't be awfully surprised if that were
true. Often talented people are patented assholes and moral morons.
regards,
SG
John Harrington
You must be the next Michelangeli, then.
J
Sam
Wouldn't a Golescu-Pace piano contest be great? In the noble
tradition of Clementi-Mozart or Liszt-Thalberg? After listening to
them play, we could be treated to mud wrestling match or insult
calling competition before the audience votes on who is the better
man.
By the way, Ian, would Barenboim touch any of the music you are
identified with, with a 10 foot pole? The most modern stuff I have
heard him in is Astor Piazzolla.
xys...@hotmail.com
Neil:
"Asia, Africa, North America, Australia, and South America are not safe
havens?"
In 1932, anybody could have asked: what, Germany is not a safe haven?
Italy is not safe haven? France is not safe haven? Poland is not safe
haven? Romania is not safe haven? Lithuania is not safe haven? Holland
is not safe haven? Hungary is not safe haven? Czechoslovakia is not
safe haven? Latvia is not safe haven? Belgium is not safe haven? Greece
is not safe haven? Yugoslavia is not safe haven? Austria is not safe
haven? Bulgaria is not safe haven? . . .
The answer should have been yes, had we lived in a reasonable world.
The answer was NO. The answer, when it comes to assuming
responsibility, is still no.
regards,
SG
Ian Pace
"Sam" <sa...@nospammy.com> wrote in message
news:i25nh1tu1masa9t2m...@4ax.com...
> By the way, Ian, would Barenboim touch any of the music you are
> identified with, with a 10 foot pole? The most modern stuff I have
> heard him in is Astor Piazzolla.
Maybe not as a pianist so much, but certainly he has done as a conductor. I
believe at one point there was a plan for a Berio piano concerto being
written for him.
Barenboim's Boulez is truly remarkable.
xys...@hotmail.com
> Wouldn't a Golescu-Pace contest be great?
No. Sign me on, if she would be younger, with Elly Ney. She had more in
way of charm.
regards,
SG
david...@aol.com
I have heard truly remarkable performances of music by Berio, Boulez,
and Carter with Barenboim conducting. Barenboim has premiered more
than one Carter piece and talked Carter into writing an opera. As far
as I'm concerned, Barenboim is to Carter what Furtwaengler was to
Wagner, and I would much rather hear Barenboim conduct Carter than
David Robertson, Oliver Knussen, or even Boulez. I also vastly
preferred the Barenboim performance of four movements from Boulez's
Visage nuptial that I heard in Chicago to Boulez's Erato recording.
(I've heard Boulez do it better than on Erato, too, both in person and
in live recordings.)
-david gable
Raving Loonie
Matthew B. Tepper
Same bat time same bat channel.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
Ian Pace
Ian Pace
xys...@hotmail.com
Ian Pace wrote:
> 'U.S. did have a hardly discriminating pro-Muslim,
> exaggeratedly and irrationally tolerant and generous foreign policies
> that took her nowhere -- or to 9/11. One might wonder rhetorically whether
> the foreign-policy makers in U.S. were bought off by the Muslims or
> something, but hopefully U.S.' foreign policies will change. '
Funny. The one and only point in which I agree with Pace's fat lover
Michael Moore, that the American leadership's old connections with the
Saudis, the Afghan freedom fighters etc. are a smelly rat, and he
disputes it.
However hard one tries, one can't make a dialectic cunt happy.
xys...@hotmail.com
> (Jews and Palestinians)=(Nazis and Jews)
> Same bat time same bat channel.
True. Perhaps I should have left the son of a bitch to "speak for
himself" (as in his defense of the Hamas charter) but, well, what do
you know?, perhaps I didn't have a good day.
regards,
SG
Ian Pace
<xys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125897737....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ian Pace wrote:
>
[Quoting Golescu: 14/12/2001]
>
>> 'U.S. did have a hardly discriminating pro-Muslim,
>> exaggeratedly and irrationally tolerant and generous foreign policies
>> that took her nowhere -- or to 9/11. One might wonder rhetorically
>> whether
>> the foreign-policy makers in U.S. were bought off by the Muslims or
>> something, but hopefully U.S.' foreign policies will change. '
Which, as I pointed out before, if 'Muslim' were replaced by 'Jew', would
become: 'U.S. did have a hardly discriminating pro-Jew,
exaggeratedly and irrationally tolerant and generous foreign policies
that took her nowhere -- or to 9/11. One might wonder rhetorically whether
the foreign-policy makers in U.S. were bought off by the Jews or
something, but hopefully U.S.' foreign policies will change '
>
> Funny. The one and only point in which I agree with Pace's fat lover
> Michael Moore, that the American leadership's old connections with the
> Saudis, the Afghan freedom fighters etc. are a smelly rat, and he
> disputes it.
>
> However hard one tries, one can't make a dialectic cunt happy.
>
In the manner that is common amongst racists, questions of US support for
particular interest groups (the Saudi royal family, much despised by a great
many Muslim people, and the mujaheedin in Afghanistan, whose Al Qaida
offshoot maybe hate the House of Saud even more than they hate the US) are
transformed into blanket disdain for "Muslims".
xys...@hotmail.com
> (Jews and Palestinians)=(Nazis and Jews)
> Same bat time same bat channel.
The poor islamofascist cunt is really desperate. Now he's reposting the
same shit, over and over, hoping to get a little publicity in the
bargain. Well, they say there's no such thing as bad publicity.
They're wrong.
regards,
SG
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:LmQSe.4874$vC4....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net:
[arf arf arf bow wow wow]
Hi, have you listened to any classical music recordings lately?
Frank Berger
"Tom Deacon" <non...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BF40F329.9DE5%non...@yahoo.com...
>
>
>
> On 9/4/05 6:22 PM, in article
> 1125872564.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "SG"
>
> Is this really necessary?
>
> TD
>
Of course not. It's a matter of style.
dohg...@sympatico.ca
"The poor islamofascist cunt is really desperate."
A misogynist are we, on top of everything else?
JG
Frank Berger
"Raymond Hall" <rayt...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:%dLSe.23371$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...> news:1125872564.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Fortunately the US is a country of a
>> freedom of speech other countries can't even dream of.
>
> to dream of it. Unlike the US, where propaganda machines "a la Goebbels"
> such as Fox seem to hold sway, and people like O'Reilly froth at the mouth
> at any form of real discussion.
>
This is ludicrous. The media (virtually all of it) is terrible because it
panders to the tastes of the population, which is terrible. Your
implication that the government in some way controls Fox is ridiculuous.
O'Reilly's foaming is free speech in action. The whole point of free speech
is that you will hear some that you don't like.
Frank Berger
"Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com> wrote in message
news:vXLSe.3484$7p1....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
I don't suppose their attempts to overthrow the governments of Jordan and
Lebanon has anything to do with that.
Frank Berger
As are your baseless, lying charges of racism against anyone who defends
Israel.
Raymond Hall
news:11hnoq9...@news.supernews.com...
The Government pats Murdoch's back, and Murdoch's Fox puppets jump to the
general tune. One of the reasons Fox is 'compulsive' or should that be
'repulsive' viewing, is its *FAIR and BALANCED* claim to infamy. The
coiffeured Barbie dolls, including the rabid O'Reilly, that host many of the
programs on Fox, wouldn't know free speech any more than those who were
manipulated by Soviet Radio, at its most rampant.
It is so obvious to those who live outside the US, it really is a pity, that
those trapped inside your system, cannot be more objective about it.
Your problem. Not mine. But a damned pity, nonetheless.
Ray H
Taree
Frank Berger
> "Frank Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote in message
> news:11hnoq9...@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Raymond Hall" <rayt...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> news:%dLSe.23371$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> "SG" <SGG...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1125872564.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately the US is a country of a
>>>> freedom of speech other countries can't even dream of.
>>>
>>> Maybe because they have free speech, take it for granted, and have no
>>> need to dream of it. Unlike the US, where propaganda machines "a la
>>> Goebbels" such as Fox seem to hold sway, and people like O'Reilly froth
>>> at the mouth at any form of real discussion.
>>>
>>
>> This is ludicrous. The media (virtually all of it) is terrible because
>> it panders to the tastes of the population, which is terrible. Your
>> implication that the government in some way controls Fox is ridiculuous.
>> O'Reilly's foaming is free speech in action. The whole point of free
>> speech is that you will hear some that you don't like.
>
>
> The Government pats Murdoch's back,
What does this mean?
>and Murdoch's Fox puppets jump to the general tune. One of the reasons Fox
>is 'compulsive' or should that be 'repulsive' viewing, is its *FAIR and
>BALANCED* claim to infamy. The coiffeured Barbie dolls, including the rabid
>O'Reilly,
O'Reilly is a commentator, not a reporter. And the other networks are
equally stacked and coiffed.
>that host many of the programs on Fox, wouldn't know free speech any more
>than those who were manipulated by Soviet Radio, at its most rampant.
You really think that reporters that don't toe some government line
disappear into a gulag somewhere?
Raymond Hall
you try working it all out for yourself. You obviously seem to think you are
fairly smart.
I look more often than not, out of a sense of bewilderment, as an outsider,
into what is essentially a giant gulag. When you possess such an outsider's
perspective, I suggest you then re-enter and do something about it.
But as I know you won't, it will be left to the Liberals to bail you out in
a couple of year's time. And don't play word games with me, because
attempting to get through to rednecks is a complete waste of my time.
Ray H
Taree
"Frank Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote in message
news:11hnsko...@news.supernews.com...
Frank Berger
>I am not going to hold your hand and lead you to enlightenment. I suggest
>you try working it all out for yourself. You obviously seem to think you
>are fairly smart.
>
> I look more often than not, out of a sense of bewilderment, as an
> outsider, into what is essentially a giant gulag. When you possess such an
> outsider's perspective, I suggest you then re-enter and do something about
> it.
>
> But as I know you won't, it will be left to the Liberals to bail you out
> in a couple of year's time. And don't play word games with me, because
> attempting to get through to rednecks is a complete waste of my time.
And mine.
Spam Scone
xys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Neil:
>
> "Asia, Africa, North America, Australia, and South America are not safe
> havens?"
>
> In 1932, anybody could have asked: what, Germany is not a safe haven?
I think the handwriting was on the wall even before the Nazis assumed
power.
> Italy is not safe haven? France is not safe haven? Poland is not safe
> haven? Romania is not safe haven? Lithuania is not safe haven? Holland
> is not safe haven? Hungary is not safe haven? Czechoslovakia is not
> safe haven? Latvia is not safe haven? Belgium is not safe haven? Greece
> is not safe haven? Yugoslavia is not safe haven? Austria is not safe
> haven? Bulgaria is not safe haven? . . .
>
> The answer should have been yes, had we lived in a reasonable world.
>
> The answer was NO. The answer, when it comes to assuming
> responsibility, is still no.
So much for being a citizen of the world.
Spam Scone
Style makes the man.
Tom Deacon
On 9/5/05 3:08 AM, in article 11hnrmt...@news.supernews.com, "Frank
Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
> As are your baseless, lying charges of racism against anyone who defends
> Israel.
Defending Israel does not have to include, I should imagine, sustained
attacks against anyone who happens to agree with the Palestinian claims for
territory.
Or does it?
In which case the charges of racism are really quite appropriate and hardly
a lie. They are the only conclusion one can draw.
TD
Michael Haslam
What happened to those Refusenik Israeli military personnel who refused
to serve in some of the disputed territories?
--
MJHaslam
Remove accidentals to obtain correct e-address
"Can't you show a little restraint?" - Dr. David Tholen
John L. Grant
Do not despair. You may yet discover yourself.
JG
John Harrington
Frank Berger wrote:
> "Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com> wrote in message
> news:dNQSe.4879$vC4....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> >
> > <xys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1125897737....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Ian Pace wrote:
> >>
> > [Quoting Golescu: 14/12/2001]
> >>
> >>> 'U.S. did have a hardly discriminating pro-Muslim,
> >>> exaggeratedly and irrationally tolerant and generous foreign policies
> >>> that took her nowhere -- or to 9/11. One might wonder rhetorically
> >>> whether
> >>> the foreign-policy makers in U.S. were bought off by the Muslims or
> >>> something, but hopefully U.S.' foreign policies will change. '
> >
> > Which, as I pointed out before, if 'Muslim' were replaced by 'Jew', would
> > become: 'U.S. did have a hardly discriminating pro-Jew,
> > exaggeratedly and irrationally tolerant and generous foreign policies
> > that took her nowhere -- or to 9/11. One might wonder rhetorically whether
> > the foreign-policy makers in U.S. were bought off by the Jews or
> > something, but hopefully U.S.' foreign policies will change '
This devastating point was ignored by berger, of course.
> >
> >>
> >> Funny. The one and only point in which I agree with Pace's fat lover
> >> Michael Moore, that the American leadership's old connections with the
> >> Saudis, the Afghan freedom fighters etc. are a smelly rat, and he
> >> disputes it.
> >>
> >> However hard one tries, one can't make a dialectic cunt happy.
> >>
> > In the manner that is common amongst racists, questions of US support for
> > particular interest groups (the Saudi royal family, much despised by a
> > great many Muslim people, and the mujaheedin in Afghanistan, whose Al
> > Qaida offshoot maybe hate the House of Saud even more than they hate the
> > US) are transformed into blanket disdain for "Muslims".
> >
>
> As are your baseless, lying charges of racism against anyone who defends
> Israel.
Look who's talking about "lying". You know very well that is a
misrepresentation of his position, yet you go with it anyway in a
pathetic attempt to discredit him. Disgusting.
J
Ian Pace
"Michael Haslam" <innat...@macflat.com> wrote in message
news:1h2f5qi.1fvn5zq1r1131hN%innat...@macflat.com...
> Tom Deacon <non...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/5/05 3:08 AM, in article 11hnrmt...@news.supernews.com, "Frank
>> Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > As are your baseless, lying charges of racism against anyone who
>> > defends
>> > Israel.
>>
>> Defending Israel does not have to include, I should imagine, sustained
>> attacks against anyone who happens to agree with the Palestinian claims
>> for
>> territory.
>>
>> Or does it?
>>
>> In which case the charges of racism are really quite appropriate and
>> hardly
>> a lie. They are the only conclusion one can draw.
>>
> What happened to those Refusenik Israeli military personnel who refused
> to serve in some of the disputed territories?
>
sentences - I'm not sure how long they actually spent in prison as a result.
Tom Deacon
On 9/5/05 9:05 AM, in article
1h2f5qi.1fvn5zq1r1131hN%innat...@macflat.com, "Michael Haslam"
<innat...@macflat.com> wrote:
> Tom Deacon <non...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/5/05 3:08 AM, in article 11hnrmt...@news.supernews.com, "Frank
>> Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> As are your baseless, lying charges of racism against anyone who defends
>>> Israel.
>>
>> Defending Israel does not have to include, I should imagine, sustained
>> attacks against anyone who happens to agree with the Palestinian claims for
>> territory.
>>
>> Or does it?
>>
>> In which case the charges of racism are really quite appropriate and hardly
>> a lie. They are the only conclusion one can draw.
>>
> What happened to those Refusenik Israeli military personnel who refused
> to serve in some of the disputed territories?
Perhaps they were considered traitors and expelled from Israel.
TD
John L. Grant
the
general tune. One of the reasons Fox is 'compulsive' or should that be
'repulsive' viewing, is its *FAIR and BALANCED* claim to infamy. The
coiffeured Barbie dolls, including the rabid O'Reilly, that host many
of the
programs on Fox, wouldn't know free speech any more than those who were
manipulated by Soviet Radio, at its most rampant.
It is so obvious to those who live outside the US, it really is a pity,
that
those trapped inside your system, cannot be more objective about it.
Your problem. Not mine. But a damned pity, nonetheless.
Ray H
Taree "
Here! Here! Seconded!
JG
John L. Grant
JG
Make that "Hear! Hear!"!!
JG
Frank Berger
>
>
>
> On 9/5/05 3:08 AM, in article 11hnrmt...@news.supernews.com, "Frank
> Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
>
>> As are your baseless, lying charges of racism against anyone who defends
>> Israel.
>
> Defending Israel does not have to include, I should imagine, sustained
> attacks against anyone who happens to agree with the Palestinian claims
> for
> territory.
>
>
The territory that most Palestinians claim IS Israel. The claim is not
limited to Gaza and the West Bank. Therefore, it is necessary to dispute
that claim in order to defend Israel. Racism has nothing to so with it.
ansermetniac
The Palestinians will gladly give the Jews the Mediterranean, the
bottom
Abbedd
________________
Go To Abbedd's Place For the MP3S of the Week
http://home.earthlink.net/~abbedd/abbeddsplace.html
Boycott Inglotted CDS
http://home.earthlink.net/~abbedd/noinglottecds.htm
"Knowing what without knowing why is not knowing what"
"I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made." FDR
Frank Berger
"Michael Haslam" <innat...@macflat.com> wrote in message
news:1h2f5qi.1fvn5zq1r1131hN%innat...@macflat.com...
>
>> On 9/5/05 3:08 AM, in article 11hnrmt...@news.supernews.com, "Frank
>> Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > As are your baseless, lying charges of racism against anyone who
>> > defends
>> > Israel.
>>
>> Defending Israel does not have to include, I should imagine, sustained
>> attacks against anyone who happens to agree with the Palestinian claims
>> for
>> territory.
>>
>> Or does it?
>>
>> In which case the charges of racism are really quite appropriate and
>> hardly
>> a lie. They are the only conclusion one can draw.
>>
> What happened to those Refusenik Israeli military personnel who refused
> to serve in some of the disputed territories?
>
>
Why don't you tell us? There were so few of them, I wouldn't be surprised
that you've committed their names to memory, like that of Baruch Goldstein.
Frank Berger
"John Harrington" <bear...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125926614....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Frank Berger wrote:
>> "Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com> wrote in message
>> news:dNQSe.4879$vC4....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>> >
>> > <xys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1125897737....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >> Ian Pace wrote:
>> >>
>> > [Quoting Golescu: 14/12/2001]
>> >>
>> >>> 'U.S. did have a hardly discriminating pro-Muslim,
>> >>> exaggeratedly and irrationally tolerant and generous foreign policies
>> >>> that took her nowhere -- or to 9/11. One might wonder rhetorically
>> >>> whether
>> >>> the foreign-policy makers in U.S. were bought off by the Muslims or
>> >>> something, but hopefully U.S.' foreign policies will change. '
>> >
>> > Which, as I pointed out before, if 'Muslim' were replaced by 'Jew',
>> > would
>> > become: 'U.S. did have a hardly discriminating pro-Jew,
>> > exaggeratedly and irrationally tolerant and generous foreign policies
>> > that took her nowhere -- or to 9/11. One might wonder rhetorically
>> > whether
>> > the foreign-policy makers in U.S. were bought off by the Jews or
>> > something, but hopefully U.S.' foreign policies will change '
>
> This devastating point was ignored by berger, of course.
Since you cut out what I said, it's too difficult for me to respond. Your
gain, I suppose.
xys...@hotmail.com
Frank Berger wrote:
> Since you cut out what I said, it's too difficult for me to respond. Your
> gain, I suppose.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I referred obviously to the
appeasing and oil-motivated indulgence of the US policies toward
dictatorial and aggressive islamic states, not at all toward most
muslim individuals who in fact suffer, if anything, much more than
westerners under the burden of radical Islam. The west takes the
occasional infectious outburst of terrorism on its shores, but dozens
of millions of average, innocent muslim people need to live day by day
with the islamofascist masters lionized by the likes of Ian Pace. Do
you also believe that Pace's dear Hamas makes the life of the
palestinians living under its penumbra much better than the dreaded
occupation? We shall see, soon enough.
Far from "devastating" indictment, these are opinions I held and still
maintain. Hindsight tells us that all the shit started with the US
under its worst 20th century president, Jimmy Carter, accepting Iran's
aggression on its embassy, with cowardly acquiescence. Mark my words,
had the US taken the risks to treat that despicable attack as an act of
aggression and act decisively despite the Soviet deterrent, we wouldn't
have had a 9/11 22 years later. Cowardice may seem the easy way out for
the moment but the interest of misery it shall still cause compounds in
geometrical progression, in time.
regards,
SG
John Harrington
> Mark my words,
> had the US taken the risks to treat that despicable attack as an act of
> aggression and act decisively despite the Soviet deterrent, we wouldn't
> have had a 9/11 22 years later.
What utter bullshit. I like you better when you're in your "cunt"
mode. At least your language suits your "thoughts".
J
John Harrington
I cut out nothing, liar.
J
david...@aol.com
What do you think of the new fundamentalist Islamic regime the US has
installed in Iraq?
-david gable
xys...@hotmail.com
installed in Iraq?"
Mr. Gable, what you're saying implies as self-evident a couple of
things which are at least arguable:
that the new regime in Iraq would be fundamentalist Islamic in the hard
sense, rather than a compromise between the local culture(s) and a
genuine democratic purpose
that "the US installed it", rather than helping Iraqis to express their
option, in an imperfect, nevertheless unprecedented in the Arab world
electoral process
What I will think depends on how things will evolve from now on. On a
lobger term basis, things could go unexpectedly well or be screwed up
even more badly than the present administration has already screwed the
aftermath of the invasion. Let me now ask something: do you believe
that Iraq's best historical chance would have been to leave Saddam
Hussein in power? If not, what alternative course of action would you
have proposed? I'd also suggest reading Christopher Hitchens' article
on the subject below.
regards,
SG
Let me begin with a simple sentence that, even as I write it, appears
less than Swiftian in the modesty of its proposal: "Prison conditions
at Abu Ghraib have improved markedly and dramatically since the arrival
of Coalition troops in Baghdad."
I could undertake to defend that statement against any member of Human
Rights Watch or Amnesty International, and I know in advance that none
of them could challenge it, let alone negate it. Before March 2003, Abu
Ghraib was an abattoir, a torture chamber, and a concentration camp.
Now, and not without reason, it is an international byword for Yankee
imperialism and sadism. Yet the improvement is still, unarguably, the
difference between night and day. How is it possible that the advocates
of a post-Saddam Iraq have been placed on the defensive in this manner?
And where should one begin?
I once tried to calculate how long the post-Cold War liberal Utopia had
actually lasted. Whether you chose to date its inception from the fall
of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, or the death of Nicolae Ceausescu
in late December of the same year, or the release of Nelson Mandela
from prison, or the referendum defeat suffered by Augusto Pinochet (or
indeed from the publication of Francis Fukuyama's book about the "end
of history" and the unarguable triumph of market liberal pluralism), it
was an epoch that in retrospect was over before it began. By the middle
of 1990, Saddam Hussein had abolished Kuwait and Slobodan Milosevic was
attempting to erase the identity and the existence of Bosnia. It turned
out that we had not by any means escaped the reach of atavistic,
aggressive, expansionist, and totalitarian ideology. Proving the same
point in another way, and within approximately the same period, the
theocratic dictator of Iran had publicly claimed the right to offer
money in his own name for the suborning of the murder of a novelist
living in London, and the génocidaire faction in Rwanda had decided
that it could probably get away with putting its long-fantasized plan
of mass murder into operation.
One is not mentioning these apparently discrepant crimes and nightmares
as a random or unsorted list. Khomeini, for example, was attempting to
compensate for the humiliation of the peace agreement he had been
compelled to sign with Saddam Hussein. And Saddam Hussein needed to
make up the loss, of prestige and income, that he had himself suffered
in the very same war. Milosevic (anticipating Putin, as it now seems to
me, and perhaps Beijing also) was riding a mutation of socialist
nationalism into national socialism. It was to be noticed in all cases
that the aggressors, whether they were killing Muslims, or exalting
Islam, or just killing their neighbors, shared a deep and abiding
hatred of the United States.
The balance sheet of the Iraq war, if it is to be seriously drawn up,
must also involve a confrontation with at least this much of recent
history. Was the Bush administration right to leave--actually to
confirm--Saddam Hussein in power after his eviction from Kuwait in
1991? Was James Baker correct to say, in his delightfully folksy
manner, that the United States did not "have a dog in the fight" that
involved ethnic cleansing for the mad dream of a Greater Serbia? Was
the Clinton administration prudent in its retreat from Somalia, or wise
in its opposition to the U.N. resolution that called for a preemptive
strengthening of the U.N. forces in Rwanda?
I know hardly anybody who comes out of this examination with complete
credit. There were neoconservatives who jeered at Rushdie in 1989 and
who couldn't see the point when Sarajevo faced obliteration in 1992.
There were leftist humanitarians and radicals who rallied to Rushdie
and called for solidarity with Bosnia, but who--perhaps because of a
bad conscience about Palestine--couldn't face a confrontation with
Saddam Hussein even when he annexed a neighbor state that was a full
member of the Arab League and of the U.N. (I suppose I have to admit
that I was for a time a member of that second group.) But there were
consistencies, too. French statecraft, for example, was uniformly
hostile to any resistance to any aggression, and Paris even sent troops
to rescue its filthy clientele in Rwanda. And some on the hard left and
the brute right were also opposed to any exercise, for any reason, of
American military force.
The only speech by any statesman that can bear reprinting from that
low, dishonest decade came from Tony Blair when he spoke in Chicago in
1999. Welcoming the defeat and overthrow of Milosevic after the Kosovo
intervention, he warned against any self-satisfaction and drew
attention to an inescapable confrontation that was coming with Saddam
Hussein. So far from being an American "poodle," as his taunting and
ignorant foes like to sneer, Blair had in fact leaned on Clinton over
Kosovo and was insisting on the importance of Iraq while George Bush
was still an isolationist governor of Texas.
Notwithstanding this prescience and principle on his part, one still
cannot read the journals of the 2000/2001 millennium without the
feeling that one is revisiting a hopelessly somnambulist relative in a
neglected home. I am one of those who believe, uncynically, that Osama
bin Laden did us all a service (and holy war a great disservice) by his
mad decision to assault the American homeland four years ago. Had he
not made this world-historical mistake, we would have been able to add
a Talibanized and nuclear-armed Pakistan to our list of the threats we
failed to recognize in time. (This threat still exists, but it is no
longer so casually overlooked.)
The subsequent liberation of Pakistan's theocratic colony in
Afghanistan, and the so-far decisive eviction and defeat of its bin
Ladenist guests, was only a reprisal. It took care of the last attack.
But what about the next one? For anyone with eyes to see, there was
only one other state that combined the latent and the blatant
definitions of both "rogue" and "failed." This state--Saddam's ruined
and tortured and collapsing Iraq--had also met all the conditions under
which a country may be deemed to have sacrificed its own legal
sovereignty. To recapitulate: It had invaded its neighbors, committed
genocide on its own soil, harbored and nurtured international thugs and
killers, and flouted every provision of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The United Nations, in this crisis, faced with regular insult to its
own resolutions and its own character, had managed to set up a system
of sanctions-based mutual corruption. In May 2003, had things gone on
as they had been going, Saddam Hussein would have been due to fill
Iraq's slot as chair of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. Meanwhile,
every species of gangster from the hero of the Achille Lauro hijacking
to Abu Musab al Zarqawi was finding hospitality under Saddam's
crumbling roof.
One might have thought, therefore, that Bush and Blair's decision to
put an end at last to this intolerable state of affairs would be
hailed, not just as a belated vindication of long-ignored U.N.
resolutions but as some corrective to the decade of shame and inaction
that had just passed in Bosnia and Rwanda. But such is not the case. An
apparent consensus exists, among millions of people in Europe and
America, that the whole operation for the demilitarization of Iraq, and
the salvage of its traumatized society, was at best a false pretense
and at worst an unprovoked aggression. How can this possibly be?
There is, first, the problem of humorless and pseudo-legalistic
literalism. In Saki's short story The Lumber Room, the naughty but
clever child Nicholas, who has actually placed a frog in his morning
bread-and-milk, rejoices in his triumph over the adults who don't
credit this excuse for not eating his healthful dish:
"You said there couldn't possibly be a frog in my bread-and-milk; there
was a frog in my bread-and-milk," he repeated, with the insistence of a
skilled tactician who does not intend to shift from favorable ground.
Childishness is one thing--those of us who grew up on this wonderful
Edwardian author were always happy to see the grown-ups and governesses
discomfited. But puerility in adults is quite another thing, and
considerably less charming. "You said there were WMDs in Iraq and that
Saddam had friends in al Qaeda. . . . Blah, blah, pants on fire." I
have had many opportunities to tire of this mantra. It takes ten
seconds to intone the said mantra. It would take me, on my most
eloquent C-SPAN day, at the very least five minutes to say that Abdul
Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack
in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad; that Dr.
Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead American
soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete
centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of
Qusay Hussein; that Saddam's agents were in Damascus as late as
February 2003, negotiating to purchase missiles off the shelf from
North Korea; or that Rolf Ekeus, the great Swedish socialist who
founded the inspection process in Iraq after 1991, has told me for the
record that he was offered a $2 million bribe in a face-to-face meeting
with Tariq Aziz. And these eye-catching examples would by no means
exhaust my repertoire, or empty my quiver. Yes, it must be admitted
that Bush and Blair made a hash of a good case, largely because they
preferred to scare people rather than enlighten them or reason with
them. Still, the only real strategy of deception has come from those
who believe, or pretend, that Saddam Hussein was no problem.
I have a ready answer to those who accuse me of being an agent and tool
of the Bush-Cheney administration (which is the nicest thing that my
enemies can find to say). Attempting a little levity, I respond that I
could stay at home if the authorities could bother to make their own
case, but that I meanwhile am a prisoner of what I actually do know
about the permanent hell, and the permanent threat, of the Saddam
regime. However, having debated almost all of the spokespeople for the
antiwar faction, both the sane and the deranged, I was recently asked a
question that I was temporarily unable to answer. "If what you claim is
true," the honest citizen at this meeting politely asked me, "how come
the White House hasn't told us?"
I do in fact know the answer to this question. So deep and bitter is
the split within official Washington, most especially between the
Defense Department and the CIA, that any claim made by the former has
been undermined by leaks from the latter. (The latter being those who
maintained, with a combination of dogmatism and cowardice not seen
since Lincoln had to fire General McClellan, that Saddam Hussein was
both a "secular" actor and--this is the really rich bit--a rational and
calculating one.)
There's no cure for that illusion, but the resulting bureaucratic chaos
and unease has cornered the president into his current fallback upon
platitude and hollowness. It has also induced him to give hostages to
fortune. The claim that if we fight fundamentalism "over there" we
won't have to confront it "over here" is not just a standing invitation
for disproof by the next suicide-maniac in London or Chicago, but a
coded appeal to provincial and isolationist opinion in the United
States. Surely the elementary lesson of the grim anniversary that will
shortly be upon us is that American civilians are as near to the front
line as American soldiers.
It is exactly this point that makes nonsense of the sob-sister tripe
pumped out by the Cindy Sheehan circus and its surrogates. But in
reply, why bother to call a struggle "global" if you then try to
localize it? Just say plainly that we shall fight them everywhere they
show themselves, and fight them on principle as well as in practice,
and get ready to warn people that Nigeria is very probably the next
target of the jihadists. The peaceniks love to ask: When and where will
it all end? The answer is easy: It will end with the surrender or
defeat of one of the contending parties. Should I add that I am certain
which party that ought to be? Defeat is just about imaginable, though
the mathematics and the algebra tell heavily against the holy warriors.
Surrender to such a foe, after only four years of combat, is not even
worthy of consideration.
Antaeus was able to draw strength from the earth every time an
antagonist wrestled him to the ground. A reverse mythology has been
permitted to take hold in the present case, where bad news is deemed to
be bad news only for regime-change. Anyone with the smallest knowledge
of Iraq knows that its society and infrastructure and institutions have
been appallingly maimed and beggared by three decades of war and
fascism (and the "divide-and-rule" tactics by which Saddam maintained
his own tribal minority of the Sunni minority in power). In logic and
morality, one must therefore compare the current state of the country
with the likely or probable state of it had Saddam and his sons been
allowed to go on ruling.
At once, one sees that all the alternatives would have been infinitely
worse, and would most likely have led to an implosion--as well as
opportunistic invasions from Iran and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, on
behalf of their respective interests or confessional clienteles. This
would in turn have necessitated a more costly and bloody intervention
by some kind of coalition, much too late and on even worse terms and
conditions. This is the lesson of Bosnia and Rwanda yesterday, and of
Darfur today. When I have made this point in public, I have never had
anyone offer an answer to it. A broken Iraq was in our future no matter
what, and was a responsibility (somewhat conditioned by our past
blunders) that no decent person could shirk. The only unthinkable
policy was one of abstention.
Two pieces of good fortune still attend those of us who go out on the
road for this urgent and worthy cause. The first is contingent: There
are an astounding number of plain frauds and charlatans (to phrase it
at its highest) in charge of the propaganda of the other side. Just to
tell off the names is to frighten children more than Saki ever could:
Michael Moore, George Galloway, Jacques Chirac, Tim Robbins, Richard
Clarke, Joseph Wilson . . . a roster of gargoyles that would send
Ripley himself into early retirement. Some of these characters are
flippant, and make heavy jokes about Halliburton, and some disdain to
conceal their sympathy for the opposite side. So that's easy enough.
The second bit of luck is a certain fiber displayed by a huge number of
anonymous Americans. Faced with a constant drizzle of bad news and
purposely demoralizing commentary, millions of people stick out their
jaws and hang tight. I am no fan of populism, but I surmise that these
citizens are clear on the main point: It is out of the
question--plainly and absolutely out of the question--that we should
surrender the keystone state of the Middle East to a rotten, murderous
alliance between Baathists and bin Ladenists. When they hear the
fatuous insinuation that this alliance has only been created by the
resistance to it, voters know in their intestines that those who say so
are soft on crime and soft on fascism. The more temperate
anti-warriors, such as Mark Danner and Harold Meyerson, like to employ
the term "a war of choice." One should have no problem in accepting
this concept. As they cannot and do not deny, there was going to be
another round with Saddam Hussein no matter what. To whom, then, should
the "choice" of time and place have fallen? The clear implication of
the antichoice faction--if I may so dub them--is that this decision
should have been left up to Saddam Hussein. As so often before . . .
Does the president deserve the benefit of the reserve of fortitude that
I just mentioned? Only just, if at all. We need not argue about the
failures and the mistakes and even the crimes, because these in some
ways argue themselves. But a positive accounting could be offered
without braggartry, and would include:
(1) The overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism, and the exposure of many
highly suggestive links between the two elements of this Hitler-Stalin
pact. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who moved from Afghanistan to Iraq before
the coalition intervention, has even gone to the trouble of naming his
organization al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
(2) The subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya in point of weapons
of mass destruction--a capitulation that was offered not to Kofi Annan
or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush.
(3) The consequent unmasking of the A.Q. Khan network for the illicit
transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.
(4) The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is
necessary and overdue, and the unmasking of a quasi-criminal network
within its elite.
(5) The craven admission by President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder,
when confronted with irrefutable evidence of cheating and concealment,
respecting solemn treaties, on the part of Iran, that not even this
will alter their commitment to neutralism. (One had already suspected
as much in the Iraqi case.)
(6) The ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than
accept the word of a psychopathic autocrat.
(7) The immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the
region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.
(8) The related encouragement of democratic and civil society movements
in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has regained a version
of its autonomy.
(9) The violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist
infiltrators into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the real prospect of
greatly enlarging this number.
(10) The training and hardening of many thousands of American
servicemen and women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and
absolutism, which training and hardening will surely be of great use in
future combat.
It would be admirable if the president could manage to make such a
presentation. It would also be welcome if he and his deputies adopted a
clear attitude toward the war within the war: in other words, stated
plainly, that the secular and pluralist forces within Afghan and Iraqi
society, while they are not our clients, can in no circumstance be
allowed to wonder which outcome we favor.
The great point about Blair's 1999 speech was that it asserted the
obvious. Coexistence with aggressive regimes or expansionist,
theocratic, and totalitarian ideologies is not in fact possible. One
should welcome this conclusion for the additional reason that such
coexistence is not desirable, either. If the great effort to remake
Iraq as a demilitarized federal and secular democracy should fail or be
defeated, I shall lose sleep for the rest of my life in reproaching
myself for doing too little. But at least I shall have the comfort of
not having offered, so far as I can recall, any word or deed that
contributed to a defeat.
Ian Pace
<xys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125940540....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
In reponse to:
[Quoting Golescu: 14/12/2001]
> >>
> >>> 'U.S. did have a hardly discriminating pro-Muslim,
> >>> exaggeratedly and irrationally tolerant and generous foreign policies
> >>> that took her nowhere -- or to 9/11. One might wonder rhetorically
> >>> whether
> >>> the foreign-policy makers in U.S. were bought off by the Muslims or
> >>> something, but hopefully U.S.' foreign policies will change. '
> >
> > Which, as I pointed out before, if 'Muslim' were replaced by 'Jew',
> > would
> > become: 'U.S. did have a hardly discriminating pro-Jew,
> > exaggeratedly and irrationally tolerant and generous foreign policies
> > that took her nowhere -- or to 9/11. One might wonder rhetorically
> > whether
> > the foreign-policy makers in U.S. were bought off by the Jews or
> > something, but hopefully U.S.' foreign policies will change '
>
> In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I referred obviously to the
> appeasing and oil-motivated indulgence of the US policies toward
> dictatorial and aggressive islamic states, not at all toward most
> muslim individuals who in fact suffer, if anything, much more than
> westerners under the burden of radical Islam.
So you've changed your mind since declaring that (sticking here specifically
to Palestinians):
'Palestinians now cry on a cacaphonic polyphony of terrorist violence and
"human rights" tunes, after the conventional warfare of their sponsors and
protectors failed repeatedly." (6.12.2001)
and
'Do the human rights-possessing Palestinians include the terrorists? Can
(what is in danger to become) a (whole) terrorist nation appeal to the
human rights argument? ' (6.12.2001)
and
'People that condone, admire, approve and help such actions are in danger of
becoming an majority-terrorist nation, and their right to
"self-determination" is, justifiedly, Israelis' last concern. ' (3.12.2001)
and
'I don't need to comment on ignorant brain-washed people from Palestinian
camps or from Pakistan.' (30.11.2001)
and
'Do you have any idea how popular the most extremist ideas are among a
majority of Palestinians, as opposed to Israeli extremists and terrorists,
which are very few and generally well kept in check?' (2.12.2001)
and
'but placing the blame on Israeli settlements, as if the Israeli would
retire from those bloody settlements, Palestinians would cease doing their
favorite sport of blowing up kids and women -- is ignorant. ' (2.12.2001)
and
'Palestinians ask for "their land back", according to the most idealist and
far-fetched contemporary standards of international law and civilization. In
the same time they support and explain terrorism according to a Middle Age
logic of sheer power games. What is suicidal terrorism other than the weaker
opponent's cowardly, madly stabbing in the back, sheltered by the night, of
an adversary the terrorist prefers to take with him in death instead of
looking for ways to live together? ' (7.12.2001)
and
'Palestinians would do a service to their cause, were them not teaching
their children to hate and to die uselessly and cowardly (no, there is
nothing heroic in blowing oneself's brains, or lack thereof, up), *whatever*
the "reasons" or the reasons are. ' (7.12.2001)
and
'Show me, please, how many prominent Palestinians were, then or today,
protesting the terrorist attacks of their "brethren", and how many show
genuine compassion for the Jewish victims. ' (5.12.2001)
and
'I can only hope that the next "political statement" of Palestinians or of
al Queda (God forbid to be a next one) will use *it* (I cannot call it
"him")
as fuel. After all, I am sure "it" will be happy to die for the "just cause"
of "its" terrorist brothers-in-spirit. ' (5.12.2001)
and
'Blame your friends, the terrorist-loving "victims". '
It's hard to find any mention of Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims in Samir's
posts that isn't about terrorists. This, as I say is the mentality that one
finds amongst the far right in Britain and Europe, and in the minds of the
racist thugs who will viciously beat up someone just because they have dark
skin.
Ian
xys...@hotmail.com
For the peace of mind of Ian Pace: NO, I DIDN'T CHANGE MY MIND. At
least at that time, repeated polls showed clearly that a majority of
Palestinians were openly condoning terrorist actions against Israelis.
Therefore everything I wrote was true. If terrorism is still the
preferred and perverted form of "armed struggle" (I don't know about
recent polls), it is still true.
Ian Pace's whining and "look what he said four years ago" digging in
the archives won't make him any less of an antisemitic prick pretending
he's fighting a good cause, badly masquesrading his hatred for the Jews
and the only Jewish state. After all, how many posts did he write about
the rights of the Kurds, the largest stateless minority in the Middle
East. Neither did the antisemitic prick ever mention, say, the
oppressed Uighur minority in China. What is the difference? Well, there
are no Jews involved.
Tom Deacon
On 9/5/05 2:28 PM, in article I70Te.3152$Y06....@newsfe2-win.ntli.net, "Ian
Pace" <i...@ianpace.com> wrote:
What is fascinating about all these posts, Ian, is the foam which oozes from
Golescu's mouth as he writes. Really, really disgusting!
But really, perhaps the two of you need to go head to head in a piano
competition, and see who comes out smelling like a rose. I have an idea
about that, of course.
TD
Frank Berger
Whatever it was I said that were referring to that supposedly ignored the
"devastating point" was not included in your post. I am not lying. It's
right there or actually, not there, in front of your eyes.
Tom Deacon
On 9/5/05 12:56 PM, in article s3uoh1l1j38rkqvbh...@4ax.com,
"ansermetniac" <anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 11:50:00 -0500, "Frank Berger"
> <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Tom Deacon" <non...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:BF41B5C1.9ED7%non...@yahoo.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/5/05 3:08 AM, in article 11hnrmt...@news.supernews.com, "Frank
>>> Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> As are your baseless, lying charges of racism against anyone who defends
>>>> Israel.
>>>
>>> Defending Israel does not have to include, I should imagine, sustained
>>> attacks against anyone who happens to agree with the Palestinian claims
>>> for
>>> territory.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The territory that most Palestinians claim IS Israel. The claim is not
>> limited to Gaza and the West Bank. Therefore, it is necessary to dispute
>> that claim in order to defend Israel. Racism has nothing to so with it.
>>
>
> The Palestinians will gladly give the Jews the Mediterranean, the
> bottom
Why?
Are they bottom feeders?
TD
Frank Berger
How many Palestinians who are visibly opposed to terrorism against Israel
would there have to be before Samir is not granted the license of
generalization? 5? 10? 1000? If we search your posts for generalizations
about Israelis what do you think we will find?
Matt
<xys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125940540....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>Hindsight tells us that all the shit started with the US
> under its worst 20th century president, Jimmy Carter,
Worse than Harding? Hoover? Nixon? Was Carter a particularly successful
president? Not really. But the worst?
Regards,
Matt
Ian Pace
"Frank Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote in message
news:11hp6ki...@news.supernews.com...
>
> How many Palestinians who are visibly opposed to terrorism against Israel
> would there have to be before Samir is not granted the license of
> generalization? 5? 10? 1000? If we search your posts for generalizations
> about Israelis what do you think we will find?
can speak of the actions of their governments and military, the nature of
Zionist ideology itself, or a religion (just as with Christianity, Islam,
Hinduism or whatever). And some of the most powerful dissenters come from
within Israeli society. There are of course those hardline right-wingers who
like to label anyone, Israeli or Jewish in another country. not sympathetic
to their own political positions as an 'anti-semite' or a 'self-hating Jew',
as was the case with the Israeli Education Minister with respect to
Barenboim, which is what began this series of threads. They are the ones
trying to make blanket statements about what Israelis and other Jewish
people ought to believe if not to be a traitor to their people, a ridiculous
assertion in light of diversity and richness of the Jewish intellectual
tradition (OK, that is a generalisation, I suppose, but a decent one).
Ian
xys...@hotmail.com
It's fascinating to see who are the ones who stubbornly defended
Barenboim's petty aggression. Ian Pace is the one who offered an
apologetic "exegesis" of the terrorist organisation Hamas' charter,
calling for the destruction of the state of Israel. Tom Deacon, the
fitting Costello to Pace's Abbott, speaks in favor of the Protocols of
the Elders of Zion. (The spiritual affinity between Pace and Deacon
made me mix up which part of the Hamas charter was lionized by whom,
not that the overall endorsement wasn't there anyway.) Tom Deacon also
is the good christian who graced rmcr with memorable antisemitic gems
such as:
<<I seem to sense an overwhelming sense of guilt coming from Tepper
these days. Seems he feels that he killed Christ, or something.
Personally nailed him to the cross.
This is a highly exaggerated sense of responsibility, I would suggest.
After all, it happened 2000 years ago.
Let go of it, Tepper. Forgiveness was offered centuries ago, even by
the Pope.>>
Well, Mr. Barenboim, with such adepts, you don't need any detractors.
You should feel proud of yourself.
regards,
SG
John Harrington
xys...@hotmail.com
Frank Berger wrote:
> How many Palestinians who are visibly opposed to terrorism against Israel
> would there have to be before Samir is not granted the license of
> generalization? 5? 10? 1000?
How much do you wanna bet that, instead of answering you, he will bash
Israel again?
Are your house & other properties on your name?
regards,
SG
xys...@hotmail.com
"Worse than Harding? Hoover? Nixon? Was Carter a particularly
successful
president? Not really. But the worst?"
You've got a point. Well, let's keep to post-WWII then, shall we?
regards,
SG
Matthew Fields
And then there's me. I'm sure you have some choice morsel for me, for
saying that Barenboim's a musician and is under no obbligation to be
interviewed by anybody at all.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Peter T. Daniels
> The territory that most Palestinians claim IS Israel. The claim is not
> limited to Gaza and the West Bank. Therefore, it is necessary to dispute
> that claim in order to defend Israel. Racism has nothing to so with it.
So you claim that Jews can't get along with Arabs. What's the reason
other than "racism"? Why couldn't they let the political process run its
course in 1947?
Is that why you're so upset with Barenboim's peace initiative?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Frank Berger
This link is to my post. Not to yours, which didn't quote mine.
Frank Berger
Very nice. But you ignored my question.
Sam
Just how well do Christian and Muslim Arabs get along? Do Israelis
believe that the Christian Arabs have the same genocidal tendencies
towards the Jews, as they think the Muslim Arabs have? What
percentage of the population of the West Bank and Gaza is Christian?
Would Israel consider giving the Christian Palestinian Arabs
citizenship? I have read, somewhere, that none of the suicide
bombers, that have attacked Israel, have been Christian.
wielhoban
for a study on communication in the virtual age. This latest orgy of
infantile diffamation set off by Mr Golescu - who will no doubt say
that Mr Pace did, but he's the one who started a new thread with that
lovely gutter-press headline - offers further proof of what made me
stop posting here around a year ago after only half a year's activity.
The entire virtual set-up means that anything is possible: one can
jest, mock or intensely abuse other participants with impunity; nobody
is real. If any of these debates were taking place among
physically-present people sitting or standing together and talking
audibly and visibly, I cannot imagine that we would be offered the
spectacle of subhuman ranting served up by Mr Golescu here. If he were
genuinely to begin such attacks among "real" people, he would incur
immediate contempt and disgust, perhaps also a certain amusement. But
he would probably not be able to continue, or would at least have
difficulty doing so. Online forums are the perfect place for such
individuals: post as often as you like, as extensively as you like, as
offensively as you like - anything goes. There are many people here
after productive debate, which can certainly also be aggressive at
times. But I can only conclude that those who spend many hours of their
time typing abuse into a computer that they would never dare utter in
such situations in their daily lives are weak and malicious
individuals, malfunctioned character-simulations. I too can relate to
the temptation to shower such people with contempt, but I seriously
think it better if they were ignored, rather than being given more fuel
for their armchair war. Abuse is the tool of the discursively inept.
WH
xys...@hotmail.com
> what made me
> stop posting here around a year ago after only half a year's activity
... We are still recovering from the shock and from the indelible loss.
Let us work on it.
Frank Berger
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:431CC1...@worldnet.att.net...
> Frank Berger wrote:
>
>> The territory that most Palestinians claim IS Israel. The claim is not
>> limited to Gaza and the West Bank. Therefore, it is necessary to
>> dispute
>> that claim in order to defend Israel. Racism has nothing to so with it.
>
> So you claim that Jews can't get along with Arabs. What's the reason
> other than "racism"? Why couldn't they let the political process run its
> course in 1947?
Your ignorance is astounding. I claim that it is necessary for the Jews to
defend themselves from those who would murder them. Those happen to be
overwhelmingly Palestinian Arabs. You can't "get along" with somone who is
trying to kill you.
What do you think happened in 1947? The UN approved the partition plan,
which the Jewish community of Palestine accepted. When they declared the
establishment of Israel under the terms of the UN plan, they were invaded by
Arab armies.
Go read a book or something.
xys...@hotmail.com
> A misogynist are we, on top of everything else?
I would shut up if I were you. Who were the first two posters who
provoked, once again, all this mayhem?
You and Pace, provoking people who don't detest Israel and insulting
them. You provide the shit, you turn on the fan and then you complain
when you benefit from the result of your provocations.
regards,
SG
Michael Haslam
> "Michael Haslam" <innat...@macflat.com> wrote in message
> news:1h2f5qi.1fvn5zq1r1131hN%innat...@macflat.com...
> >>
> > What happened to those Refusenik Israeli military personnel who refused
> > to serve in some of the disputed territories?
>
> Why don't you tell us? There were so few of them, I wouldn't be surprised
> that you've committed their names to memory, like that of Baruch Goldstein.
Their's was from my point of view a peaceful act, and I wish I had
remembered their names and followed their story. It seems they have
suffered for their principles. Wrt the initial thread have they been
described by Israeli cabinet ministers as Jew-hating anti-semites? Or is
Barenboim worse than the refuseniks in the eyes of Likud?
--
MJHaslam
Remove accidentals to obtain correct e-address
"Can't you show a little restraint?" - Dr. David Tholen
Ian Pace
> Frank Berger <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
>> "Michael Haslam" <innat...@macflat.com> wrote in message
>> news:1h2f5qi.1fvn5zq1r1131hN%innat...@macflat.com...
>> >>
>> > What happened to those Refusenik Israeli military personnel who refused
>> > to serve in some of the disputed territories?
>>
>> Why don't you tell us? There were so few of them, I wouldn't be
>> surprised
>> that you've committed their names to memory, like that of Baruch
>> Goldstein.
>
> Their's was from my point of view a peaceful act, and I wish I had
> remembered their names and followed their story. It seems they have
> suffered for their principles. Wrt the initial thread have they been
> described by Israeli cabinet ministers as Jew-hating anti-semites? Or is
> Barenboim worse than the refuseniks in the eyes of Likud?
> --
principled and, as you say, peaceful people.
Ian
xys...@hotmail.com
Michael Haslam wrote:
> It seems they have suffered for their principles.
As a legitimate comparison, did you ever read about what happens to
palestinians who either collaborate with Israel or are even suspected
of such?
Try these, for starters:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1274910,00.html
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE210132002?open&of=ENG-PSE
http://www.icej.org/cgi-local/view.cgi?type=headline&artid=2005/02/17/548449977
When did Daniel Barenboim ever defend the few palestinians who actually
had the courage to militate against terorrism or absolute hatred of
Israel?
Of course, it's easier to brutalize an Israeli woman soldier, who will
not respond in kind. That's what Barenboim's "heroism" amounts to.
david...@aol.com
>rather than helping Iraqis to express their option, in an imperfect, nevertheless unprecedented in the Arab world electoral process
Samir, you expect me to trust the election in Iraq when I'm not
convinced that Bush actually won the US election? Please. The only
thing I know for certain is that the Zoghby polls the night before the
U.S. election and the exit polls on the day of the election showed
Kerry handily defeating Bush. I can't think of a good reason why red
blooded American supporters of Mr. Bush would say they voted for Mr.
Kerry as they emerged from the voting booths, can you?
In any case, the new Shiite government of Iraq is already persecuting
its enemies, the Sunis, and, while the Bush administration has
attempted to restrain it, so far it hasn't been terribly successful. I
will concede that there are sane Shiites who want to make the thing
work.
I find it very amusing that the Bush administration is very careful not
to mention the nature of the new freely elected government of Iraq.
Have you ever heard Bush refer to it as an Islamic government, let
alone a fundamentalist Islamic government? I thought not.
-david gable
Lena
> > A misogynist are we, on top of everything else?
>
> I would shut up if I were you. Who were the first two posters who
> provoked, once again, all this mayhem?
>
>
> You and Pace, provoking people who don't detest Israel and insulting
> them. You provide the shit, you turn on the fan and then you complain
> when you benefit from the result of your provocations.
It doesn't matter who started anything; an escalating boor is the same
kind of boor as an initiating boor. I'm quite sorry about feeling
this way about two people who potentially have a lot of interesting
things to say in this ng, but I too am starting to get pretty pissed
off.
Lena
Lena
And sorry to ng about forgetting to change this idiotic and childish
thread subject (to be "fair" - only one of many idiotic etc.).
Lena
Peter T. Daniels
Two of the better-known Christian Arabs are Hanan Ashrawi and Tariq
Aziz. Do you remember those names?
Peter T. Daniels
A unilateral declaration of anything isn't worth the paper it's printed
on.
They skipped the little step of a peace treaty and negotiating borders,
or maybe even coexistence.
Peter T. Daniels
They hate our freedom, remember?
John Harrington
Your post: http://tinyurl.com/c7hj3
My post: http://tinyurl.com/7c5s6
Nothing has been cut, you fucking liar.
J
Richard Loeb
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125966902....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I have heard from more than one source that the guy who manufactures some of
the the voting machines in Florida openly stated that he would give the
election to Bush and the voting machines were altered just enough to change
the Florida election to Bush's favor - true or not, I don't know Richard
>
xys...@hotmail.com
Lena wrote:
> It doesn't matter who started anything
I beg to differ, Lena. Nobody ever started a "behold the holy Israel"
thread. However, periodically, Israel-bashing OT's are being "sneaked
in" with impunity. (No more of that, now!) You might believe that
letting the stupid threads die on their own is the best thing to do. On
occasion I would agree. Sometimes though ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
> an escalating boor is the same kind of boor as an initiating boor.
There is some truth to that, but not entirely. An initiating boor is a
worse boor than a responsive boor such as I've been (-;. I chose
deliberately to dish out, homeopathically you might say, some of the
shit that Israeli people in rcmr (and there are more than a few of
them) are being served with, on an almost regular basis. Knowing too
well that the New SS of Harrington, Pace and Deacon would abuse me in
the process. You know what? I don't really care.
> I too am starting to get pretty pissed off.
I am sorry to read that. And I understand it. It makes for ugly
reading, right? On the other hand, isn't your getting pretty... sorry I
mean your getting pretty pissed off a tad selfish, though, wouldn't you
think? Ever thought of how "pissed off" rmcr-sters from Israel must
feel when they are called murderers and fascists and racists and so on
and so forth on a regular basis? You want to avoid ugliness, address
the root cause not the cure. Sorry, Pace, Holban etc., it's not 1944
anymore, Jews are not fair game for whomever cares to haunt them
anymore.
I understand quite well that my commensurately crude response was not
on your taste, I apologize to you and to other decent rmcr-sters - not
to the raving Paces, Harringtons & DeaCo - for the discomfort I have
caused but, in essence, I am not sorry for it. Perhaps had the
antisemitic discourse which became strangely acceptable in this exalted
medium been met with a forceful enough response in the recent past,
extreme measures wouldn't have become necessary now.
regards,
SG