Word from the White House: Netanyahu doesn't always tell the truth
coaste...@yahoo.com
Top story: Amidst the diplomatic fallout over Israel's raid on a Gaza-
bound flotilla, which resulted in the deaths of nine pro-Palestinian
activists, the Obama administration regards the Israeli blockade of
the Gaza Strip as increasingly untenable, according to senior U.S.
officials. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vigorously
defended the blockade, saying that it is necessary for Israel's
security. The unnamed administration officials, however, asserted that
Netanyahu was privately in agreement that the current policy had to be
modified.
This debate comes as another ship, the Rachel Corrie, will try to
breach the Gaza blockade as early as Friday. The ship, which
originated in Ireland, is carrying cement, educational materials,
toys, and medical supplies meant for the people of Gaza. The European
Campaign to End Siege on Gaza also announced that it had raised enough
funds to sponsor three ships in a new flotilla.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Moose In Love
wrote:
Maybe force is neccessary. The country of Israel needs to be moved
elsewhere. They are causing too much trouble. One solution would be
to move Israel to Saskatchewan in Canada and give them enough room on
farmland. The original farmers would of course be compensated two
fold and that money would have to be repayed by the farmers of New
Israel in a 25 year plan. They would be allowed no military and have
a few RCMP detachments on the ground just in case some of them went
sociopath. Or they could just move to other countries and
assimilate. That's solution solution. You can't kick people out of
their houses and expect peace. Who the fuck thought of that in the
first place? They should be in prisin.
Mickey G
Assimilate! Are you kidding, when has any Jew ever assimilated?
They've been pulling this shit since the Babylonian Empire in
Mesopotamia. They've been tossed out of every political sphere of
influence who would have them.
What have the nice Canadian people ever done to deserve that fate?
I agree with a nice cold refrigerated environment. ...Maybe Antartica,
or better yet the moon!
last_per...@yahoo.com
Saying Neturdyahood doesn't always tell the truth is like saying
playing a roulette
wheel doesn't always yield riches.
Jason P
"Mickey G" <mickey...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bdf419ef-0fc1-4e83...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
----------
>Assimilate! Are you kidding, when has any Jew ever assimilated?
>They've been pulling this shit since the Babylonian Empire in
>Mesopotamia. They've been tossed out of every political sphere of
>influence who would have them.
>What have the nice Canadian people ever done to deserve that fate?
>I agree with a nice cold refrigerated environment. ...Maybe Antartica,
>or better yet the moon!
Funny! I guess the dark side of the moon would be down below zero. Plenty
cold enough there... Maybe before shipping them off in rocket ships, we
should throw Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu down the well.
last_per...@yahoo.com
wrote:
You have good ideas my friend. However, I would suggest Ascension
Island
for the new ZioNazi homeland.
The Peeler
Sucking on your pacifiers again, you hilarious bigmouted loser: your sick
impotent fantasies? ROTFLOL
mic...@aol.com
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 11:26:59 -0700, Slimy Jason Pee, certainly one of the
>
>
>
>
>
> dumbest trolls around, wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Send them to Fidel Cuba
last_per...@yahoo.com
> "Mickey G" <mickey_gee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Yeah, I meant to add that quite a number of the scum be sent to prison
before relocating the lot, perhaps a few executions for war crimes.
Doc Tony
I wondering how many have made the soon to be underway 'Rachel Corrie'
flotilla ship 'connection' in terms of the 'real' Rachel Aliene Corrie
[1979-2003] who was killed in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli Defense
Force bulldozer. This whole matter and now a 'new flotilla' has all the
ingredients of an impending Middle East catastrophe unless cooler heads
and world leadership, with due emphasis on the word, 'leadership',
prevails to prevent such a catastrophe. I repeat, if there 'ever' was a
time for world leader interventions from 'all' sides, it is now! I see
Gaza as the tinder-box for catastrophe and subsequent world
repercussions. And as I also said, NOW is the time for President Obama
to finally 'earn' his previously awarded Nobel Peace Prize!
Doc Tony
;-)
[and then ... ]
"Papagei®" Ebe: "Although there have been some rather facetious
locations made by various posters as to where the Jews could move to [!]
or be, ehhh, induced [!] to go, and at once halt all the problems in the
Middle East [!], well, has anyone, save for, ehhh, another era so to
speak [!], ever considered the very real possibility of placing the Jews
in .... Madagascar?" [! -- Readers! Sound familiar?]
Al "not personally involved®" Smith: "Madagascar. Now 'that' rings a
bell [!] but I just can't place where I've heard it before." [!]
Alex "Muleschlep®" Vangel [Topaz] "Well, like, ummmmm, when I read them
"25 Points" [sic] of John Taylor Bowles and Matthew Ramsey, you know,
the NSM [** "National Socialist Movement" [sic]] candidates, when they
were runnin' for President and Vice President of the United States in
2008 [** Ohh yes! Look it up!], well, like, one of their points was,
like, givin' money to the Jews to get them and other foreigners out of
the United States [** Read it for yourself!] so, like, maybe they'll go
to this Madagascar place, wherever it is [!], 'cause you know how they
all like to get money and all. Ummmmm, Madagascar is near Cape Cod [!],
isn't it, or is it one of them Provinces [** so much for Manitoba!] in
Canada? Whatever."
[There is 'always' point. Always!]
;-)
A Moose In Love
>
I'm trying to find a solution. Give them land and let them farm.
They'd have borders. But still be part of Canada subject to our
laws. The UN could compensate our farmers whose land was
expropriated. Then the Jews could pay that money back with profits
earned from farming and manufacturing. I mentioned this before and
what I got from Joe Bruno was 'In Israel the Jews have holy sites'.
Oh. OK. Holy sites have no place in modern politics. Reality has a
place in modern politics.
Doc Tony
To 'X' -- "Papagei�" Ebe is the AR [alt.revisionism] moniker of one AR
nym, 'Johannes von Ebersdorf' who is presently in full carpetbagger
status while living in Canada while claiming to all who will listen, at
least on one hand, how he allegedly continues to "love" [sic] his "Volk
and Vaterland" [sic], viz., Germany, while concurrently and rather
vociferously calling for the 'downfall' of the BRD [** Bundesrepublik
Deutschland] while relegating the Volk to spineless sheep who are
allegedly led by the nose via an "allied nation installed government"
and hence, Volk, who basically do what they are told and are apparently
too dumb to know the difference! ==THIS== is supposed to be 'love' [!?]
of 'Volk and Vaterland' ! Whew! With alleged 'Kameraden' like that,
carbetbagger status or otherwise, the Volk hardly need any enemies with
ol' "Papagei�" Ebe around! "Papagei" is the German word for a parrot.
The 'Madagascar' thing and at least prior to the American involvement in
the war which was a direct result of Hitler's declaration of war against
the USA on December 11, 1941 and ==NOT== due to any sort of Tripartite
Pact "contracting partner necessity" whatsoever [** read Article '3' of
the Tripartite Pact] where it was the Japanese who declared war on the
United States and not vice-versa and therefore Hitler was NOT
'contractually obligated' to come to Japan's assistance militarily!],
anyway, the Madagascar Plan placement of Jews will be found in the
literature of the NS-Zeit or 1933-45 NSDAP Era.
As for Alex "Muleschlep�" Vangel, AKA "Topaz", not knowing where
Madagascar is located, one must know Vangel who, as a matter of fact, in
his usual 'daily' schleps and hauls of the wares and assorted drool of
others for the last 10 years in AR including hauled in 'Mein Kampf' and
other NSDAP quotes and spiels , et al, and 'delivered' to other
newsgroups as well, openly called for 'revisionists' to embrace Osama
bin Laden [!] as a revisionist 'ally' [!] on the basis of, as Vangel put
it, "he also don't like Jews" [sic] and hence would be, in Vangel's
view, an excellent "ally" [!] of revisionists. You make the call on
'that' one!
As for my comment on President Obama, well, you may disagree, and which
is your right in any event, but when it happened and he was awarded the
Nobel Peace Prize, I found myself seriously questioning exactly what he
did to 'earn' it! However, NOW is the time to, in fact, get to work with
other world leaders and 'earn' such a prestigious world accolade and
assist in preventing what could very well be a catastrophe in the making
in the Middle East before the proverbial 'big guns' [or worse!] come to
bear in that chronically troubled region of the world where all efforts
towards stabilization and a 'sustained' peace between Israel and her
neighbors have failed for the last 62 years. The stakes are simply too
high and the consequences very grave indeed to take a rhetorical
finger-pointing view and then sit back and see what happens posture.
What has happened already, has happened, and no amount of rhetoric will
change it -- the cogent question is, what will happen next ... and how
to prevent it! And making the Middle East a major issue of vital
importance and decisive stabilization interventions. Yeah, I know,
easier said than done [witness the last 62 years] but then too, what has
been achieved thus far! Essentially nothing of any lasting duration. And
look at where it's going! From bad to worse!
Doc Tony
;-)
Marcus Aurelius
a combat soldier concomitant with the ethical decisions inherent with
the same give me some insight into the ethical imperatives relative to
humane behavior in warfare.
Given the aforementioned, it is clear to me that the total blockade of
Gaza by Israel is a definite war crime of huge proportions.
The world community should insist that, although an arms blockade is
acceptable, any other type of blockade is unacceptable as a War Crime.
This is, especially, the case given the unique political, military,
religious, and ethnic circumstances surrounding this specific
conflict.
If Israel refuses the demands, in this regard, of the world community,
hopefully, through the United Nations should authorize the use of
force to end this cruel and inhuman blockade.
I, personally, believe that the USA should remain neutral with regard
to this conflict specifically because of the religious nature of the
same.
Providing humanitarian assistance and a forum for the peaceful
settlement of this conflict to all parties as a neutral should replace
the current American policy of providing unqualified support for
Israel.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Jun 3, 12:50 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> Saying Neturdyahood doesn't always tell the truth is like saying
> playing a roulette
> wheel doesn't always yield riches.
Actually, come to think of it, both scenerios could be lies. Where
does that leave us with our great "ally"?
coaste...@yahoo.com
I found the last two of your paragraphs a bit too satirical for these
staid groups and not really knowing what to do I took the easiest
road and clipped them.
I couldn't agree more, however, with your remaining paragraph above. I
have just one question. What do you suggest that our Nobel Laureate
President actually do? He does after all sit behind the desk where the
buck stops irrespective of tinder boxes.
coaste...@yahoo.com
It's too cold up there and they're not really farmers.
But still be part of Canada subject to our
> laws.
Have you forgotten the Jewish State?
The UN could compensate our farmers whose land was
> expropriated. Then the Jews could pay that money back with profits
> earned from farming and manufacturing.
When it comes to Israelis, they don't pay money back to the US. It's
all a one way flow.
I mentioned this before and
> what I got from Joe Bruno was 'In Israel the Jews have holy sites'.
Yes, that's Joe alright.
> Oh. OK. Holy sites have no place in modern politics. Reality has a
> place in modern politics.
You're on the very brink of blasphemy so far as modern politics is
concerned. Don't you realize that someone else's religion is more
important than 30,000 of our casualties and trillions of our dollars?
Surely you will come to your senses, Sir. We have debts to pay.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> Doc Tony wrote:
Yes, yes, Doc, but what would you have him do?
mic...@aol.com
You mean never
coaste...@yahoo.com
> I am a US Vietnam War Army Combat veteran. My personal experiences as
> a combat soldier concomitant with the ethical decisions inherent with
> the same give me some insight into the ethical imperatives relative to
> humane behavior in warfare.
> Given the aforementioned, it is clear to me that the total blockade of
> Gaza by Israel is a definite war crime of huge proportions.
> The world community should insist that, although an arms blockade is
> acceptable, any other type of blockade is unacceptable as a War Crime.
> This is, especially, the case given the unique political, military,
> religious, and ethnic circumstances surrounding this specific
> conflict.
Precisely so, but Israel has not yet granted recognition to
International Law. It's sorta like her not having signed the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty. No recognition/membership, no obligations.
> If Israel refuses the demands, in this regard, of the world community,
> hopefully, through the United Nations should authorize the use of
> force to end this cruel and inhuman blockade.
I'd prefer seeing it done through Nato with UN sanction, but be that
as it may it's a great idea. It's time has come and that's proved by
the fact that fifteen years ago it couldn't have even been mentioned
publicly. The very fact that people are talking openly about such
things is a huge breath of fresh air and a blow against intimidation.
> I, personally, believe that the USA should remain neutral with regard
> to this conflict specifically because of the religious nature of the
> same.
It's time to get over that sort of thing and do what's right. Israel
needs a nanny. She needs to be protected against herself. And so does
America's Jewish minority. Cooler heads simply need to say "no" in
public and surmount the intimidation and name calling which is always
the response to candor about Israel.
> Providing humanitarian assistance and a forum for the peaceful
> settlement of this conflict to all parties as a neutral should replace
> the current American policy of providing unqualified support for
> Israel.
Couldn't we admit that we support the Nato take over of Gaza? Would we
have to hide it to avoid Abe Foxman taking offense? How can we be
"neutral" in a case where our national interest in that region has
been trampled for decades and we're in fact finally standing up?
You're idea's great. It's just that the procedure involves too much
pussyfooting around.
Doc Tony
I could easily ask you the same question! Yes, I saw your comment in re
the Krauthammer letter and what is allegedly wrong as well as your
agreement with the nym Al "not personally involved®" Smith about, and I
quote you on the matter of Al's piped-up "Zionist shills" [sic -- Smith]
hawkings but where 'you' then responded to Smith, "There is no question.
They [the 'Zionist shills'] are networked." [sic] but what I did 'not'
see from you other than what is wrong and countless posts of rhetoric
dealing with same with assorted blow-offs to other posters in the
process where you tend to characterize them as the great unwashed and
uninformed, is any suggestions or solutions from ==you== in terms of
what to do ==NOW== ... unless I missed it.
This is precisely why I said [which was snipped] that I have no easy
answers or instant solutions because better heads than mine have dealt
with this matter for the past 62 years but with no real tangible
results. I'd love to make with the proverbial magic wand and come up
with an instant solution but what do I do in a few minutes that 'cures'
the past attempts of area stabilization since 1948! Do you have any
solutions? Not what is wrong, but viable solutions for the here and now!
Do you?
However, if you ask me or indeed do a retro on me and make with , "Yeah,
yeah, sure, solutions when all else has failed, I hear ya', Doc, but
what would 'you' have 'Obama' do --- OK, I'll respond to that, it's
time for Obama to get tough! Face the fact that in 62 years nothing has
worked! Solutions can be hammered out but if they continue to be
rejected, then, IMO, Obama must make some hard choices as to continued
support options of 'any' nation, and that obviously includes Israel, and
the with-holding of same until a workable solution is found. As I say,
if it meets with continued rejection after rejection, and being
practical about it, then what 'can' Obama do! If it comes to the point
that one of these flotillas has an armed escort and shooting commences,
well, then what? I frankly don't know the answer to that one, do YOU? If
you do, please share it with me and the rest of the readers! Not what's
wrong, because we have 62 years of what's 'wrong' and your recycling of
same ad infinitum doesn't add 'bupkis' to the 'remedy' discussion. Do
you have a remedy? I think there should be a high priority effort to
find one but, again, hard choices have to be made but if the present
leadership of Israel takes the hard line and remains adamant, well, I
frankly don't know what to do or what Obama 'can' do other than do what
he can to broker a sustainable peace even if it takes sanctions against
Israel or Israel will wind up isolating herself with deteriorating world
opinion with, IMO, a pronounced rise in anti-Semitism and possible
increased sanctions therein until another Israeli administration is put
into place and 'reality' per se is viewed more realistically. If not,
hey, you tell me!
Being practical, all Obama can do is 'suggest' although that should
carry weight as Israel is 'heavily' dependent on the United States and
which is hardly any secret, but if Ben Netanyahu continues to play his
these are no "love boats" but "hate boats" [sic] rhetorical line and is
willing to risk armed confrontation with other nations over Gaza and
takes a "piss off" demeanor [in some ways, ol' Ben reminds of a latter
day 'in your face' Jerry Rubin and can be quite brash because that is
his way .. also no secret] with world leader interventions , well, what
then? You tell me! Of course a change of Israeli policy over Gaza is
needed but how does one 'force' that? On the other hand, this previous
attitude that "Israel can do no wrong" is wearing thin, very thin, and I
believe things like this and the commando raid with loss of civilian
life and world opinion may change that down the line. Hey, there's an
old adage, 'nothing is forever' -- some things just take longer but
change is inevitable save, as I've said many times, human nature, but
perhaps 'that', and bottom line, is the real culprit! The historical
record would tend to bear that out. Or, the old philosophical approach,
"This too shall pass" but it doesn't eliminate putting all "labels"
aside and taking steps to try to avoid a catastrophe. That means getting
tough with all sides. If it doesn't work, the attempt was at least made.
Something 'will' give in the Middle East ... eventually.
Anyway, and 'other' than 'what's wrong' rhetoric, what about 'you' for
what Obama should do and your solutions for Middle East stabilization in
the long haul? Well?
Doc Tony
;-)
Alexander
How about a blockade of Israel? Letting goods trickle to them through
the generosity of Gaza.
>
coaste...@yahoo.com
> iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 6:11 am, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> >>Doc Tony wrote:
>
> >>>iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>>Obama administration wants change of Israel's Gaza blockade policy
>
> >>>>Top story: Amidst the diplomatic fallout over Israel's raid on a Gaza-
> >>>>bound flotilla, which resulted in the deaths of nine pro-Palestinian
> >>>>activists, the Obama administration regards the Israeli blockade of
> >>>>the Gaza Strip as increasingly untenable, according to senior U.S.
> >>>>officials. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vigorously
> >>>>defended the blockade, saying that it is necessary for Israel's
> >>>>security. The unnamed administration officials, however, asserted that
> >>>>Netanyahu was privately in agreement that the current policy had to be
> >>>>modified.
>
> >>>>This debate comes as another ship, the Rachel Corrie, will try to
> >>>>breach the Gaza blockade as early as Friday. The ship, which
> >>>>originated in Ireland, is carrying cement, educational materials,
> >>>>toys, and medical supplies meant for the people of Gaza. The European
> >>>>Campaign to End Siege on Gaza also announced that it had raised enough
> >>>>funds to sponsor three ships in a new flotilla.
>
I obviously shouldn't have clipped your last two paragraphs.
It's late here. I'll get back to this tomorrow and will give you a
serious answer......
H.
A Moose In Love
coaste...@yahoo.com
> iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 6:11 am, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> >>Doc Tony wrote:
>
> >>>iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>>Obama administration wants change of Israel's Gaza blockade policy
>
> >>>>Top story: Amidst the diplomatic fallout over Israel's raid on a Gaza-
> >>>>bound flotilla, which resulted in the deaths of nine pro-Palestinian
> >>>>activists, the Obama administration regards the Israeli blockade of
> >>>>the Gaza Strip as increasingly untenable, according to senior U.S.
> >>>>officials. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vigorously
> >>>>defended the blockade, saying that it is necessary for Israel's
> >>>>security. The unnamed administration officials, however, asserted that
> >>>>Netanyahu was privately in agreement that the current policy had to be
> >>>>modified.
>
> >>>>This debate comes as another ship, the Rachel Corrie, will try to
> >>>>breach the Gaza blockade as early as Friday. The ship, which
> >>>>originated in Ireland, is carrying cement, educational materials,
> >>>>toys, and medical supplies meant for the people of Gaza. The European
> >>>>Campaign to End Siege on Gaza also announced that it had raised enough
> >>>>funds to sponsor three ships in a new flotilla.
>
Fair enough. I've been in a rut for quite a while. I'll try to bear
down.
As to Al Smith I think you're too harsh. He's a very bright guy with a
laconic but penetrating style. I always look forward to reading him
despite philosophical differences.
As to Krauthammer, I wrote out of frustration with big media's
flagrantly biased coverage of the Middle East. He's one of the most
predictable, i.e., one of the worst, but journalistic apologists for
Israeli oppression at the expense of our national interest are all
over the place. All those guys need public push-back and shaming,
public reprimands. As to Krauthammer would you have had me say
different things? These guys need to be reminded that they are the
wrong people to be interpreting Israel and at the same time the
American national interest to the American people. 98.2% of us are not
Jewish. Conflict of interest there is increasingly dangerous. 1.8% of
us with an obvious conflict of interest can't be permitted to capture
any aspect of our Middle Eastern policy and run it as if Israel owned
it.
>
> This is precisely why I said [which was snipped] that I have no easy
> answers or instant solutions because better heads than mine have dealt
> with this matter for the past 62 years but with no real tangible
> results. I'd love to make with the proverbial magic wand and come up
> with an instant solution but what do I do in a few minutes that 'cures'
> the past attempts of area stabilization since 1948! Do you have any
> solutions? Not what is wrong, but viable solutions for the here and now!
> Do you?
I personally think so, but you'll have to judge them. A few more
preliminaries if you please.
Almost all the buttons which need pushing are in Washington. Any
intelligent and determined American President can force Israel to
stop this nonsense if he has the guts to take the heat.
The failures of American efforts to solve the problem are directly
connected to American political realities. Our efforts to tinker with
superficial fixes over the years, and their perfectly predictable
failures, reflect those AMERICAN political realities. Neither Bill
Clinton's fabled charm nor Jimmy Carter's intelligent and earnest
efforts could avail absent serious pressure. Politics forbade the
application of pressure. Cajolery alone could never carry the day.
Israel was not going to compromise with the job half done absent being
essentially forced to do so.
Israel is a known quantity. We understand her communal paranoia, her
goals, ideology and cynicism as it relates to the the U.S. We know
that she will continue to use us in support of those goals until she
no longer can. The issue is how to put her in that position. Only then
will she, as a matter of her own national interest, reconsider her
attitude toward compromise and settlement. In the meantime we turn in
the wind and the prospect of nuclear terrorism against us grows
greater and greater.
We're forced to view Gaza as peripheral to the central problem. As
uncomfortable as that is it's realistic. The Gazans will have to wait
another couple of years. In the meantime the pressure directly on
Israel from all over the world should effect an amelioration of her
worst problems. I've made some black jokes about sending a couple of
Nato divisions to the beaches but I don't really want that to happen
because it addresses symptoms, not the cause, and could create all
sorts of unanticipated consequences we would almost surely regret. We
Americans have to go to the root of it back here in our own capital.
> Being practical, all Obama can do is 'suggest' although that should
> carry weight as Israel is 'heavily' dependent on the United States and
> which is hardly any secret, but if Ben Netanyahu continues to play his
> these are no "love boats" but "hate boats" [sic] rhetorical line and is
> willing to risk armed confrontation with other nations over Gaza and
> takes a "piss off" demeanor [in some ways, ol' Ben reminds of a latter
> day 'in your face' Jerry Rubin and can be quite brash because that is
> his way .. also no secret] with world leader interventions , well, what
> then? You tell me! Of course a change of Israeli policy over Gaza is
> needed but how does one 'force' that?
Suggest? There's no choice. We have to force it, but what's needed is
an overall regional settlement, a Congress of Vienna to resolve all
the issues. Gaza is a part of it but there's a hell of a lot more to
the problem as a whole. We've got to do it all.
What it's going to take to have a free hand in the generation of our
own foreign policy is nothing less than the defeat of Israel's
dominant political influence in Washington. It can be done despite the
obscene wealth involved and despite the disgusting tactics which have
corrupted our Congress, but it's going to take a popular and powerful
President who is willing to risk his re-election chances. Actually I
believe that the risk is smaller than people think.
On the other hand, this previous
> attitude that "Israel can do no wrong" is wearing thin, very thin, and I
> believe things like this and the commando raid with loss of civilian
> life and world opinion may change that down the line.
"Israel can do no wrong" is a flat out fraud. Israel---we must face
it---functions as if she were run by a Mafia along the lines of a
criminal state. She has turned herself into a world pariah. Were it
not for American domestic politics we would have leashed her long
since. She would have been given take it or leave it options regarding
the relationship. Believe me. When the crunch comes she will not leave
it. Her own people won't permit it.
Hey, there's an
> old adage, 'nothing is forever' -- some things just take longer but
> change is inevitable save, as I've said many times, human nature, but
> perhaps 'that', and bottom line, is the real culprit! The historical
> record would tend to bear that out. Or, the old philosophical approach,
> "This too shall pass" but it doesn't eliminate putting all "labels"
> aside and taking steps to try to avoid a catastrophe. That means getting
> tough with all sides. If it doesn't work, the attempt was at least made.
> Something 'will' give in the Middle East ... eventually.
>
> Anyway, and 'other' than 'what's wrong' rhetoric, what about 'you' for
> what Obama should do and your solutions for Middle East stabilization in
> the long haul? Well?
>
> Doc Tony
> ;-)
Let's presume that Barak Obama has the right stuff. Here's what old
Hunter would have him do to begin sending the correct message to the
Zionist activists and the rest of our Jewish community--and
incidentally to Israel herself.
It would begin with a major speech in prime time, hyped as if it were
the first landing on the moon, announcing the results of the bottom-up
review of our Israel and Middle East policies begun while he was still
a candidate. He will admit that the way the Palestinian crisis has
been handled in the past by the US has been ineffective and even
unjust. He will ascribe that to our domestic politics. He'll say that
the US will be no one's lawyer in future negotiations. The parties
will be treated as equals and the US will unabashedly follow its
interests irrespective of pressure when we differ with either of the
others and the scenerio will include appropriate rewards and
punishment. All said diplomatically of course but with no ambiguity.
He'll make it clear that as the US is a stakeholder it will be a three
way negotiation. We won't just be hosting chats between the regional
opponents. We're there to solve our own immense problems in the region
too.
He will announce that "The American Plan" will soon be put on the
table and will be made public. It is going to be similar to the Saudi
effort but refined by us. He'll announce that it already has the
informal approval of the Security Council, Nato and many great powers.
They will be heard from in due course. He'll make it clear that the
plan represents our national interest in addition to those of the
local parties. He will say openly that the failure to settle the
dispute has cost us three trillion dollars which represents a quarter
of our national debt and that that failure is related to our economic
downturn and in turn to the global downturn. He will mention the
myriad problems it has caused us globally including the fact that it
exacerbates the difficulties we are having with the Muslim world. He
will mention our thirty thousand dead and wounded and say openly that
these miseries would not have visited us had the dispute been settled
in timely fashion.
There will be other unambiguous signals. The Justice Department will
issue an order requiring AIPAC to register as an agent for a foreign
power based on present law. If it refuses registration, transparency
and the obligation to keep out of American politics the people
involved will be prosecuted. That will have been worked-up over a long
period by a substantial team of experts in the Department and from the
outside as necessary. None working for the government on this effort
will be permitted to have any sign of conflict of interest.
Just as was the case with the Soviet Union there will be a large,
specialized FBI task force focusing on Israeli espionage and it will
come to be understood that Americans, Jewish or not, who assist Israel
or any other country with espionage will be prosecuted vigorously in
the federal courts. Arrests will no doubt soon begin to follow.
It'll be made clear that the era of American vetoes for Israel in the
UN and other self-defeating behavior which undermines our credibility
globally is going to change. Israel is going to have to learn to live
with its neighbors as a normal state.
A substantial study of "dual citizenship" under American Law will be
performed and its evils as policy will be calculated. As a matter of
national security the program will be ended prospectively for all
countries. There will be only one national loyalty permitted in
sensitive areas and those with conflicts will be denied entry.
A substantial study of the history of American military aid and
cooperation with Israel will be revealed which shows that Israel has
repeatedly violated American law in the use of American weapons and
that accordingly the nature of the program is going to be changed
fundamentally. Obama will indicate his willingness to use the veto,
administrative orders and his political clout with arms manufacturers
on what's to be available to Israel and what is not. No more cluster
bombs, mines or WP. No more cutting edge technology especially in
areas where it has been resold in the past by the Israelis. Those who
divert fissionable material fit for nuclear weapons to foreign agents,
for example, will be hanged at the yard arm. That actually happened
with a Jewish owned firm in Pennsylvania. It was orchestrated by
Israel's most famous spy master in the US. He's still alive in
Israel.
No more fellowships to teach Dimona guys, etc., our latest nuclear and
other high tech military secrets.
It will become known that the Treasury Department and the IRS are
generating new regulations involving much closer scrutiny of
charitable deductions for activities which the Administration declares
are contrary to our national interests, such as the construction of
more "settlements" in East Jerusalem and the West Bank---and the Golan
too.
He will actually say that annexations/appropriations of land in East
Jerusalem and the West Bank simply must stop immediately and we don't
give a damn if it offends Abe Foxman. The practice invades our
interests and are inconsistent with the very concept of us being
"allies." He'll prepare to bring our Ambassador and all but a skeleton
staff home for indefinite consultations and will accelerate these
measures if it's not done. He will be prepared to send the Israeli
diplomatic people home including their "Mossad Representatives". These
things will be done publicly.
A new fanged-up government code of ethics in the foreign policy,
intelligence and defense areas will require prospective and current
government employees to disclose under oath all conflicts or apparent
conflicts of interest and will also require ongoing disclosure of any
such conflicts which arise over time. Failure to honor these
requirements will result in loss of position permanently. The same
requirement and results will attend failure to disclose any and all
contacts with foreign intelligence agents, here and abroad.
The President will disclose that his Administration has reviewed the
USS Liberty Affair and though he is not going to reopen the matter he
acknowledges the need for vindication and closure for the survivors.
He'll say that he intends to issue a Presidential Proclamation to the
effect that the attack was a deliberate and knowing effort to sink an
American ship and to murder its crew. The survivors and their wives
will have a glittering White House dinner with the President and Mrs.
Obama. They will meet the First Dog, one of my ambitions.
At bottom line Israel needs American cooperation on myriad matters if
it's going to stay puffed as if a great power. That's going to dry up.
--------------------------------------------
These and similar measures will ignite a domestic fire storm here and
barely containable admiration and joy in the rest of the world. There
will be a domestic political war. Charges, counter-charges and threats
will abound. Money will flow and that flow will be constantly
commented on. In response President Obama will go directly to both the
American and Israeli people---over the heads of their leaders. He will
explain to Americans why it is that he must take these measures. The
facts as to that will be blunt. We must stop squandering our patrimony
on Israel's ideological adventures. They don't warrant any more of our
blood and treasure and the recipient has long since ceased deserving
them. What should they expect after stiffing us as they have over lo
these many decades. I will volunteer to write those speeches. They
will continue in the form of weekly fireside chats providing updates
and pointing out who may be failing to negotiate in good faith as
defined by our President. Ultimately the American people will decide
what's in their interest. Joe Lieberman will not be offered a place on
the ticket. I predict an Obama landslide and eventually an Obama
Monument next to Lincoln's in Washington. Free at last, oh Lord. Free
at last.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Reading this will demonstrate how serious I am about confronting
Israel and its Lobby while there is yet time. In fact if you read this
article first my modest suggestions may not appear in the least
inappropriate.
Monday, May 31, 2010
How To Deter Nuclear Terrorism
During the first twenty years or so of the nuclear age, a number of
major books and articles were published on the theory of nuclear
deterrence. One of the most important was Thomas Schelling’s 1960
book, The Strategy of Conflict. Schelling pointed out that in some
circumstances pretending to be irrational could be an effective
strategy of prevailing over an adversary in a conflict of will. The
rationality of irrationality, Schelling called it.
Here’s how it worked: The problem of nuclear deterrence is that while
the threat to use nuclear weapons to prevent another nuclear power
from attacking you or your allies may in some sense be rational, if
the threat fails and you are attacked it would be utterly irrational
to make good on the threat, since you would be destroyed in the
ensuing nuclear retaliation. Hence the problem: if your adversary
considers you to be rational, it may not be convinced by your threats
to do something that would be irrational: thus, in theory anyway, it
may ignore the threat and attack anyway.
The solution that is at least implied by the Schelling theory:
deliberately engage in irrational behavior, so as to cause your
adversary to believe you would actually make good on your irrational
threat to use nuclear weapons.
Crazy, no? Of course. The problem is that you are unlikely to gain a
presumably useful reputation of being capable of irrationality by
simply saying “I’m nuts, so watch out:” you actually have to do crazy
things. And to play that game in a nuclear environment is absolutely
crazy.
One might have thought that this painfully obvious problem with the
rationality-of-irrationality strategy would prevent it from being
employed in the real world. However,
Richard Nixon did employ it during the Vietnam War, calling it,
appropriately, “The madman theory.” After Watergate, it was revealed
that in the late stages of the war Nixon had told his close aide
Robert Haldeman: ''I want the North Vietnamese to believe that I've
reached the point that I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just
slip the word to them that for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed
about communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry, and he has his
hand on the nuclear button.”
So, even though by 1970 it was clear that the strategic stakes for the
U.S in Vietnam (the domino theory) had been highly exaggerated, and
even though the war was highly unpopular, and even though Nixon was
willing to negotiate a compromise solution, nonetheless on several
occasions he escalated the war: in particular, by suddenly extending
its scope by bombing Cambodia in 1970, and by the infamous “Christmas
bombing” of Hanoi in December 1972, the heaviest U.S. bombing campaign
of the entire war, undertaken not in the hope of actually winning the
war, but only in order to gain slightly more favorable terms from
North Vietnam in the ongoing negotiations that ended the U.S.
involvement a few months later.
Both of these actions had been completely unexpected, and a shocked if
not terrified world wondered if Nixon had lost his mind. Which was
precisely Nixon’s intention, of course; “What a clever fellow I am,”
he apparently thought, “I’ll just pretend to be crazy, and then the
commies will have to give in.” But, given the low stakes and the
enormous risks, Nixon was mistaken: he thought he was pretending to be
crazy, but he really was crazy. The fatal flaw in the rationality-of-
irrationality strategy.
All this by way of prelude to an examination of the latest, and surely
the craziest employment of the rationality-of-irrationality strategy
of nuclear deterrence: Chuck Freilich’s thirty-four page study and
recommendations for Israeli policy, “The Armageddon Scenario: Israel
and the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism.” Freilich’s core argument is that
Israel must enhance its deterrence against nuclear terrorism by
adopting a policy under which it will initiate nuclear attacks against
any state or non-state group that has a “declared nuclear terrorist
capability, a stated intention to acquire one, or an advanced
suspected one.”
While Freilich does not refer to rationality-of-irrationality theory,
that is clearly the logic of his argument. Does he actually mean what
he seems to be saying: that Israel should not merely retaliate against
a state or terrorist group that attacks it with nuclear weapons, but
should completely destroy, in advance, any unfriendly state or group
that declares it has the intention of acquiring nuclear weapons, or is
merely suspected of having such an intention?” Yes.
To be sure, there are all sorts of crackpot theories and arguments,
particularly concerning the use of nuclear weapons, but most of them
are unlikely to actually influence state policies. However, Freilich’s
arguments are more ominous, since he is at very heart of the Israeli
government-military-academic establishment: a former Deputy National
Security Adviser to the Israeli government and an Israeli delegate to
the UN, now a Senior Fellow at Harvard’s Belfer Center and a professor
of political science at Hebrew and Tel Aviv universities. The
“Armageddon Scenario” was published by Bar-Ilan University’s Center
for National Security Studies, a rightwing thinktank that is known to
be highly influential within the Netanyahu government.
Here is Freilich’s argument. Israel (and the United States) faces a
grave threat of nuclear terrorism, not only from a nuclear Iran, but
perhaps “one which may be no less likely and actually far more
difficult to counter [because]….those most likely to pursue nuclear
terrorism may be fundamentally nihilistic and thus undeterrable…
[they] may be prepared to pay any cost in lives – their own and
others' – in pursuit of their goal of destroying Israel.” Moreover,
because al-Qaeda can blend in with the population and perhaps
clandestinely set off a nuclear weapon in an Israeli or American city,
there may be “no return address,” as he puts it, for retaliation.
The problem is real: Osama Bin Laden is known to be seeking nuclear
weapons--which could be acquired by theft, loss of control over
nuclear arsenals, or clandestine transfer or sales of nuclear weapons
by North Korea or Pakistan-- and he has openly threatened to use them
against Israel and the United States. Freilich is hardly the first
analyst to have noticed the problem, despite his modest claim to be
“the first to examine the nature of the nuclear threat Israel faces
and to propose potential responses to it.” However, the nature of his
proposed responses is certainly original.
To begin, Freilich argues that the nuclear terrorism problem cannot be
solved by political or diplomatic means and he has no criticism—not a
word--of Israeli policies and behavior towards the Palestinians;
rather, the underlying premise of his argument is that the Israeli
occupation and increasingly harsh repression of the Palestinians have
nothing to do with the hatred it has engendered in the Arab/Muslim
world. For those who find this premise to be preposterous the only
solution can be a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians and the
Arab world as a whole, precisely what has been offered to Israel by
the Arab world since 2002.
Freilich not only rejects such a course, he argues—and this is also
certainly original—that a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict would actually increase the threats to Israel: “Peace in the
Middle East, although desirable, unfortunately will not provide for
true reconciliation….For the radicals who will never accept Israel, a
peace agreement will further increase their determination to try and
restore ‘Arab rights’ by all means possible….A Palestinian state might
create a sanctuary for terrorist organizations, which could use its
territory, with or without its knowledge and cooperation, to develop
and deploy a nuclear bomb on Israel's borders and near major
population centers. …The more Israel is accepted in the region and
establishes peaceful relations with Arab states, the more the radicals
will be determined to find new ways of achieving their goals.”
To meet this problem, Freilich concludes, Israel must adopt a new and
more far reaching deterrence policy: “If the source of a terrorist
nuclear attack against Israel is unknown, or if it is known to
originate with al-Qaeda or Iran, Israel should make it clear that its
response will be unlimited and include not just major population
centers, but all sites of value, including those of major symbolic
importance…such as Muslim cultural and religious sites.”
But even such draconic threats might not be sufficient, Freilich
fears, to dissuade terrorist attacks. Therefore, Israel must go beyond
deterrence and adopt a policy of preventive war: “In the event of a
declared nuclear terrorist capability, a stated intention to acquire
one, or an advanced suspected one, the known or suspected perpetrator
and host country should be attacked with overwhelming and if necessary
devastating force, in the attempt to prevent the threat’s
materialization.”
Now, the general idea that in some circumstances innocent states might
have to consider a preventive war against particularly dangerous
enemies cannot be dismissed out of hand, at least in theory. In
retrospect, for example, it would have been far better if Britain and
France had rearmed and attacked Nazi Germany soon after Hitler came to
power in the early 1930s.
However, Freilich’s recommendations go far beyond any kind of
preventive war ever before seriously envisaged—and not merely because
Israel is anything but an innocent victim. Taken literally, Freilich’s
policies would require an immediate all-out Israeli attack against
Pakistan and North Korea, for surely it may be reasonable to “suspect”
that some of their nuclear weapons might, by one means or another, end
up in the hands of al-Qaeda.
Well, Freilich probably doesn’t wish to be understood as going that
far, since Israel could not prevent Pakistan or North Korea from
destroying its cities in retaliation. Despite his ambiguous language
in this regard, he probably would confine the Israeli threat and its
implementation to states or groups that do not yet have the means for
massive retaliation, but might in the future. So, for now, presumably,
it would merely be necessary for Israel to immediately attack only the
“major population centers” and “Muslim cultural and religious sites”
in Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Sudan, and any other Muslim
states that are known or suspected to be either pursuing a nuclear
option or “harboring” al-Qaeda or other Muslim terrorist groups.
To be sure, Freilich concedes that Israel does not have the capability
to take such actions on its own. Therefore, the United States must
join forces with it, at least by expressing “unconditional support for
all measures Israel might have to take in the face of this [nuclear
terrorist] threat” and, even better, by joining with Israel “to pursue
a broad range of preventative options, from limited, targeted military
operations, to massive options, including occupation of the country
suspected of harboring the threat (e.g., Lebanon), in order to root it
out at all costs….in which any and all capabilities will be brought to
bear to ensure complete success [in order to]guarantee the threat's
complete elimination.” (emphasis in original) Fortunately, it seems
unlikely that the Obama administration—or even, for that matter, its
Republican opponents-- will be attracted to Freilich’s modest
proposal.
There is indeed a threat of nuclear terrorism against Israel and the
United States—to this country, to a substantial degree, precisely
because of its near-unconditional support of Israel. The best way to
defuse this threat would be a negotiated and fair settlement of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To be sure, while it is (shall we say)
far-fetched to argue that such a settlement would increase the
terrorist threat, it must be conceded that it might not eliminate it
altogether: the conflict has gone on for so long, and with such
terrible consequences for the Palestinian people, that the bitterness
and hatred it has engendered in the Islamic world might continue for
some time.
For this reason alone, it may not be the case that a two-state
solution is the best way for Israel to solve its deterrence problem.
Recently, despairing of the possibility that a two-state solution will
ever be reached, a number of observers are considering a one-state
solution: that is, a single Jewish-Palestinian binational democratic
state. Under the present circumstances, it is hard to see how such a
fantasy could be realized: all the factors that now prevent a two-
state solution--principally blind Israeli stupidity-- would make a one
state solution even more impossible. Yet, what might finally convince
the Israelis—or at least should convince them—is the realization that
the close intermixing of Jews and Arabs in a single state and in its
major cities would be the best possible deterrent against any Islamic
nuclear terrorist attack.
coaste...@yahoo.com
From The Sunday Times
May 30, 2010
Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv
194 COMMENTS
RECOMMEND? (117)
Three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise
missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.
The first has been sent in response to Israeli fears that ballistic
missiles developed by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, a political and
military organisation in Lebanon, could hit sites in Israel, including
air bases and missile launchers.
The submarines of Flotilla 7 — Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan — have
visited the Gulf before. But the decision has now been taken to ensure
a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels.
The flotilla’s commander, identified only as “Colonel O”, told an
Israeli newspaper: “We are an underwater assault force. We’re
operating deep and far, very far, from our borders.”
Each of the submarines has a crew of 35 to 50, commanded by a colonel
capable of launching a nuclear cruise missile.
The vessels can remain at sea for about 50 days and stay submerged up
to 1,150ft below the surface for at least a week. Some of the cruise
missiles are equipped with the most advanced nuclear warheads in the
Israeli arsenal.
The deployment is designed to act as a deterrent, gather intelligence
and potentially to land Mossad agents. “We’re a solid base for
collecting sensitive information, as we can stay for a long time in
one place,” said a flotilla officer.
The submarines could be used if Iran continues its programme to
produce a nuclear bomb. “The 1,500km range of the submarines’ cruise
missiles can reach any target in Iran,” said a navy officer.
Apparently responding to the Israeli activity, an Iranian admiral
said: “Anyone who wishes to do an evil act in the Persian Gulf will
receive a forceful response from us.”
Israel’s urgent need to deter the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance was
demonstrated last month. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, was said to
have shown President Barack Obama classified satellite images of a
convoy of ballistic missiles leaving Syria on the way to Hezbollah in
Lebanon.
Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, will emphasise the danger to
Obama in Washington this week.
Tel Aviv, Israel’s business and defence centre, remains the most
threatened city in the world, said one expert. “There are more
missiles per square foot targeting Tel Aviv than any other city,” he
said.
coaste...@yahoo.com
By HELENE COOPER
Published: June 4, 2010
WASHINGTON — Some topics are so inflammatory that they are never
discussed without first inserting a number of caveats. And so, when
Anthony Cordesman, a foreign policy dignitary in this town’s think
tank circuit, dropped an article on Wednesday headlined “Israel as a
Strategic Liability,” he made sure to open with a plethora of
qualifications.
Last year, President Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu met in Washington.
First, he noted, America’s commitment to Israel is motivated by
morality and ethics — a reaction to the Holocaust, to Western anti-
Semitism and to American foot-dragging before and during World War II
that left European Jews slaughtered by the Nazis. Second, Israel is a
democracy with the same values as the United States. Third, the United
States will never abandon Israel, and will help it keep its military
edge over its neighbors. And America will guard Israel against an
Iranian nuclear threat.
But once Mr. Cordesman had dispensed with what in the newspaper world
is called the “to-be-sure” paragraphs, he laid out a dispassionate
argument that has gained increased traction in Washington — both
inside the Obama administration (including the Pentagon, White House
and State Department) and outside, during forums, policy breakfasts,
even a seder in Bethesda. Recent Israeli governments, particularly the
one led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mr. Cordesman argued,
have ignored the national security concerns of its biggest benefactor,
the United States, and instead have taken steps that damage American
interests abroad.
“The depth of America’s moral commitment does not justify or excuse
actions by an Israeli government that unnecessarily make Israel a
strategic liability when it should remain an asset,” Mr. Cordesman
wrote, in commentary for the centrist Center for Strategic and
International Studies, where he is the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in
strategy. “It is time Israel realized that it has obligations to the
United States, as well as the United States to Israel, and that it
become far more careful about the extent to which it tests the limits
of U.S. patience and exploits the support of American Jews.”
The list of recent moves by the Netanyahu government that potentially
threaten American interests has grown steadily, many foreign policy
experts argue. The violence that broke out when Israeli commandos
stormed aboard a Gaza flotilla last week chilled American relations
with a key Muslim ally, Turkey. The Gaza fight also makes it more
difficult for America to rally a coalition that includes Arab and
Muslim states against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Mr. Netanyahu’s
refusal to stop Jewish housing construction in Arab East Jerusalem
also strains American ties with Arab allies. It also makes reaching an
eventual peace deal, which many administration officials believe is
critical to America’s broader interests in the Muslim world, even more
difficult.
Both President Obama and Gen. David H. Petraeus, who oversees
America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, have made the link in recent
months between the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict and American
security interests. During a press conference in April, Mr. Obama
declared that conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up
“costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure”; he
drew an explicit tie between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the
safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism in Iraq,
Afghanistan and elsewhere.
General Petraeus sounded a similar theme in Congressional testimony
earlier this year, when he said that the lack of progress in the
Middle East created a hostile environment for America. After a furor
erupted, he said he wasn’t suggesting that soldiers were being put in
harm’s way by American support for Israel, and he went to great
lengths to point out the importance of America’s strategic partnership
with Israel.
“But the status quo is unsustainable,” he said in an interview Friday.
“If you don’t achieve progress in a just and lasting Mideast peace,
the extremists are given a stick to beat us with.”
And in March, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told AIPAC,
the pro-Israel lobbying group, that new construction in East Jerusalem
or the West Bank “exposes daylight between Israel and the United
States that others in the region hope to exploit.”
All of this has led to deep soul-searching in parts of the American
Jewish community, alongside a fierce debate among officials from past
and present administrations. Mr. Obama’s mere characterization of the
acts that led to the deaths in the Gaza flotilla as “tragic” unleashed
a withering response from Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice
president. “There is no middle ground here,” she said in a statement.
“Either the United States stands with the people of Israel in the war
against radical Islamic terrorism or we are providing encouragement to
Israel’s enemies — and our own.”
Ms. Cheney’s remarks reflect some of the alarm among Israeli officials
and some American Jewish leaders, who preferred the Bush
administration’s steadfast support, no matter which Israeli government
was in office and no matter what actions that government took.
Some Democrats are alarmed about the shift in thinking too.
Representative Steve Israel, Democrat of New York, said he spent two
hours at the White House with Mr. Obama and a group of other Jewish
lawmakers two weeks ago, “expressing my concerns repeatedly and
emphatically.” Questioning Israel as a strategic asset, he said,
“seeks to blame Israel for difficulties in the Middle East, but it’s
not Israel’s fault that you have an ineffective Palestinian leadership
incapable of striking a deal. It’s not Israel’s fault that you have
intransigent Arab regimes unwilling to push the Palestinians into
negotiations. Those are the ugly truths.”
Some foreign policy experts say the new willingness to suggest that
the Israeli government’s actions may become an American national
security liability marks a backlash against the Bush-era
neoconservative agenda, which posited that America and Israel were
fighting together to promote democracy in an unstable region.
The new concern is also, paradoxically, a consequence of commitments
made during the Bush years, when the lives of American soldiers,
fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, became tied to the state of Arab and
Muslim public opinion.
Mr. Obama has de-emphasized democracy promotion. He is pulling
American troops out of Iraq, and has promised to begin doing so in
Afghanistan next year. Meanwhile, he has reached out to the Muslim
world and emphasized, in his new national security strategy, that the
United States needs to act in concert with other nations.
“The prior administration’s worldview lined up more with the Israeli
government,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, founder of J Street, a liberal
Jewish lobbying group. “Now we’re seeing a reflection of a different
worldview, that gives you a completely different set of policies and
priorities.”
Mr. Ben-Ami says he represents Jews who support Israel, but not all of
its policies. Some of them are raising the issue of Israeli government
actions as a strategic liability for the United States, and that
question animated a seder held in April by influential officials and
advisers in Bethesda, Md. A debate broke out there over where to draw
the line when considering American support for Israel’s government.
Within the Obama administration, there are gradations of how to even
talk about that issue. At the seder, one Jewish adviser to the
administration invoked concerns that ordinary Americans might get so
frustrated with Israeli government actions that they will begin to
question America’s support for that government. He asked that his name
not be used because of the sensitivities surrounding the issue.
More recently, Daniel Levy, director of the Middle East Task Force at
the New America Foundation and a member of J Street, said in an
interview: “America has three choices. Either say, it’s politically
too hot a potato to touch, and just pay the consequences in the rest
of the world. Or try to force through a peace deal between Israelis
and Palestinians, so that the Palestinian grievance issue is no longer
a driving force or problem.” The third choice, he said, “is for
America to say, we can’t solve it, but we can’t pay the consequences,
so we will distance ourselves from Israel. That way America would no
longer be seen, as it has been this week, as the enabler of excesses
of Israeli misbehavior.”
Unsurprisingly, Mr. Levy advocates the second choice. But he warns
that the third may become more palatable to Americans if Mr.
Netanyahu’s government stays on its present course.
Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, author of one of the most well-read
blogs in the American Jewish community, put it this way: “I don’t
necessarily believe you solve all of America’s problems in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen by freezing settlement growth. On the
other hand, there’s no particular reason for Israel to make itself a
pain in the tush either.”
Alexander
> And this one:
>
>
> From The Sunday Times
> May 30, 2010
> Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran
> Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv
> 194 COMMENTS
> RECOMMEND? (117)
> Three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise
> missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.
>
> The first has been sent in response to Israeli fears that ballistic
> missiles developed by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, a political and
> military organisation in Lebanon, could hit sites in Israel, including
> air bases and missile launchers.
>
> visited the Gulf before. But the decision has now been taken to ensure
> a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels.
>
> Israeli newspaper: �We are an underwater assault force. We�re
> operating deep and far, very far, from our borders.�
>
> Each of the submarines has a crew of 35 to 50, commanded by a colonel
> capable of launching a nuclear cruise missile.
>
> The vessels can remain at sea for about 50 days and stay submerged up
> to 1,150ft below the surface for at least a week. Some of the cruise
> missiles are equipped with the most advanced nuclear warheads in the
> Israeli arsenal.
>
> The deployment is designed to act as a deterrent, gather intelligence
> collecting sensitive information, as we can stay for a long time in
>
> The submarines could be used if Iran continues its programme to
> missiles can reach any target in Iran,� said a navy officer.
>
> Apparently responding to the Israeli activity, an Iranian admiral
> receive a forceful response from us.�
>
> Israel�s urgent need to deter the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance was
> demonstrated last month. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, was said to
> have shown President Barack Obama classified satellite images of a
> convoy of ballistic missiles leaving Syria on the way to Hezbollah in
> Lebanon.
>
> Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, will emphasise the danger to
> Obama in Washington this week.
>
> threatened city in the world, said one expert. �There are more
> missiles per square foot targeting Tel Aviv than any other city,� he
> said.
A couple of them are American, A couple are Russian and A couple are
Chinese. Maybe the Brits recognize the jewish danger also. You can bet
if Israel gets shitty.. It ain't gonna be a good place to be.
Zion is going down taking USA with them and so are the fake jews
news:70ec75d1-f222-4ea9...@n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> Obama administration wants change of Israel's Gaza blockade policy
>
> Top story: Amidst the diplomatic fallout over Israel's raid on a Gaza-
> bound flotilla, which resulted in the deaths of nine pro-Palestinian
> activists, the Obama administration regards the Israeli blockade of
> the Gaza Strip as increasingly untenable, according to senior U.S.
> officials. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vigorously
> defended the blockade, saying that it is necessary for Israel's
> security. The unnamed administration officials, however, asserted that
> Netanyahu was privately in agreement that the current policy had to be
> modified.
>
> This debate comes as another ship, the Rachel Corrie, will try to
> breach the Gaza blockade as early as Friday. The ship, which
> originated in Ireland, is carrying cement, educational materials,
> toys, and medical supplies meant for the people of Gaza. The European
> Campaign to End Siege on Gaza also announced that it had raised enough
> funds to sponsor three ships in a new flotilla.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel was established based on lies, deception, and false history, so
Netanyahu employing lies and deception as part of Jewish heritage!!
CB
> Israel was established based on lies, deception, and false history, so
> Netanyahu employing lies and deception as part of Jewish heritage!!
Israel was given 25% of what it was promised from the UN. Rather than whine
like Libs and Hamas they took it and prospered. So called Palestinians never
took the charter offered by the UN to become their own state!
Netanyahu has a sacred oath to protect his people from Evil
May God bless him, Israel and the United States of America
--
CB
Psalm 137 is a story of Arab percucution of Jews.
Regarding Israel, GOD said: "I will bless those who bless you, and I will
curse him who curses you. All of the families of the earth will be blessed
in you."
(Genesis 12:3) <== (this is why the "Islamic world" is in ruins)
Regarding the reestablishment of Israel, GOD said: Now therefore thus saith
the Lord, the God of Israel . . . Behold, I will gather them out of all the
countries, whither I have driven them, in mine anger . . . and I will bring
them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely: and they
shall be my people and I will be their God .
. . (Jeremiah 32:37-38) <== (this expalins the miracle "rebirth" of
Israel in 1948)
God Bless Israel!
God Bless America!
Doc Tony
The nym Al "not personally involved�" Smith and along with his tag-team
partner, "Papagei�" Ebe, have been running from me for over a year via
the old 'plonk and filter' gambit but this is in response to my
expectation [with 'anyone', BTW] that they 'defend' what they have to
say when called or questioned on it versus hitting the track shoes and
using the now classic 'plonk and filter' gambit as a shield. So too, I
don't think it's particularly "very bright" [sic] of Smith to respond to
another poster when Al is asked to defend what he has to say and Al
makes with a 'rebuttal' [!?] of, "God, you people are pathetic fu***."
[sic -- Smith and the word "fu***" in the plural].
Now me, I've been consistently vociferous on the issues of free speech
and right of dissent and I'm also on long-term record as 'opposing'
so-called Holocaust denial laws and in whatever wordage the legislation
is couched. I've also, as in anything I say, given my reasons or, put
another way, defended my position. I believe such laws only serve to
create a 'martyrs for the Cause' kind of thing and I also believe they
fuel anti-Semitism while garnering the often uninformed sympathetic ear
if 'only' due to issues of free speech and the right of dissent. In any
event, I maintain an expectation that when the in fact precious
liberties of free speech and the right of dissent are available, as it
is in Usenet, then I 'expect' the trade-off to be a concurrent
'defense' of one's wares. I don't have much respect for runners or those
who hide behind the all too convenient shield of the 'killfile', 'plonk'
and 'filter' gambits. In general now: Have something to say? Fine! Say
it! I have and will continue to defend such a right! But when comment is
made by anyone who mounts the proverbial box, at 'least' be prepared to
DEFEND it! In this case, you, and quite 'unlike' Smith or 'Ebe', you at
least defend what you have to say and on that basis, we can do business.
I may not agree with you, and some of your material I do not agree as
when you pipe-up for the nym Smith rendering accolades on the guy yet
Smith continues to run when called on to defend what he has to say, but,
back to you, you're here and you make your defense and hence I respect
that although obviously maintaining my right to take issue with your
remarks as 'you' do with my own. But then, hey, fair enough! That's how
it should work to begin with!
[more below ...]
> As to Krauthammer, I wrote out of frustration with big media's
> flagrantly biased coverage of the Middle East. He's one of the most
> predictable, i.e., one of the worst, but journalistic apologists for
> Israeli oppression at the expense of our national interest are all
> over the place. All those guys need public push-back and shaming,
> public reprimands. As to Krauthammer would you have had me say
> different things? These guys need to be reminded that they are the
> wrong people to be interpreting Israel and at the same time the
> American national interest to the American people. 98.2% of us are not
> Jewish. Conflict of interest there is increasingly dangerous. 1.8% of
> us with an obvious conflict of interest can't be permitted to capture
> any aspect of our Middle Eastern policy and run it as if Israel owned
> it.
>
Hunter, let's just say that you've been around, yes, and I believe in
one of your posts [and please correct me if I am in error here] that you
indicated you were in your 8th decade, and if so, you should know that
so-termed "apologists" abound! But not just for Israel! I mean, hey, you
only need to read some of the material right here in AR and various
other newsgroups that touch on World War II and the Holocaust to 'know'
and sans any prompting from me, that there even exists blatant
"apologists" for the Hitler NSDAP era as well and not to mention almost
palpable yet duly voiced cases of assorted anti-Jewish and anti-Israel
harangues and duly publicly 'admitted' hatreds but coming from folks,
and I've said this before, who know as much about the 1933-45 NSDAP era,
the World War II era, the Holocaust and the situation in the Middle East
'today' as they do the definitive philosophical answers to both the
origin of man and the universe. The newsgroup 'theme' be it the
Holocaust, or the 'Big One' or the Middle East or indeed the 1933-45
NSDAP era merely being a convenient troll area to do their Jewbaiting
routines or "Nuke Israel!" recitations. NOTE! I did not say 'all', but
some. It's there and can often be readily brought to the fore upon
further questioning or inquiry therein. At least to the one's who don't
run upon such examination and dissection of their wares.
On the other hand, I 'resent', I'll repeat that, I 'resent' that when
discussion commences and suddenly criticisms are leveled at a particular
Israeli policy or an Israeli leader that suddenly, to some folks, such
criticism simply 'must' be "rooted in anti-Semitism" and I think this is
one of areas that causes so many problems TODAY! It's simply too
convenient as a political 'hammer', IMO, and has been horrendously
overused and abused. If the almost 'chronic' response to 'any' Israeli
criticisms [including some writers claiming that even President Obama is
"anti-Semitic" or "uncaring about Israel's defense" or, indeed, one gem
I spotted recently, "Will the American President consider a "1933
response" [!] and be talked into a "boycott" of Jewish goods in
retaliation to Israeli self-defense measures?" [! -- and the
'connection' to '1933' being blatantly obvious and not to mention the
by-word of the Israelis, "self-defense" and no matter how pursued' !],
anyway, this 'hammer' of Israeli criticisms 'automatically' being a
case of equated 'anti-Semitism' must be dealt with as it tends to impede
any progress.
Hence I 'resent' that I'm apparently a 'nice guy' or indeed, 'goy', when
I defend the historical presence of the Holocaust and which I have done
for the last 13 years in Usenet drawing on my experience and having
lived in Germany for some years, knowing the language and the Volk quite
well and having taught history [inter alia] and being well familiar with
the 1939-45 NSDAP era [not to mention interviewing many of its actual
participants at all levels and when I lived and worked in Germany
itself] ==but== when there is a gear change and I find a certain Israeli
policy of 'today' to be an area where I feel legitimate criticism is
warranted, ahhhhhhh, suddenly the otherwise 'nice guy' or 'goy', to
some, not all, some, 'then' I'm suddenly and supposedly "treading in
anti-Semitic waters" ! Why is that! Well, the 'why' of it is clear --
I'm being critical of Israel! WHY am I being critical of Israel! Because
I see something that I believe is wrong but that should NOT be
interpreted that suddenly I'm anti-Israel or, worse, anti-Semitic! And
this, IMO, is a 'major' stumbling block to any progress in the Middle East!
A 'criticism' is suddenly on a par with, and I'll be purposely crass
about it, allegedly, to hear some folks put it, "not giving a sh**'
about Israel or its security!" Or, even worse, shades of 'anti-Israel'
"leanings" if I suggest and I 'do' suggest that the Palestinians are not
getting a fair shake 'and' the situation is Gaza is horrendous but as
'exacerbated' by certain 'Israeli' policies! Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Hence, 'I' am suddenly placed on the defensive to almost have to then
'prove' that 'I' am not a so-termed 'closet anti-Semite' ! This attitude
by certain folks and including those within the Israeli AND indeed
American governments, 'must' change! It must! Until it does, any real
progress is reduced considerably. This is NOT to say that the 'other
side' is 'right', no, because they too can often have the same
mentality albeit from 'their' particular perspective(s) and thereby view
criticisms coming 'their' way as "de facto" interpreted to be
'anti-Arab', 'anti-Palestinian', et al.
More later. The piano beckons! And the guitar.
Doc Tony
;-)
Doc Tony
> the 1933-45 NSDAP era [not to mention interviewing many of its actual
Bizzz! Typo corrected above to read "1933-45". I had the era correct in
my other paragraph usage of same but must have inadvertently singled out
the NSDAP era war years which in fact commenced in 1939 via the German
invasion of Poland on September 1st of 1939.
Doc Tony
;-)
[and then ... ]
"I did know this guy who did live about a half kilometer from Gleiwitz
and he did tell me how he "SAW" [!] the POLISH ATTACK [!] on the
Gleiwitz Rundfunk." [sic -- Kurt "alte Puppe�" Knoll]
;-)
Doc Tony
A couple of matters. In Kurt's AR quote, the words "SAW" and "POLISH
ATTACK" are my 'block letter' emphasis [and followed by the bracketed
exclamation point]. Kurt's public comment, of course, and when he made
it, was an attempt to 'back-up', as it were, the 'F�hrer' who told the
Volk in his Reichstag spiel that the alleged 'attack' by the Poles was
the primary reason he was going to war. At the time, I quoted the spiel
in the original German [available to anyone to look up and verify] and
an English translation of same. As is known, the alleged 'Polish attack'
[!] on the Gleiwitz radio station was a complete fabrication. As a
pretext for war, however, it was apparently quite 'handy' and the F�hrer
went with it. Kurt's "friend" [!] who allegedly "witnessed" [!] such a
"Polish attack" [!], well, I rate this yarn with Kurt's other "friend",
you know, the old "body stacker" [sic-- Kurt] 'Kamerad' at the alleged
"Eisenhower Death Camp" [sic-- Kurt] where Kurt related how the American
"photographic unit" came into the "Eisenhower Death Camp" and began
taking pictures and films of alleged "dead German soldiers" and "did
drag the bodies into bigger and bigger piles" and then 'Kurt' and his
'body stacker' [sic] Kamerad then supposedly seeing these same photos in
the German newspapers and Kurt relates, "... but now they say these
bodies are Jewish KZ victims." [sic]
If you want 'Heimat' [** refers to Germany itself] yarns a la mode,
check the archives and read some of Kurt's yarns and tales over the
years, some of them 'so' fantastic and off the wall, I dare say the
reader 'guffaws' began to come from 'both' sides of the proverbial
aisle! And I don't mean just Kurt's now legendary and indeed
'backfiring' [on Kurt!] word fractures [in both English AND German] but
the yarns themselves or where Kurt had various 'variations' of the yarns
so that the, shall we say, 'manufacture' of same became blatantly
obvious. Kurt also had a repertoire of 'Canadian' yarns as well [** Kurt
has resided in Canada in excess of 60 years now] which also tend to
border on the fantastic if not the utterly ridiculous. But the 'Heimat'
tales are something to behold and noting well that even by the end of
the war, Kurt was only age ==12== in 1945! Well, I suppose ol' Kurt was
'lucky', you know, what with "... the Amis [** Americans] did open fire
on me with their machine guns when I was just sitting on a milk wagon"
[sic] or when that Kurt alleged Allied phosphorous bomb "... did crash
through my roof and did landed in my attic" [sic] or Kurt "witnessing"
[!] the infamous "Roving Rabbi" [!] and his alleged "reports" [sic]
against the Volk who "did dare say anything against the Jews" and Kurt
'reporting' how these Volk were then "forced to march barefoot to
Siberia" [sic] and/or "grab off the street and sent to the Eisenhower
Death Camp never to be seen again" [sic] and on and on and on.
But then, there was always Kurt's brother, Werner, whose claim to fame
[!] in Usenet [** both in AR and the German 'sister group' to AR, DSPM
and various [to AR] cross-posters therein] was the public statement,
"Why do you belittle Hitler for doing the work of the Lord!" [sic] AND
the basis for the moniker I have to Werner when he was apparently
explaining to another poster the, I assume, 'strategy' of the
revisionists to 'get out the word and be heard' in Usenet, to wit,
"Pissing in a swimming pool when you are in the water will get you
nowhere, do it from a 10 meter spring-board [!] and everyone will notice
you!" [sic -- Werner "10 meter spring-board�" Knoll]
Doc Tony
;-)
What's that? One of the more 'outrageous' Knoll public comments? There
are so many, but these two particularly stand out although I relegate
the rhetoric to Kurt, shall we say, hitting his 'sauces' [!] big time as
opposed to any 'sources', to wit:
"When I wend [sic] and stuck my penis [!] in my ear, I know that I am
right!" [sic -- Kurt 'alte Puppe�' Knoll]
"No, the holocaust is not about history, it is about a Ukrainian
Sausage!" [sic -- Kurt 'alte Puppe�' Knoll]
But a 'decided' stand-out is this apparent 'clarification' [!?]
"No, I myself am not anti-Semitic, I just don't like Jews." [sic --
Kurt 'alte Puppe�' Knoll]
If anything, Kurt was a fixture .... for comic relief ... the proverbial
about 99/44/100% of same, and ironically so, inadvertently rendered by
Kurt himself! I finally relegated his chronic 'backfires' especially
when Kurt was in his J'accuse mode to a case of just desserts! Mind you,
Kurt would tell off and rail against the Volk as well [especially the
under age 40 German posters] in the German newsgroups! In one case, he
railed at the 'Volk', "... you all arrogant 'Jewish slime factory' [**
Kurt's buzzwords for 'any' university] 'cooksuckers' [sic] who "did have
your noodle bended and did have your brains washed!" [sic]
;-)
But 'still' the echo persists ....
"Not at all convinced that Kurt Knoll is the 'Whopper King' of AR." [sic
-- Ben "Chameleon�" Cramer]
YET when Crackpot� Freddy Berg did his famous website piece on "Producer
Gas" fueled buses and military vehicles, it was Kurt who jumped into
the thread and claimed that he actually DROVE [!] such vehicles and
claimed to 'own' a vehicle which could use "wood chips in the
'carbrator' " [sic] " [!] to power it! Sure. Freddy was talking about
early '44 and this would make Kurt age 10, possibly 11 max as he
allegedly "drove" these 'producer gas' bus and truck vehicles but then,
hey, it was Kurt who told 'Tilly' in the SCJ [I believe it was]
newsgroup that at the age of ==12== in 1945, Kurt was made part of the
Allied Photo Evidence Investigation Team! Sure. Just like Kurt 'heard'
[!] the "German General" at the IMT whose testimony, supposedly
'favorable' to the defendants, get "... switched into a Jewish
synagogue." [sic -- Kurt]. In effect, the reader of Kurt's public wares
[since '2001' and in 'multi' newsgroups] 'had' to take two things into
consideration when reading Kurt: the 'source' .... and the 'sauce' !
;-)
One of my early satires of Kurt where the 'connection' [and noted 'mods'
to the original set-off via single quote notation] should be obvious:
Kurt 'alte Puppe�' Knoll: "Seit ich '2001' [!] als Freiwilliger meine
bescheidene Kraft im 'AR und DSPM Newsbeitrag', dem 'Bewegung' [**
Movement�] aufgezwungenen 'WORTKRIEG' [** 'Word' war] einsetzte, sind
nunmehr �ber 'neun' [** 2001 to 2010 as I'm 'updating' the bit] Jahre
vergangen. Es ist unwahr, da� ich oder irgend-jemand anderer in
'Bewegung' den 'Wortkrieg' im Jahren '2001-2010' gewollt haben. Es wurde
gewollt und angestiftet au�schlie�lich von jenen internationalen
'Newsbeitrag Leuten', die entweder J�DISCHER Herkunft waren oder f�r
J�DISCHE Interessen arbeiteten."
Watch now!
"Papagei�" Ebe: [the AR nym 'Johannes von Ebersdorf']: "Is there a
problem here?"
Al "not personally involved�" Smith [and fumbling with his German
'Berlitz' book]: "Not that I can see, Ebe..ehhh..Johannes! After all,
"Zionists make history as they see fit" so I, for one, and well noting
that "I am not a revisionist nor a "denier" in any sense" [sic --
Smith], fully agree!"
/:=| "Mich auch, Herr Smith!" [** 'Me too, Mr. Smith']
;-)
>
>
>
>> participants at all levels and when I lived and worked in Germany
>> itself] ==but== when there is a gear change and I find a certain
>> Israeli policy of 'today' to be an area where I feel legitimate
>> criticism is warranted, ahhhhhhh, suddenly the otherwise 'nice guy' or
>> 'goy', to some, not all, some, 'then' I'm suddenly and supposedly
>> "treading in anti-Semitic waters" ! Why is that! Well, the 'why' of it
>> is clear -- I'm being critical of Israel! WHY am I being critical of
>> Israel! Because I see something that I believe is wrong but that
>> should NOT be interpreted that suddenly I'm anti-Israel or, worse,
>> anti-Semitic! And this, IMO, is a 'major' stumbling block to any
>> progress in the Middle East!
>>
>> A 'criticism' is suddenly on a par with, and I'll be purposely crass
>> about it, allegedly, to hear some folks put it, "not giving a sh**
>> about Israel or its security!" Or, even worse, shades of 'anti-Israel'
>> "leanings" if I suggest and I 'do' suggest that the Palestinians are
>> not getting a fair shake 'and' the situation in Gaza is horrendous but
coaste...@yahoo.com
> iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > And this one:
>
> > From The Sunday Times
> > May 30, 2010
> > Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran
> > Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv
> > 194 COMMENTS
> > RECOMMEND? (117)
> > Three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise
> > missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.
>
> > The first has been sent in response to Israeli fears that ballistic
> > missiles developed by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, a political and
> > military organisation in Lebanon, could hit sites in Israel, including
> > air bases and missile launchers.
>
> > visited the Gulf before. But the decision has now been taken to ensure
> > a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels.
>
> > Israeli newspaper: We are an underwater assault force. We re
> > operating deep and far, very far, from our borders.
>
> > capable of launching a nuclear cruise missile.
>
> > The vessels can remain at sea for about 50 days and stay submerged up
> > to 1,150ft below the surface for at least a week. Some of the cruise
> > missiles are equipped with the most advanced nuclear warheads in the
> > Israeli arsenal.
>
> > The deployment is designed to act as a deterrent, gather intelligence
> > collecting sensitive information, as we can stay for a long time in
>
> > The submarines could be used if Iran continues its programme to
> > missiles can reach any target in Iran, said a navy officer.
>
> > Apparently responding to the Israeli activity, an Iranian admiral
> > receive a forceful response from us.
>
> > demonstrated last month. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, was said to
> > have shown President Barack Obama classified satellite images of a
> > convoy of ballistic missiles leaving Syria on the way to Hezbollah in
> > Lebanon.
>
> > Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, will emphasise the danger to
> > Obama in Washington this week.
>
> > threatened city in the world, said one expert. There are more
> > missiles per square foot targeting Tel Aviv than any other city, he
> > said.
>
> A couple of them are American, A couple are Russian and A couple are
> Chinese. Maybe the Brits recognize the jewish danger also. You can bet
> if Israel gets shitty.. It ain't gonna be a good place to be.
The question is how to prevent any of these obscene outcomes from
taking place. Reveling in the potential of a worst case scenerio isn't
constructive Right now the Israelis are far too insinuated into our
decision making system. Our Congress can't join the Administration in
a concerted effort. If Shaf or Likud doesn't like an initiative it's
killed in the Congress by the Lobby. The Israelis don't know how to
help themselves so paralyzing our Congress does them no good and it is
potentially fatal for us. We've got to end that if only because it's
the only way we can protect ourselves. But once we're in a position to
protect ourselves we'll be able to work on protecting Israel.
coaste...@yahoo.com
the fake jews" <frankopi...@aol.com> wrote:
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
What good do anti-Semitic outbursts do us? This is a very critical
time. The President has confirmed the nuclear *terrorism,* not nuclear
war with nation states, is the country's greatest danger. The
greatest, bar none. What the hell good does it do to make invidious
remarks about "Jewish heritage"?
CB
Who came down the bloodline lineage of Isaac?
Who came down the Bloodline of Ishmael?
I'd say it's morally relative to the difference between conservitives love
for America's founding Christian prenciples and Progressive's lust to forget
God or the providence he guided men like Joseph Story and Abraham Lincoln.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/4418528611_3a84c44025_b.jpg
--
CB
Dr Alveda King explains her uncle's choice to be a Republican
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqfRn2V-NxM
1:30
coaste...@yahoo.com
No one. I hate to disabuse you but these are mythical figures.
> I'd say it's morally relative to the difference between conservitives love
> for America's founding Christian prenciples and Progressive's lust to forget
> God or the providence he guided men like Joseph Story and Abraham Lincoln.
What founding Christian principles?
CB
What founding Christian principles?
Apparently none that you habz
Doc Tony
Back to the discussion at hand. I'm almost reminded, Hunter, of that
famous line in the "Inherit the Wind" [1960] flick when "Colonel" Brady
[** Fredric [sic] March] announces, "I don't intend to make a speech",
and then immediately launches into a protracted spiel duly reminiscent
of his best 'Chataqua tent' days when the "tent poles shook" at his
rhetoric after which Brady concludes his spiel with his hands in the air
and eyes to the heavens whipped up fervor and a wind-up of , ".... and
will rise up and call this court-room sacred!", whereupon "Colonel"
Drummond [** Spencer Tracy] dryly quips, "I'm sure glad the Colonel
didn't intend to make a speech!"
Or, conversely, and with that last line of yours, ol' Doc King
commenting to you from the Vale but doing a sort of tongue-in-cheek
'Gary Coleman' mimic, to wit, "What-choo talkin' about, Hunter!" ;-)
Anyway, and jocularity aside, I think what you are in fact talking about
is essentially what I said about Obama and in which I believe you are
in agreement with me, in the sense that ==NOW== is the time for Obama to
actually ==earn== his already awarded Nobel Peace Prize! It will not be
an easy task, to be sure, because the price of being not so much 'hard'
but rather 'realistic' [!] is the old yet still used as the ultimate
trump card and at least 'figurative' head-banging club, the now classic
J'accuse by various and sundry of Obama being "anti-Semitic" . This
label mongering, and as I've said before, 'must' change. And, as time
goes by, I believe it 'is' changing because, IMO, and so stated, for far
too long it has been used as an almost solid wall when virtually any
criticisms have been specifically leveled at Israel. The then
'supportive' J'accuse being that the speaker or writer who advances such
'Israeli' criticisms is allegedly taking a perceived "so what!" posture
concerning Israeli security and self defense issues. It takes a 'very'
brave politician to advance criticisms against Israel because when that
has happened, the results of same have been entirely predictable.
Indeed, Obama himself, in certain circles, has been labeled
"anti-Semitic" or "seemingly ambivalent about Israeli self-defense
issues" but until this "label" business is finally put to bed via its
gross overuse, any real progress towards a lasting peace solution in the
Middle East will continue to be impeded.
But then too, let me also say this to those who read my remarks and muse
to themselves, "Keep dreaming, Doc! America 'getting tough' with Israel?
Sure! Not in your lifetime!" , well, I heard similar comment although it
had nothing whatsoever to do with Israel when I lived in Europe and I
well recall [this was in the 60's] making the comment, actually more of
an inquiry than anything else, "do you think Germany [** where I was
living] will ever be reunited?" and I was literally 'mocked' with
guffaws all around by such a "ridiculous comment" and I was told,
ironically, "Not in your lifetime and perhaps the lifetime of your
children and grand-children will you ever see a united Germany!" But
then, it in fact happened, didn't it! Conversely, what would be the
reaction even in the 70's and 80's much less the 60's if anyone stepped
up and stated, "I believe the USSR will collapse!". They too would have
been mocked as "pipe dreaming fools" yet that too happened! So when
comment is made that the United States will "always" take a conciliatory
and 'accommodating' view towards Israel, well, who is to say! On the
other hand, with the present status quo and indeed, as I see it, Middle
East stalemate, 'again' go back to the proverbial square 1, WHAT has
really worked in the last 62 years since 1948 that didn't fall apart
despite the best peace making efforts of all concerned! Hence, changes
and what 'can' work 'must' be made! That takes cooperation and the total
avoidance of favoritism. And 'labels' therein. On 'any' side, I'll
immediately add.
Doc Tony
;-)
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > Obama administration wants change of Israel's Gaza blockade policy
>
> > > > Top story: Amidst the diplomatic fallout over Israel's raid on a Gaza-
> > > > bound flotilla, which resulted in the deaths of nine pro-Palestinian
> > > > activists, the Obama administration regards the Israeli blockade of
> > > > the Gaza Strip as increasingly untenable, according to senior U.S.
> > > > officials. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vigorously
> > > > defended the blockade, saying that it is necessary for Israel's
> > > > security. The unnamed administration officials, however, asserted that
> > > > Netanyahu was privately in agreement that the current policy had to be
> > > > modified.
>
> > > > This debate comes as another ship, the Rachel Corrie, will try to
> > > > breach the Gaza blockade as early as Friday. The ship, which
> > > > originated in Ireland, is carrying cement, educational materials,
> > > > toys, and medical supplies meant for the people of Gaza. The European
> > > > Campaign to End Siege on Gaza also announced that it had raised enough
> > > > funds to sponsor three ships in a new flotilla.
>
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > -------------------
>
> > > Israel was established based on lies, deception, and false history, so
> > > Netanyahu employing lies and deception as part of Jewish heritage!!
>
> > What good do anti-Semitic outbursts do us? This is a very critical
> > time. The President has confirmed that nuclear *terrorism,* not nuclear
> > war with nation states, is the country's greatest danger. The
> > greatest, bar none. What the hell good does it do to make invidious
> > remarks about "Jewish heritage"?
> > Who came down the bloodline lineage of Isaac?
> > Who came down the Bloodline of Ishmael?
> No one. I hate to disabuse you but these are mythical figures.
> > I'd say it's morally relative to the difference between conservitives love
> > for America's founding Christian prenciples and Progressive's lust to
> > forget
> > God or the providence he guided men like Joseph Story and Abraham Lincoln.
Surely you meant relevant rather than relative. Can you parse what a
blunder that was?
> What founding Christian principles?
>
> Apparently none that you habz
Christian principles which form the bedrock of the tradition are
philosophical. They are moral, ethical and humanist. They aren't
matters of faith. They aren't connected to supernaturalism and
miracles. Most of us in the West partake of the Christian tradition
irrespective of matters of faith. It's central to Western
Civilization. Belief in miracles is optional. And belief in "founding
Christian principles" is simply nonsense.
The United States is not a Christian nation. It is a republic and more
or less a democracy in which a lot of Christians live along with many
others. The fact that you can not identify founding Christian
principles and yet claim them as a matter of religious propaganda
tells the tale. One of the most important *principles* of our nation
is the relegation of the Church to the purely private realm even
though it is a constant struggle to prevent men such as the
televangelist Hagee from attempting to pervert the system. It's a
necessary struggle because the country belongs to citizens, not to
Christians.
NefeshBarYochai
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bibi is ten times the mn that Obama is.
coaste...@yahoo.com
If true it's even more important to send all the "Bibis" in Israeli
politics back to civilian life. But it's not true, Nefesh. BTW, tell
us. Do you have dual citizenship?
coaste...@yahoo.com
Clip path
Clip to "what would you have him do" material.
> Hunter, let's just say that you've been around, yes, and I believe in
> one of your posts [and please correct me if I am in error here] that you
> indicated you were in your 8th decade, and if so, you should know that
> so-termed "apologists" abound! But not just for Israel!
Of course, but the issues I'm interested in are Israel and her
American Lobby. We're in the midst of an unprecedented political
crisis with them as we speak. There is a great struggle going on over
the management of American foreign policy.
I mean, hey, you
> only need to read some of the material right here in AR and various
> other newsgroups that touch on World War II and the Holocaust to 'know'
> and sans any prompting from me, that there even exists blatant
> "apologists" for the Hitler NSDAP era as well and not to mention almost
> palpable yet duly voiced cases of assorted anti-Jewish and anti-Israel
> harangues and duly publicly 'admitted' hatreds but coming from folks,
> and I've said this before, who know as much about the 1933-45 NSDAP era,
> the World War II era, the Holocaust and the situation in the Middle East
> 'today' as they do the definitive philosophical answers to both the
> origin of man and the universe. The newsgroup 'theme' be it the
> Holocaust, or the 'Big One' or the Middle East or indeed the 1933-45
> NSDAP era merely being a convenient troll area to do their Jewbaiting
> routines or "Nuke Israel!" recitations. NOTE! I did not say 'all', but
> some. It's there and can often be readily brought to the fore upon
> further questioning or inquiry therein. At least to the one's who don't
> run upon such examination and dissection of their wares.
No wonder drahcir kept dropping alt.revisionism from my address list.
Doc, you asked me to deliver on solutions to the problem. I did. Will
you get to evaluating them?
> On the other hand, I 'resent', I'll repeat that, I 'resent' that when
> discussion commences and suddenly criticisms are leveled at a particular
> Israeli policy or an Israeli leader that suddenly, to some folks, such
> criticism simply 'must' be "rooted in anti-Semitism" and I think this is
> one of areas that causes so many problems TODAY! It's simply too
> convenient as a political 'hammer', IMO, and has been horrendously
> overused and abused. If the almost 'chronic' response to 'any' Israeli
> criticisms [including some writers claiming that even President Obama is
> "anti-Semitic" or "uncaring about Israel's defense" or, indeed, one gem
> I spotted recently, "Will the American President consider a "1933
> response" [!] and be talked into a "boycott" of Jewish goods in
> retaliation to Israeli self-defense measures?"
I promise you he won't do that. He'll leave it to the private sector
and won't have much to say about it.
I've agreed with you about the cynical uses of "anti-Semitism."
[! -- and the
> 'connection' to '1933' being blatantly obvious and not to mention the
> by-word of the Israelis, "self-defense" and no matter how pursued' !],
> anyway, this 'hammer' of Israeli criticisms 'automatically' being a
> case of equated 'anti-Semitism' must be dealt with as it tends to impede
> any progress.
I see no connection to 1933.
> Hence I 'resent' that I'm apparently a 'nice guy' or indeed, 'goy', when
> I defend the historical presence of the Holocaust and which I have done
> for the last 13 years in Usenet drawing on my experience and having
> lived in Germany for some years, knowing the language and the Volk quite
> well and having taught history [inter alia] and being well familiar with
> the 1939-45 NSDAP era [not to mention interviewing many of its actual
> participants at all levels and when I lived and worked in Germany
> itself] ==but== when there is a gear change and I find a certain Israeli
> policy of 'today' to be an area where I feel legitimate criticism is
> warranted, ahhhhhhh, suddenly the otherwise 'nice guy' or 'goy', to
> some, not all, some, 'then' I'm suddenly and supposedly "treading in
> anti-Semitic waters" ! Why is that! Well, the 'why' of it is clear --
> I'm being critical of Israel! WHY am I being critical of Israel! Because
> I see something that I believe is wrong but that should NOT be
> interpreted that suddenly I'm anti-Israel or, worse, anti-Semitic! And
> this, IMO, is a 'major' stumbling block to any progress in the Middle East!
Goy is a racial and cultural slur.
Read Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby and American Foreign
Policy. Of course this blatant intimidation and the filthy personal
attacks pose major stumbling blocks to progress! That's their purpose.
The goal is obvious, to dominate the national dialogue about Israel,
i.e., to prevent it from becoming dangerous to the Lobby's smothering
grip on the Congress and from eroding generally favorable opinion
about Israel due to the inhumanity of her conduct and her cynical
manipulation of her ally. It's hardball and arrogance combined. It's
the greatest example of sheer chutzpah in Jewish history. Why do they
do it? Because they can. We don't stop it. And that's despite the fact
that the threat of nuclear terrorism connected with our relationship
with Israel grows greater by the day. When a container ship docks in
Manhattan with an H-Bomb built into its superstructure and incinerates
New York City there will be one overall issue first: How did we owe
the running of these risks to Israel? Why couldn't we have found
statesmen with the foresight and courage to get control of the
situation IN OUR OWN INTEREST before it came to this?
>
> A 'criticism' is suddenly on a par with, and I'll be purposely crass
> about it, allegedly, to hear some folks put it, "not giving a sh**'
> about Israel or its security!"
Yes, yes, the guilt trip. That's part of the pattern too. Can you tell
us how it even might be that imposing guilt about the Holocaust upon
Americans who are not responsible for it can tend to be consistent
with American interests? I mean, specifically American interests.
Think about it. It has only one purpose, to suppress criticism of
Israel's policies. "How can you say such terrible things about people
who are Jews? Have you forgotten the Holocaust? You must be anti-
Semitic." Yet who now is so ill-informed as to believe that Israel's
policies are consistent with ours, that her interests are consistent
with ours or that we somehow must run mortal risks for her when we
know what the reasonable solution is and that it will begin lowering
the dangers we face? What we actually owe to Israel is to impose the
reasonable solution upon her, the tough love solution, though that
particular four letter word has tenuous application to her now days.
What she has done to us is inexcusable. Just tough will have to do.
Or, even worse, shades of 'anti-Israel'
> "leanings" if I suggest and I 'do' suggest that the Palestinians are not
> getting a fair shake 'and' the situation is Gaza is horrendous but as
> 'exacerbated' by certain 'Israeli' policies! Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> Hence, 'I' am suddenly placed on the defensive to almost have to then
> 'prove' that 'I' am not a so-termed 'closet anti-Semite' !
There are many anti-Semites of course. But nowhere near as many as Abe
Foxman believes are living under his bed. In present circumstances
they are marginal and powerless. In comparison to the problems Israel
poses just to the US, they are a tiny threat for American Jewry. Anti-
Semitism has been blown grossly out of proportion in order to be used
as a political tool. This is a golden age for the Jews of America.
They've earned it, no problem. What they haven't earned is a right to
corrupt our foreign policy and to endanger the Republic on behalf of
the Israel's drive for 100 rather than 78% of Palestine. Conflict of
interest in politics is the same evil it is in the practice of the
great professions.
This attitude
> by certain folks and including those within the Israeli AND indeed
> American governments, 'must' change! It must!
Forgive me but we don't have time or the ability to do hearts and
minds therapy. The lobby is playing a very tough brand of bare knuckle
politics. That has to be beaten down---politically. We've simply got
to quit worrying about offending them and about their potential for
retaliation, jobs lost, political careers lost, business boycotts,
advertising boycotts, whispering campaigns, etc.
Perhaps the suppression of free speech and opinion with tactics like
these ought to be reclassified as a hate crime.
Until it does, any real
> progress is reduced considerably. This is NOT to say that the 'other
> side' is 'right', no, because they too can often have the same
> mentality albeit from 'their' particular perspective(s) and thereby view
> criticisms coming 'their' way as "de facto" interpreted to be
> 'anti-Arab', 'anti-Palestinian', et al.
Getting control of our relationship with Israel can't wait for gradual
"progress". We've got to lay it on the line in public. Israel must be
given choices.
Doc Tony
Hunter, as for your 'solution' which you than ask me to "judge" [sic] ,
well, I got the part where you said, and I quote, "Almost all the
buttons which need pushing are in Washington. Any intelligent and
determined American President can force Israel to stop this nonsense if
he has the guts to take the heat." [sic]
I then looked on exactly how "any intelligent and determined American
President" can "force" Israel to "stop this nonsense" but, alas, you did
the old retro thing again but didn't indicate exactly what "force" the
President could utilize in the process. You were rather light on that
one so could you indicate some specifics? What "force" when Ben and
company make with their, as 'you' phrase it, a "very tough brand of bare
knuckle politics" [sic]. OK, and 'given' that, what "force" do you
suggest the US President use and, Ben being Ben, quite possibly says to
the US President, a diplomatic albeit bottom line rhetorical translation
of "Piss off!". Then what?
Kindly recall that 'I' am the one saying that this 'anti-Semitic' label
business has to be put to bed if any real progress is to be made in the
Middle East. And 'I' am the one saying that it is in fact time for
'realistic' interventions in the Middle East but, alas, if such
interventions are resisted, well, what "force" do you suggest? I suggest
that even with-holding further aid to Israel could be a consideration
if such a move could lead to Israeli cooperation and a modification of
their Gaza policy but other than that trump card since Israel is so
dependent on the United States for financial [et al] assistance, well
what other kind of 'force' are you thinking about?
Indeed, in your recitation, although I saw no difference in your comment
than that of my own and which was made 'prior' to your own comment, you
say, "... what's needed is an overall regional settlement, a Congress of
Vienna to resolve all the issues." I have absolutely no problem with
that, Hunter! GETTING THAT goal is the problem! But it's the specific
'how to' that you fail to spell out. You then launch into a spiel that
says, at least to me, that the 'problem' is even deeper than Gaza which
is my focus at present but you extend the matter by alluding to, and I
quote, "Israel's dominant political influence in Washington" [sic] and
you talk of "... the obscene wealth involved and despite the disgusting
tactics which have corrupted our Congress ... ." In other words, Hunter,
you apparently seek a 'cure' not just for the relief of Gaza but
clearly, I say clearly, as you see it, an even greater problem of
Israeli political influence which, of course, is a separate issue from
Gaza. But then, addressing that issue, what would you do to, shall we
say, rectify the matter? Don't give me tome recitations, give me what
'you' would do for the 'cure' and exactly what 'force' to be used in the
matter of Gaza. I note in one of your posts that you'd 'volunteer' to
write the speeches and all that but then you tend to render speeches
well enough in Usenet where I'm looking for specifics. What 'force' and
other than my own comment that 'getting tough' would not preclude a
with-holding of yearly support to Israel in order to seek regional
stabilization for 'all' the parties involved. OTHER than that, what do
'you' propose? Specifically. And, yes, I read your conjured up Obama on
TV with the "American Plan" thing but, bottom line, that bit of rhetoric
ended with the words, "At bottom line Israel needs American cooperation
on myriad matters if it's going to stay puffed as if a great power."
FLASH, Hunter -- I believe the Israelis already know that! And still the
stalemate continues in the Middle East! So now what?
To me, the biggest bargaining chip, if you will, is continued American
aid to Israel which counts in the billions! That is fact! It can also be
used in an attempt to obtain a conciliation of certain Israeli policies
relative to Gaza and regional stability. Perhaps not, but it is a strong
motivation. Other than that, I'm not sure what further 'force' can be
brought to bear unless you have additional ideas or indeed, contact
Obama yourself and share same and perhaps get an invite to meet and eat,
as they say, while fulfilling your stated "ambition" [sic] to also meet
and pet 'Bo', the 'First Dog' !
Doc Tony
;-)
[and then ...]
Hunter: "Bo! C'mere, fellah! Bo! BO!" [** pauses and ponders the matter
when 'Bo' [the First Dog] won't approach him ... the 'light' then glows,
dimly, but glows, as Hunter then goes with his gut feeling ... ] "YO BO!
WAZZZUPPPPP, DOG!"
Al "not personally involved�" Smith [who accompanied Hunter since Hunter
thinks so highly of Al. Al hears Hunter's bellowed comment to 'Bo' which
brings silence to the room and Al suddenly pulls a 'Peter' from the old
"JC Superstar" album when told from a rather commanding voice, "You're
the one who came here with Hunter, didn't you, well, didn't you!" as Al,
being Al, quickly makes with ...] : "I DON'T KNOW HIM!" [!]
A sudden chorus is heard! "Alllllll [!] , don't you knowwwwww what you
just saiddddddddd..... you've gone and calllllllled him deaddddddddd."
Smith: [crooning now ...]: "I had to do it, don't you seeeeeeeeeee ...
or else they'd go for meeeeeeeeeeeee."
[great album, that one. Get this, I found it on Ebay, absolutely mint, 2
LP's, not a scratch to be found and WITH the full rock opera libretto
and a mint cover. $15 with shipping!]
;-)
WOT' THE ...
Why it's "Papagei�" Ebe gazing at the Movement� HQ bust of the F�hrer!
"Papagei�" Ebe: [also crooning .....] : " Every time I look at you, I
don't understandddddddd .. why you let the things you did get so out of
hannnnnnnnnd .... ."
coaste...@yahoo.com
Let me know if you recover from what looks like terminal self-
absorbtion and frivolity.
Doc Tony
Well, at the rate you're blowing off various posters, I would say it
won't be too long before you're talking to yourself .. but then, I get
the distinct feeling that's exactly what you've been doing for some
years now. You 'do' understand, Hunter, once the old snip or 'clip'
routine begins, somewhat akin to the tactics of CrackpotŽ Freddy Berg
just prior to his hitting the canvas for the 10-count, you de facto
shoot yourself in both feet.
However, your reaction in terms of the blow-off is precisely the kind of
thing that other parties face in the Middle East and that's why the
thing has continued for 62 years without viable progress. You only prove
to me how human nature, and as I stated, always remains a factor in
human interactions and/or interventions.
Anyway, Hunter, good luck but I suggest the Timmy Leary thing is not in
your best interests.
Doc Tony
;-)
WOT' THE ...... I SIMPLY DON'T BELIEVE IT!
"Bo", the "First Dog" [pulls a 'Stephen' from the "Braveheart" [1995]
flick and begins to speak! About Hunter!]: "I didn't like him anyway ...
he wasn't right ... in the head!"
;-)
The Voice: "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!"
;-)
coaste...@yahoo.com
> iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 9:04 pm, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> > Let me know if you recover from what looks like terminal self-
> > absorbtion and frivolity.
>
> Well, at the rate you're blowing off various posters,
I don't suffer fools gladly.
I would say it
> won't be too long before you're talking to yourself ..
"Talking" to myself is perfectly fine if I'm read.
but then, I get
> the distinct feeling that's exactly what you've been doing for some
> years now. You 'do' understand, Hunter, once the old snip or 'clip'
> routine begins, somewhat akin to the tactics of Crackpot® Freddy Berg
> just prior to his hitting the canvas for the 10-count, you de facto
> shoot yourself in both feet.
You're not going to waste my time, Doc.
> However, your reaction in terms of the blow-off is precisely the kind of
> thing that other parties face in the Middle East and that's why the
> thing has continued for 62 years without viable progress. You only prove
> to me how human nature, and as I stated, always remains a factor in
> human interactions and/or interventions.
Platitudinous frippery.
> Anyway, Hunter, good luck but I suggest the Timmy Leary thing is not in
> your best interests.
I once spent an hour with Mr. Leary in a snowed-in airport. He had
apparently given a speech at a local university. He didn't handle
frank observations about his MO very well either.
>
> Doc Tony
> ;-)
coaste...@yahoo.com
Hey, Nefesh! Do you have dual citizenship?
NefeshBarYochai
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes I'm a dual National unlike you who is a common idiot and imbecile
uncapable of being inteligent enough to hol dula nationality.
Somebody should shot you.
Doc Tony
> icono...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> On Jun 7, 9:04 pm, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Let me know if you recover from what looks like terminal self-
>> absorbtion and frivolity.
>
>
>
> Well, at the rate you're blowing off various posters, I would say it
> won't be too long before you're talking to yourself .. but then, I get
> the distinct feeling that's exactly what you've been doing for some
> years now. You 'do' understand, Hunter, once the old snip or 'clip'
> shoot yourself in both feet.
>
> However, your reaction in terms of the blow-off is precisely the kind of
> thing that other parties face in the Middle East and that's why the
> thing has continued for 62 years without viable progress. You only prove
> to me how human nature, and as I stated, always remains a factor in
> human interactions and/or interventions.
>
> Anyway, Hunter, good luck but I suggest the Timmy Leary thing is not in
> your best interests.
>
>
> Doc Tony
> ;-)
>
>
>
> WOT' THE ...... I SIMPLY DON'T BELIEVE IT!
>
>
> "Bo", the "First Dog" [pulls a 'Stephen' from the "Braveheart" [1995]
> flick and begins to speak! About Hunter!]: "I didn't like him anyway ...
> he wasn't right ... in the head!"
>
> ;-)
>
> The Voice: "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!"
>
>
> ;-)
Comes now, "Doc ... the "Timmy Leary thing" ? Do you satirically suggest
that HHW [sic, AKA 'Hunter'] is into psychedelic drugs?"
Response: More analogous to Timmy's old bromide of "TUNE IN! TURN ON!
DROP OUT!" [sic -- Timothy Leary] where Hunter, shall we say, 'tunes in'
to Usenet, 'turns on' the rhetoric and then, when merely pressed for
'specifics' versus tome or article schleps or using the word "force"
[sic] the Israelis to "stop this nonsense" [sic], opts to 'drop out' via
the blowoff gambit. And hardly limited to myself either. In effect,
Hunter makes with the track shoes! It might be a temporary situation but
time will tell. Ironically, on some fundamental issues, we were in
agreement but "force", per se, has its limitations. That's where the
discussion ended.
Doc Tony
;-)
[and then .... ]
Hunter [pulls an ad hoc 'Colonel Saito' from the classic flick, "The
Bridge on the River Kwai" [1957] when Col. Saito [** Sessue Hayakawa]
was commenting to the UK doctor, Major Clipton [** James Donald] on Col.
Nicholson [** Alec Guinness], to wit ... ]: "Doc Tony is quite mad, you
know!" [!]
Al "not personally involved®" Smith: "Ohhhhhh, tell me about it, 'H'!
He's no better than all those other anti-revisionist "pathetic fu..."
[sic], ehhhh, I mean, other anti-revisionist posters where it's simply
best to utilize the plonk and filter [!] gamb..ehhh..technique in
dealing with them! That's what I do and it certainly works for me! I say
what I want to say and don't have to deal with pesky questions or
challenges or demands for any proof! If I didn't believe it myself, I
wouldn't say it to begin with! What's to prove!"
"Papagei®" Ebe: "Al is right, Hunter! Plonk and filter! The only way to
go! Ignore the 'pests' and life in Usenet becomes rather enjoyable! In
any event, let me welcome you to our side [!] and simply say to you,
Hunter, on behalf of the Movement® and [it just slips out!] im Namen des
Führers [! -- 'In the name of the Führer'], ehhh, hahahahahaha, I
embrace you!"
Hunter: "Why thank you, Ebe!"
Ebe: [** OH-OH!]: "Ehhhh, the name I prefer is 'Johannes von Ebersdorf',
not 'Ebe' !"
Hunter: "Ohhhhh! Of course, ehhhh, Johannes."
[later ....]
Hunter: [to Al Smith]: "What was that German comment that
Ebe..ehhh...Johannes made to me?"
Smith: "Do you know any German, 'H'?"
Hunter: "No, I don't."
Smith: [mumbling under his breath now....]: "There's a friggin' break,"
Hunter: [the cupped palm to the ear thing ...]: "What's that? I didn't
hear you, Al. Can you repeat that?"
Smith: "Ehhhh, I said, [pipes up at least an octave now], MAKE NO
MISTAKE, 'H', that's not a problem, neither do I! Hahahaha. [pauses]
Ebe..ehhh..Johannes was merely welcoming you with a, ehhh, once very
common German wordage greeting." [!]
Hunter. "Oh, I see. Well, that's rather nice of him."
;-)
Readers! Mark me! "Papagei®" Ebe and his tag team partner, Al "not
personally involved®" Smith, 'will' publicly comment to Hunter on the
blow off! Watch and see!
[meanwhile ....]
"Papagei®" Ebe: [to Smith]: "Run a check on this Hunter Watson poster.
Let me know 'immediately' if he carries any "filthy Poles or Czechs"
[sic --Ebe] blood or whether he resides in any of those "allied NATO
nation stooges" [sic -- Ebe] nations and especially if he is just
another of those American "blood thirsty savages whose nation should be
nuked from the face of the earth" [sic -- Ebe]. We must be careful these
days until the day comes when [** Ohhhh myyyyyy, Ebe is working up
another froth again!] "the BRD [** Bundesrepublik Deutschland] should go
the way of the DDR and disappear" [sic -- Ebe] and then, THEN, Al,
ohhhhhhhh can you just picture it in your mind, the sham BRD finally
"replaced" [sic --Ebe] and ... [begins to revert forthwith] als Herr
Streicher [!] .. gesagt hat .. ja .. [booming now], "EIN 'VOLK', DAS
NICHTS AUF DIE REINHEIT SEINER RASSE HÄLT, GEHT ZUGRUNDE!" [** 'A
people that does not protect its racial purity, will perish!'
[literally, 'go to ground'].
;-)
Doc Tony
> On Jun 7, 10:15 pm, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>>iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 7, 9:04 pm, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Let me know if you recover from what looks like terminal self-
>>>absorbtion and frivolity.
>>
>>Well, at the rate you're blowing off various posters,
>
>
> I don't suffer fools gladly.
In other words, you reviewed your blowoff to me, knew that you botched
it royally, did some ad hoc self-introspection, and decided to in fact
stop playing the fool and return. Good! That out of the why, and your
'confession' noted, what else ....
>
>> I would say it
>
>>won't be too long before you're talking to yourself ..
>
>
> "Talking" to myself is perfectly fine if I'm read.
Not much to read tho' when your entire 'repertoire' to various posters,
including myself, consists of a 'clip' notation and a blowoff! Then you
merely suffer the fool within yourself and thereby let the entity
dictate to you the way to go, yes? Hardly in your best interests not to
mention embarrassing. This way, and by returning, you attempt to redeem
yourself and, shall we say, "stop this nonsense" [sic] that you duly
attribute to Israel.
>
>> but then, I get
>
>>the distinct feeling that's exactly what you've been doing for some
>>years now. You 'do' understand, Hunter, once the old snip or 'clip'
>>routine begins, somewhat akin to the tactics of Crackpot� Freddy Berg
>>just prior to his hitting the canvas for the 10-count, you de facto
>>shoot yourself in both feet.
>
>
> You're not going to waste my time, Doc.
>
Lame, Hunter, because 'you' are the one returning after a publicly
pronounced blowoff, not me. Shades of the ol' 'killfile' gambit where
with certain posters their killfile has a tendency to keep popping out
certain killfiled posters and then the killfile gambit begins all over
again. Readers see though that gambit easily enough but it doesn't stop
it from reoccurring. Now here, in the instant matter, you render a
public blowoff to me and then within 13 hours, you show up again. Hey,
fine with me that you return but what does that say and/or suggest about
you to the readers, yes?
>
>>However, your reaction in terms of the blow-off is precisely the kind of
>>thing that other parties face in the Middle East and that's why the
>>thing has continued for 62 years without viable progress. You only prove
>>to me how human nature, and as I stated, always remains a factor in
>>human interactions and/or interventions.
>
>
> Platitudinous frippery.
>
But which still garnered the read ... and a response. On the other hand,
if you dismiss human nature itself as not being an important
consideration in human interactions and interventions, then I suggest
you've spent far too much time dwelling on and hawking the 'findings'
and 'wares' of 'others' rather than dealing in human behavior realities.
In effect, less knee-jerk stuff and more gray matter pondering. And on
tomes and article schleps, you should certainly know by now that for
every comment by 'X' in a given tome or article, there exists a totally
opposite POV by 'Y' with 'Z' sometimes showing up and 'borrowing' from
both!
>
>>Anyway, Hunter, good luck but I suggest the Timmy Leary thing is not in
>>your best interests.
>
>
> I once spent an hour with Mr. Leary in a snowed-in airport. He had
> apparently given a speech at a local university. He didn't handle
> frank observations about his MO very well either.
>
That hour must have made an impression on you, particularly on the value
of 'dropping out' when you're holding a questionable and/or losing hand.
Anyway, Hunter, I seem to recall a post you did to another poster where
besides indicating you were in your 8th decade, there was a comment
along the lines of "... and I will not return until ... ", what was this
in reference to? Are you presently living abroad which is the impression
I got from your comment to this poster. And if so, why is that?
Doc Tony
;-)
[suddenly ... ]
'Papagei�' Ebe: [noting Hunter's return, 'post blowoff', as it were. Ebe
is angry and reverts forthwith!]: "VERR�TER!" [** 'Traitor!']
Don't mind, Ebe, Hunter, he tends to get emotional over these things.
>>Doc Tony
>>;-)
>
>
Doc Tony
> Doc Tony wrote:
>
>> icono...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 7, 9:04 pm, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Let me know if you recover from what looks like terminal self-
>>> absorbtion and frivolity.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, at the rate you're blowing off various posters, I would say it
>> won't be too long before you're talking to yourself .. but then, I get
>> the distinct feeling that's exactly what you've been doing for some
>> years now. You 'do' understand, Hunter, once the old snip or 'clip'
> [sic], ehhhh, I mean, other anti-revisionist posters where it's simply
> best to utilize the plonk and filter [!] gamb..ehhh..technique in
> dealing with them! That's what I do and it certainly works for me! I say
> what I want to say and don't have to deal with pesky questions or
> challenges or demands for any proof! If I didn't believe it myself, I
> wouldn't say it to begin with! What's to prove!"
>
> any event, let me welcome you to our side [!] and simply say to you,
> F�ｿｽhrers [! -- 'In the name of the F�ｿｽhrer'], ehhh, hahahahahaha, I
>
> Hunter: "Why thank you, Ebe!"
>
> Ebe: [** OH-OH!]: "Ehhhh, the name I prefer is 'Johannes von Ebersdorf',
> not 'Ebe' !"
>
> Hunter: "Ohhhhh! Of course, ehhhh, Johannes."
>
> [later ....]
>
>
> Hunter: [to Al Smith]: "What was that German comment that
> Ebe..ehhh...Johannes made to me?"
>
> Smith: "Do you know any German, 'H'?"
>
> Hunter: "No, I don't."
>
>
> Hunter: [the cupped palm to the ear thing ...]: "What's that? I didn't
> hear you, Al. Can you repeat that?"
>
> Smith: "Ehhhh, I said, [pipes up at least an octave now], MAKE NO
> MISTAKE, 'H', that's not a problem, neither do I! Hahahaha. [pauses]
> Ebe..ehhh..Johannes was merely welcoming you with a, ehhh, once very
> common German wordage greeting." [!]
>
> Hunter. "Oh, I see. Well, that's rather nice of him."
>
>
> ;-)
>
>
> personally involved�ｿｽ" Smith, 'will' publicly comment to Hunter on the
>
>
> [meanwhile ....]
>
> [sic --Ebe] blood or whether he resides in any of those "allied NATO
> nation stooges" [sic -- Ebe] nations and especially if he is just
> another of those American "blood thirsty savages whose nation should be
> nuked from the face of the earth" [sic -- Ebe]. We must be careful these
> days until the day comes when [** Ohhhh myyyyyy, Ebe is working up
> another froth again!] "the BRD [** Bundesrepublik Deutschland] should go
> the way of the DDR and disappear" [sic -- Ebe] and then, THEN, Al,
> ohhhhhhhh can you just picture it in your mind, the sham BRD finally
> "replaced" [sic --Ebe] and ... [begins to revert forthwith] als Herr
> Streicher [!] .. gesagt hat .. ja .. [booming now], "EIN 'VOLK', DAS
> [literally, 'go to ground'].
>
>
> ;-)
** I've been receiving a rather heavy increase in email of late and
while I have no problem with this, I urge writers of same to make their
remarks public. As I said, I rarely get complaints on the satiric bits
because the satiric framework incorporates the 'sic' or 'as written'
wares of the individual in question AND which can be readily verified in
the AR archives. That's one good thing about Usenet, it's not like a BBS
system where comment rolls off the webpage and is lost into the ether,
as it were. There is always a permanent record which occasionally can
serve as a handy memory jogger when certain folks claim, as one Richard
"It Now Comes Back�ｿｽ" Philips use to do when confronted with his own
wares and suddenly he didn't recall ever making such remarks until the
original remarks were produced from the archives. After Richard, and
more than once, making with the "It now comes back" [sic] thing, upon
being 'shown' his own wares from the archives, I gave Richard that AR
moniker!
And to 'D' --- no, I have 'never' used foul language against any poster.
Ever. If it becomes necessary to defend myself, I have various modes of
response, including the satiric. Indeed, a poster, if they are of a mind
to, can send me a public post calling me every foul name in the book,
and thensome, but in response, and anyone who knows me, hey, it would
'never' be answered with like-worded stuff. That's simply not my way.
Further, and in response to one email, no, I am 'not' a religious
subscriber but I have 'never' done a satire or 'poked fun' either in
Usenet or commercially on the matter of religion. There are some posters
who 'do' as when "Papagei�ｿｽ" Ebe publicly announced that 'anyone' who
holds 'any' form of religious beliefs are engaging in "myth and fairy
tales" [sic] and "you simply can not reason with these people because
their [religious] beliefs trump all logic and reasoning" [sic]. Here,
and this you can trace in print when I did a published and compensated
piece on my 'ghostly mentor', H.L. Mencken, in his 'very own', and until
it folded when the 'Baltimore Sun' was taken over by new management,
anyway, "The Evening Sun" [Baltimore], I wrote the piece and a lady in
Baltimore wrote to me saying, and I quote, "Why you're just as godless
and sinful as he [** Mencken] was but I will remember you both in my
novenas and pray for your salvation." [sic]. I thanked the lady
profusely for her concern and that was the end of the matter.
I write satire professionally both under my own name and two commercial
AKA's. I also do social and political commentary. A good percentage of
the satiric work is 'ghosted' for others and while that deprives me of
additional by-lines as the author, it pays rather well. Obviously, I
enjoy satire because it has the advantage of 'making point' and doing so
in a rather unique way. When it is constructed using 'sic' material,
well, it's simply an alternative to the cited chapter and verse
material, and which I've also done, to be sure, but satire is generally
only relegated as "invective" to those so targeted but, hey, it's
'their' public wares that I focus on. If there are guffaws, often such
guffaws are built-in, not by me, but rather by virtue of what was said
by the initiator of such comment! As for using flick or indeed actual
historical wordage, well, these are generally based on the 'well known'
wares of the target and over a number of years. On the other hand, I
could less about 'side' in an O/T [** OFF-TOPIC] exchange. Be civil to
me and the civility is returned and in O/T mode [which I've engaged in
with many revisionists], 'all' reference to newsgroup theme or any
"on-theme" differences are temporarily suspended. I've done various O/T
exchanges with all sorts of posters, side aside, where the topics have
ranged from aviation [both the real McCoy albeit generally limited to
"SEL' stuff and flight simulation], music, the piano, the guitar,
amateur radio, computers, international travel and current airfare
rates, you-name-it. I've had no problems. I've said often enough, even
in the most tightly knit of 'families' [!], there will always exist
differences of view or so-called "sensitive subjects" where even among
one's own family, certain themes or issues can have the proverbial 180
degree opposition, so why would it be any different in a Usenet forum
with total strangers! Put simply, I 'write off' no-one. If they write me
off, hey, there is nothing I can do about it in any event! And so be
it. I don't do "we vs them" scenarios, I take each keyboard, if you
will, as a separate entity, and nym or no nym, and go from there. If
they get nasty, I deal with it but in my own way and let the readers
make the call.
Doc Tony
;-)
"I did run into this old Jew and he did ask me if I did feel any regret
for 'what did happen to the Jews during the war' [!] ... I did tell him
to fu** off!" [sic -- Kurt "alte Puppe�ｿｽ" Knoll] ** This was one of
Kurt's 'Canadian' yarns.
;-)
coaste...@yahoo.com
So, you get to be a "dula" national because you're Jewish? And I can't
because I'm only Irish? How come, Nefefsh?
Tell us know, If Israel attacks the U.S., which side will you be on?
Will you deffend the U.S. against her Israeli enemy?
coaste...@yahoo.com
Of course I did. You haven't replied to them. There were something
like ten of the. Where've you been?
You were rather light on that
> one so could you indicate some specifics? What "force" when Ben and
> company make with their, as 'you' phrase it, a "very tough brand of bare
> knuckle politics" [sic]. OK, and 'given' that, what "force" do you
> suggest the US President use and, Ben being Ben, quite possibly says to
> the US President, a diplomatic albeit bottom line rhetorical translation
> of "Piss off!". Then what?
> Kindly recall that 'I' am the one saying that this 'anti-Semitic' label
> business has to be put to bed if any real progress is to be made in the
> Middle East.
We agree on that but it's not important in the short term.
And 'I' am the one saying that it is in fact time for
> 'realistic' interventions in the Middle East but, alas, if such
> interventions are resisted, well, what "force" do you suggest? I suggest
> that even with-holding further aid to Israel could be a consideration
> if such a move could lead to Israeli cooperation and a modification of
> their Gaza policy but other than that trump card since Israel is so
> dependent on the United States for financial [et al] assistance, well
> what other kind of 'force' are you thinking about?
You didn't read the post all the way through.
>
> Indeed, in your recitation, although I saw no difference in your comment
> than that of my own and which was made 'prior' to your own comment, you
> say, "... what's needed is an overall regional settlement, a Congress of
> Vienna to resolve all the issues." I have absolutely no problem with
> that, Hunter! GETTING THAT goal is the problem! But it's the specific
> 'how to' that you fail to spell out.
You didn't read the whole post.
You then launch into a spiel that
> says, at least to me, that the 'problem' is even deeper than Gaza which
> is my focus at present but you extend the matter by alluding to, and I
> quote, "Israel's dominant political influence in Washington" [sic] and
> you talk of "... the obscene wealth involved and despite the disgusting
> tactics which have corrupted our Congress ... ." In other words, Hunter,
> you apparently seek a 'cure' not just for the relief of Gaza but
> clearly, I say clearly, as you see it, an even greater problem of
> Israeli political influence which, of course, is a separate issue from
> Gaza.
Not separate at all. But it's only one aspect of the core issues They
can't be solved piecemeal.
But then, addressing that issue, what would you do to, shall we
> say, rectify the matter? Don't give me tome recitations, give me what
> 'you' would do for the 'cure' and exactly what 'force' to be used in the
> matter of Gaza. I note in one of your posts that you'd 'volunteer' to
> write the speeches and all that but then you tend to render speeches
> well enough in Usenet where I'm looking for specifics.
You're ignoring the substance of my post which contained something
like ten specific new departures which I would implement were I
empowered. You don't evaluate them. What's your purpose here. You
asked me to give you my views. You're running around in circles trying
to get personal. What's going on, Doc?
What 'force' and
> other than my own comment that 'getting tough' would not preclude a
> with-holding of yearly support to Israel in order to seek regional
> stabilization for 'all' the parties involved.
The Congress can do nothing. It is intimidated. Only the Executive can
accomplish fundamental change in the nature of our relationship with
Israel. I've explained how it can be done. You don't respond. At this
point I don't know whether it's because you didn't expect the nature
of the response you solicited from me or that you never intended to
respond in the first place, i.e., that everyghing you do here is
basically bullshit. Or maybe you're just not serious about these
issues.
OTHER than that, what do
> 'you' propose? Specifically.
Why do you put you in quotes? I've already given you my proposals
specifically, with rather brutal candor as a matter of fact.
And, yes, I read your conjured up Obama on
> TV with the "American Plan" thing but, bottom line, that bit of rhetoric
> ended with the words, "At bottom line Israel needs American cooperation
> on myriad matters if it's going to stay puffed as if a great power."
> FLASH, Hunter -- I believe the Israelis already know that! And still the
> stalemate continues in the Middle East! So now what?
It's not a matter of them knowing THAT. It's a matter of withdrawal
of the cooperation which is the gist of what I saids to you. Why don't
you respond on the merits?
>
> To me, the biggest bargaining chip, if you will, is continued American
> aid to Israel which counts in the billions!
Yes it does, but you seem not to be aware that money bills arise in
Congress, not the Executive. As to the legislative process he most
Obama can do is veto them. The problem with that is that the Israel
Lobby has the clout to override the veto. That's why I focus on
Administrative measures, things for which the President does not
require Congressional approval.
That is fact! It can also be
> used in an attempt to obtain a conciliation of certain Israeli policies
> relative to Gaza and regional stability. Perhaps not, but it is a strong
> motivation. Other than that, I'm not sure what further 'force' can be
> brought to bear unless you have additional ideas......
I gave you something like ten of them. Perhaps you simply didn't
understand them.
or indeed, contact
> Obama yourself and share same and perhaps get an invite to meet and eat,
> as they say, while fulfilling your stated "ambition" [sic] to also meet
> and pet 'Bo', the 'First Dog' !
>
> Doc Tony
> ;-)
>
> [and then ...]
>
> Hunter: "Bo! C'mere, fellah! Bo! BO!" [** pauses and ponders the matter
> when 'Bo' [the First Dog] won't approach him ... the 'light' then glows,
> dimly, but glows, as Hunter then goes with his gut feeling ... ] "YO BO!
> WAZZZUPPPPP, DOG!"
>
> Al "not personally involved�" Smith [who accompanied Hunter since Hunter
> thinks so highly of Al. Al hears Hunter's bellowed comment to 'Bo' which
> brings silence to the room and Al suddenly pulls a 'Peter' from the old
> "JC Superstar" album when told from a rather commanding voice, "You're
> the one who came here with Hunter, didn't you, well, didn't you!" as Al,
> being Al, quickly makes with ...] : "I DON'T KNOW HIM!" [!]
>
> A sudden chorus is heard! "Alllllll [!] , don't you knowwwwww what you
> just saiddddddddd..... you've gone and calllllllled him deaddddddddd."
>
> Smith: [crooning now ...]: "I had to do it, don't you seeeeeeeeeee ...
> or else they'd go for meeeeeeeeeeeee."
>
> [great album, that one. Get this, I found it on Ebay, absolutely mint, 2
> LP's, not a scratch to be found and WITH the full rock opera libretto
> and a mint cover. $15 with shipping!]
>
> ;-)
>
> WOT' THE ...
>
> Why it's "Papagei�" Ebe gazing at the Movement� HQ bust of the F�hrer!
>
> "Papagei�" Ebe: [also crooning .....] : " Every time I look at you, I
> don't understandddddddd .. why you let the things you did get so out of
> hannnnnnnnnd .... ."
Yeah, yeah. Frivolous, Doc.
NefeshBarYochai
>
> - Show quoted text -
Unlike you, I'm not a brainwashed dolt. I will always be on the side
of good, that fights the battles of the God of Avraham, Isaac, Jacob,
Israel, the twelve tribes of Israel and David King of Israel, no
matter where I am at. When I was on active duty in the U.S.M.C. and
even now I always pray from my siddur that is for Jewish Personnel in
the Armed Forces of the United States if America. That way I know
that HaShem will keep me well and alive.
You on the other hand are a treacherous traitor that should be
executed at the leisure of what ever government you are destroying.
Doc Tony
Hunter, fess up, are you on the hash or crack pipe or the sauce? We BOTH
arrive at the conclusion that it may be necessary to with-hold aid to
Israel if that is what it takes to get things moving yet you go on and
on about the TV "American Plan" thing and assorted rhetoric about what
the President can do YET in one swoop you say above, "... money bills
arise in the Congress, not the Executive" and thus that becomes a
problem because you say the Israeli lobby will take care of that but
what other specific things can Obama do that you supposedly listed? I
don't see them other than the conjured 'major speech' thing --- is THAT
your cure in your post of 6-5-2010 time stamped 11:57PM [US --EST].
Perhaps you reference another of your posts! So in the conjured Obama
"American Plan" thing, you speak for Obama but then you talk about
things 'you' would do if 'you' were so 'empowered' -- where is it! Or is
the Obama thing actually you, is that it? Including the FDR-like
'fireside chats' and your "volunteering to write the speeches" including
the part where "Israel stiffing us as they have over these many decades"
-- is this your proposal? Shades of "Fail Safe", you know, Henry Fonda
hearing, "Is that your proposal, Mr. President, one American for 10
million Russians?"
Now I 'did' see your wind-up, and repeating for a 2nd time, "At bottom
line Israel needs American cooperation on myriad matters if it's going
to stay puffed as if a great power" but there you're just stating the
obvious!
Tell you what, let's simplify matters, instead of conjecturing what
Obama should do, what specifically would 'you' do to bring about a
lasting peace in the Middle East. And how do you "force" Ben Netanyahu
and company to comply with your demands if he is unwilling to do so? In
effect, Hunter, what is the cure to 62 years of ongoing Middle East
problems that have yet to be abated?
Doc Tony
;-)
PS: Get back to me on that other matter, you know, your comment some
weeks ago to another poster about your age and "... I will not return
until .. " -- Return where? Are you living abroad or what?
Watch now!
Alex "Muleschlep�" Vangel [Topaz]: "Ummmm, like, I don't think it's fair
for Doc Tony to ask Uncle Hunter if he's living with some 'broad' [!] or
not!"
Al "not personally involved�" Smith: "ABROAD, dumbo! ABROAD!"
Vangel: "That's what I said, Uncle Al! What business is that of Doc Tony
or anybody else!"
;-)
Remember, Vangel 'speaks' for revisionism! Including the recommendation
[** Ohhh yes!] that revisionists 'embrace' Osama bin Laden [!] as a
"revisionist ally" [sic] on the basis of, as Vangel put it, "he don't
like Jews either." [sic] !
;-)
> or indeed, contact
>
>>Obama yourself and share same and perhaps get an invite to meet and eat,
>>as they say, while fulfilling your stated "ambition" [sic] to also meet
>>and pet 'Bo', the 'First Dog' !
>>
>>Doc Tony
>>;-)
>>
>>[and then ...]
>>
>>Hunter: "Bo! C'mere, fellah! Bo! BO!" [** pauses and ponders the matter
>>when 'Bo' [the First Dog] won't approach him ... the 'light' then glows,
>>dimly, but glows, as Hunter then goes with his gut feeling ... ] "YO BO!
>>WAZZZUPPPPP, DOG!"
>>
>>Al "not personally involved�" Smith [who accompanied Hunter since Hunter
>>thinks so highly of Al. Al hears Hunter's bellowed comment to 'Bo' which
>>brings silence to the room and Al suddenly pulls a 'Peter' from the old
>>"JC Superstar" album when told from a rather commanding voice, "You're
>>the one who came here with Hunter, didn't you, well, didn't you!" as Al,
>>being Al, quickly makes with ...] : "I DON'T KNOW HIM!" [!]
>>
>>A sudden chorus is heard! "Alllllll [!] , don't you knowwwwww what you
>>just saiddddddddd..... you've gone and calllllllled him deaddddddddd."
>>
>>Smith: [crooning now ...]: "I had to do it, don't you seeeeeeeeeee ...
>>or else they'd go for meeeeeeeeeeeee."
>>
>>[great album, that one. Get this, I found it on Ebay, absolutely mint, 2
>>LP's, not a scratch to be found and WITH the full rock opera libretto
>>and a mint cover. $15 with shipping!]
>>
>>;-)
>>
>>WOT' THE ...
>>
>>Why it's "Papagei�" Ebe gazing at the Movement� HQ bust of the F�hrer!
>>
>>"Papagei�" Ebe: [also crooning .....] : " Every time I look at you, I
coaste...@yahoo.com
Please explain how it is that you believe I am a traitor and should be
executed? I'm quite sure I don't agree with you.
Tell us, Nefesh, given your experience is this the view of most Jews
who serve in the American military? Is it the view of Jews generally,
i.e., their primary loyalty being with Israel?
coaste...@yahoo.com
> iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I gave you something like ten of them. Perhaps you simply didn't
> > understand them.
>
> Hunter, fess up, are you on the hash or crack pipe or the sauce?
Doc, fess up, you're lying about being a writer. You're definitely an
asshole, but no writer. I'd like to evaluate your allegedly serious,
or shall we say, legitimate writing. I don't think you're capable of
it. How about a link? Bullshit walks and you reek of it.
You asked for these opinions as to how to move the ME problems
forward. Now you won't respond. Here they are again. If you weren't
serious just say so. If you were, deliver up a competent critique.
"Let's presume that Barak Obama has the right stuff. Here's what old
Hunter would have him do to begin sending the correct message to the
Zionist activists and the rest of our Jewish community--and
incidentally to Israel herself.
"It would begin with a major speech in prime time, hyped as if it
At bottom line Israel needs American cooperation on myriad matters if
Doc Tony
> On Jun 8, 10:09 pm, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>>iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I gave you something like ten of them. Perhaps you simply didn't
>>>understand them.
>>
>>Hunter, fess up, are you on the hash or crack pipe or the sauce?
>
>
> Doc, fess up, you're lying about being a writer. You're definitely an
> asshole, but no writer. I'd like to evaluate your allegedly serious,
> or shall we say, legitimate writing. I don't think you're capable of
> it. How about a link? Bullshit walks and you reek of it.
>
Ah, a nerve has been struck! That alone validates my claim. But then,
Hunter, and noting your rather full plate with other posters who I must
admit, have you aptly pegged, you seemingly 'are' on the pipe and a lush
to boot, yes? Because now you 'sound' and 'act' like one while
concurrently whining like a wounded water buffalo. If you don't believe
anything I've said as to my satiric or other AKA or satiric ghost
writing for others, absolutely not a problem, and you are free to
believe or disbelieve as you wish as you don't sign any of my checks.
And if bullsh** walks, Hunter, then you, of all people, would certainly
be an authority on that matter as I get the impression, including your
on and off blow-off scenarios both with me and others, that you
literally wallow in same but have simply become immune to the stench and
drone on accordingly.
Anyway, what have you got ....
Assessment: And other than the quite possible 'pipe' and 'sauce' ---
your real axe to grind, Hunter, is with the Jews. And it shows. Palpably
so. Even the articles you drag in are seriously one-sided and duly
geared to fit your agenda. This was obvious to me when you abandoned
Gaza and instead launched a diatribe on Jewish power in the sense that
'all' the problems in the Middle East are the cause of the Jews and the
other side are mere victims and have done no wrong whatsoever rather
than my own assessment that 'both' sides are worthy of ample criticisms.
But your agenda seems to be that if the Jews are essentially told to
frig off and, bottom line, stripped of the lobbying power they have,
all will be well.
Frankly, Hunter, I think you're a whacko. Your 'mission' is not
stabilization in the Middle East, no-no, your 'mission' is to indeed
pine for that "domestic fire storm" [sic] in the USA that you seem to
yearn for as the only way to go and a sort of rhetorical albeit latter
day drool of the ol' "Die Juden sind unser Ungl�ck" ["The Jews are our
misfortune"] rhetoric and 'that' you reek of immensely and which forms
the core of your ravings. I think you should content yourself with the
stated "ambition" of meeting the 'First Dog" and perhaps preach to the
dog about the Jews because humans will see through your game, and your
agenda, almost immediately. Save for those, of course, who share you
view and generally do so with calls of "Nuke Israel!" Tell me, Hunter,
have you ever considered membership in the NSM as 'their' "speech
writer" ? I think you would have saved yourself countless rhetorical
harangues and schleps by simply having said "Jews Out!" at the get-go
and get it over with. Tell you what tho', you may wish to contact
someone like Mike "Objective Investigative Journalist" [sic] Hoffman or
Crackpot� Freddy Berg and run your 'cures' by them which I can assure
you would be quite receptive or, sit down and pen a letter to President
Obama indicating what he should do and then hit him with your offer to
do the speech writing for him. I mean, what's to lose, Hunter, that
you've obviously already lost many years ago.
So too, if you now admit that you in fact are in your 8th decade and
attempt to suggest that you thereby have close some 80 plus years
"experience" in these matters, I would counter and having read your
drool, that you have essentially ONE year's "experience" ... albeit 80
odd times. That's how you come off to me. The quite possible 'pipe' and
'sauce' interventions notwithstanding. Write to Obama, Hunter, but I
suggest Hoffman and Berg first!
Doc Tony
;-)
"Papagei�" Ebe [both hands cupped to the mouth now ...]: "PLONK AND
FILTER! PLONK AND FILTER! "THE ONLY HOPE" [!], 'Kamerad' Hunter!"
;-)
[meanwhile ...]
Al "not personally involved�" Smith: [musing out loud ...]: "WHO in
their right mind would want as a professed "ambition" to meet a friggin'
dog?"
[but still too ...]
Neil "Rewriteman�" Harrington : "Obviously, our new colleague [!],
Kamerad Hunter, was "merely being facetious for purposes of point" [sic]
as when Kamerad Knoll alluded to [** Ohhh yes!] placing his penis in his
ear!" [!]
Crackpot� Freddy Berg: "Well, Hunter is always welcome to contact me. I
mean it's not a "world revolution" [sic --Berg ] that I would much
prefer, but I certainly like his idea of a "domestic firestorm and
political war" [-- Hunter] as a start! And a slogan! Yes, a slogan! How
about, "Hunter Talks, Jews Walk!" [!], what do you think?"
;-)
coaste...@yahoo.com
> iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 10:09 pm, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> >>iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>I gave you something like ten of them. Perhaps you simply didn't
> >>>understand them.
>
> >>Hunter, fess up, are you on the hash or crack pipe or the sauce?
>
> > Doc, fess up, you're lying about being a writer. You're definitely an
> > asshole, but no writer. I'd like to evaluate your allegedly serious,
> > or shall we say, legitimate writing. I don't think you're capable of
> > it. How about a link? Bullshit walks and you reek of it.
>
> Ah, a nerve has been struck!
Where's the writing you claim to be doing?
That alone validates my claim.
Naw, you're validating mine, that you're an asshole but not a writer.
But then,
> Hunter, and noting your rather full plate with other posters who I must
> admit, have you aptly pegged, you seemingly 'are' on the pipe and a lush
> to boot, yes?
An asshole, but no writer. You're a fake, Doc, and the people at
alt.revisionism know it.
Because now you 'sound' and 'act' like one while
> concurrently whining like a wounded water buffalo.
You couldn't write your way out of a paper bag, Doc. You're a fake.
Not only are you no writer, the idea that you're a satirist is
preposterous. What you do is cultivate obscurity by wandering in
circles in plumes of squiddish ink.
If you don't believe
> anything I've said as to my satiric or other AKA or satiric ghost
> writing for others, absolutely not a problem, and you are free to
> believe or disbelieve as you wish as you don't sign any of my checks.
You're imaginary checks, your're puffing-up of a Walter Mitty fantasy.
You're a nobody, Doc.
> And if bullsh** walks,
Afraid of the word "bullshit" are you?
Hunter, then you, of all people, would certainly
> be an authority on that matter as I get the impression, including your
> on and off blow-off scenarios both with me and others, that you
> literally wallow in same but have simply become immune to the stench and
> drone on accordingly.
Where's your professional writing, Doc. You said it was only partially
ghosting. You're described authoritatively on alt.revisionism as a
jerk who writes maddeningly circular screeds. That meets what I've
seen so far.
What you are more than anything else, Doc, is a bore.
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Doc Tony
Hunter, go sleep it off and relax. Bad enough that your froths and drool
reveal the latter stages of senility but why not do as I suggest and
write President Obama with your ideas [!] and your additional offer to
do the speech writing for him and get the ball rolling on that "new
fanged-up government" [sic] and "domestic firestorm" [sic] and see what
happens! Then, if no response, try Hoffman or Berg! But relax and try
not to become too repetitive as this smacks of the frothing buffoon,
your age notwithstanding. Take a swig or a pill or a snort and get a
good night's sleep and I'll dangle the lure tomorrow and after hooking
you as you continue to rave, well, you can provide the gaff[e] as your
reeled in. Again.
Thanks for the read, tho'! It well demonstrates how you can take a
beating and keep on bleating. But then, Hunter, you've always done that
so the real show is watching you unravel yet never do you even think of
even defending against the assessment that was made about you preferring
to rail at me, which is no problem whatsoever, yet what I stated about
you and your agenda remained totally unchallenged. And as the readers
will duly note. Telling, that. But then, that's the plan. My assessment
of you is validated while you froth on and on about why you don't
believe I write professionally. Hey, fine with me, especially since my
assessment of you stands and which is the important matter at hand.
Doc Tony
;-)
Hunter: [now addressing his cat!]: "Hrrrrrrrrrrrrrumph! We both know,
Mittens [!], that 'the Jews are our misfortune', don't we! [pauses]
DON'T WE .... I SAY DON'T WE!"
The cat: "Meowwwwwwwwwwwwww!"
Hunter: "That's more like it! [** can you believe it! Hunter pulls an ad
hoc 'Dobbs' complete with the 'Bogey' accent to boot!] Yes! YES! And
don't you forget it! Hunter H. Watson don't say nothin' he don't mean!"
The cat: "Meowwwwwwwwwwwww!"
Hunter: "Thank you, Mittens! You're the only one who 'understands' !"
;-)
>
>>...
>>
>>read more �
>
>
Doc Tony
>
> Thanks for the read, tho'! It well demonstrates how you can take a
> beating and keep on bleating. But then, Hunter, you've always done that
> so the real show is watching you unravel yet never do you even think of
> you and your agenda remained totally unchallenged. And as the readers
> will duly note. Telling, that. But then, that's the plan. My assessment
> of you is validated while you froth on and on about why you don't
> believe I write professionally. Hey, fine with me, especially since my
> assessment of you stands and which is the important matter at hand.
>
>
> Doc Tony
> ;-)
>
>
> Hunter: [now addressing his cat!]: "Hrrrrrrrrrrrrrumph! We both know,
> Mittens [!], that 'the Jews are our misfortune', don't we! [pauses]
> DON'T WE .... I SAY DON'T WE!"
>
> The cat: "Meowwwwwwwwwwwwww!"
>
> Hunter: "That's more like it! [** can you believe it! Hunter pulls an ad
> hoc 'Dobbs' complete with the 'Bogey' accent to boot!] Yes! YES! And
> don't you forget it! Hunter H. Watson don't say nothin' he don't mean!"
>
> The cat: "Meowwwwwwwwwwwww!"
>
> Hunter: "Thank you, Mittens! You're the only one who 'understands' !"
>
>
> ;-)
>
Comes now, "Really, Doc, isn't the use [to Hunter] of the old Nazi
slogan, 'the Jews are our misfortune', going a bit [** !] far?"
Response: Well, let's look at the facts and the already in-situ public
comments by Hunter. Look at his 'suggestions' and tell me where you see
'any' mention whatsoever of the 'other side' [** Arabs, Palestinians,
Israel's neighbors], and any criticisms of same therein, 'versus' a
rather clear diatribe that the whole situation and problem in the Middle
East is placed squarely and solely ... on the Jews.
My public comment was that there are ample criticisms of 'both' sides or
should I say 'all' sides but Hunter sees the problem and hence the
alleged 'cure' as centering solely with the Jews and Isarel. Read what
he has to say! It's contained in this very post. To me, it's
horrendously one sided and, going further, a clear indication by Hunter
that, in fact, in his mind, and rhetoric, the Jews are, per Hunter, "our
misfortune" and Hunter then spells it out with assorted references to
Abe Foxman [** who I took strong issue with some years ago], Joe
Liberman, AIPAC, the Mossad, Israel's "ideological adventures", et al,
ad infinitum. Not one word tho' or any criticism(s) whatsoever on the
other side of the Middle East dispute. Why is that? More so, when
'Israel' is singled out as the 'sole' "culprit" and the 'sole'
impediment to regional stabilization, what does that suggest to you? To
me, it suggests a biased agenda.
Note too how various of my remarks [** see the original post] are
snipped without notation by Hunter who also launches into a froth about
his disbelief that I write professionally while totally abandoning and
leaving unchallenged my public assessment of him. I've seen this tactic
before. In effect, go for a diversion and froth on and on about that
while the assessment of a particular poster, in this case my assessment
of Hunter, is abandoned. The question is, 'why' is it abandoned! I also
feel that when comment begins to disappear via the old 'snip' or 'clip'
routine, it has not only hit home and concurrently struck a nerve in the
sense that the snipper or clipper, if you will, has heard similar
comment from others over the years but the action of snipping same per
se and without notation becomes quite telling in itself. Crackpot�
Freddy Berg often used the identical tactic, in effect, snip what is
irksome and makes point in its entirety and then simply switch gears and
attempt to attack the messenger on some other matter and hope for the
best. It rarely works and the readers are in fact given a 'message' of
sorts by the snipper/clipper that the bulk of the readers will never
see through it. In effect, a reader blow-off as well! But then, Hunter
is hardly any stranger to reader blow-offs and then suddenly
resurrecting himself as if nothing happened.
Generally, when an assessment is made on one's wares, it should be the
assessment that immediately should be responded to but when the
assessment is ignored and remains undefended while the poster seeks out
other issues to froth on, this becomes very telling. It's a fascinating
thing to observe but as I've always said and will repeat, both human
nature and human behavior are themselves quite fascinating to observe
and their enigmatic nature. As is the unraveling process. As a satirist,
I can almost predict the froth that may come my way but this is part and
parcel of 'any' satirist's territory. It comes with the gig, so to
speak. No problem. It's somewhat akin to posters who all they seem to do
is sniff around other posters and do a sort of button pushing routine
but when that fails to bring on the desired response, well, they
generally dry up and blow away. Or, they keep frothing believing they
are actually scoring big time or some even use the old "we" gambit in
the sense that they honestly believe they are speaking for and, I
assume, actually 'representing' the "we", whoever that is supposed to be
in their mind. I'm always leery of those who supposedly speak for the
"we", Hunter being one of them and his rhetoric filled with the
self-imagined "we" thing, but then, that's Hunter!
Doc Tony
;-)
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> read more �
>>
>>
>>
coaste...@yahoo.com
> Doc Tony wrote:
> >> What you are more than anything else, Doc, is a bore.
>
> > Hunter, go sleep it off and relax.
You really are a bore. It's a pain to read you if only because you
wander and are terrified of substance. You're so full of yourself and
as Holman says, you have such a fragile ego that you're a waste of
time. I've got to go now but when I return I'll paste in an example
from alt.revisionism. And I'll also reply to your assertion that the
problem lies equally with the two sides. That, sir, is ignorant to say
the least.
Doc Tony
As 'Holman' says? I must have missed that one. But then, so-termed
'fragile egos', which you yourself personify, general move to the froth
when spoken to or confronted with virtually anything and that's simply
not my way. Now, in a run-away attempt from my assessment of you, you
went on and on about my not being a professional writer and my in-situ
reaction was , hey, so what, believe ot disbelieve as you wish! Why? A
matter of long-term discipline with blowhards such as yourself and, as I
stated, part of satirist's territory.
Meanwhile, my assessment of you stood unchallenged and remains so while
you concurrently begin snipping and clipping what I have to say. Talk
about fragile egos! Whew! You look the fool talking about fragile egos
what with your poster on and off again blow-offs and assorted antics
with me and other posters who simply call you on your drool.
Anyway, keep beating feet from my assessment of you for what you are and
your palpable agenda which I pegged and do what you feel the , shall we
say, 'voices', both internal and external, apparently dictate for you to
do.
Doc Tony
;-)
"Presently we [!] critics of Zionism and Israeli barbarity -- we [!]
supporters of recovering our sovereignty and controlling our
relationship with Israel-- dominate these newsgroups." [sic -- Hunter
"When Hunter talks, Jews walk!�" Watson]
Hunter, you are about as effective [!] a spokesperson for the "we" as
Alex "Muleschlep�" Vangel [Topaz] is for revisionists in his advocating
Osama bin Laden as a "revisionist ally" [sic] and revisionist friend!
The embarrassment is watching your unraveling and lame attempts to run
away from the assessment which you asked me for and I which I rendered
to you. That you don't care for it is simply not my problem nor concern.
Now, if you wish to cull 13 years of my Usenet posts to find
something, again, be my guest but I would appreciate anything you cite
be given in full since I have the same archive input as you do. And by
all means, 'do' come back! You've already done the blow off post
previously so if you're coming back, then stay back and at least be
consistent in something!
The Voice: "Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!"
;-)
Doc Tony
> icono...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> On Jun 9, 11:45 am, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Doc Tony wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> What you are more than anything else, Doc, is a bore.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hunter, go sleep it off and relax.
>>
>>
>>
>> You really are a bore. It's a pain to read you if only because you
>> wander and are terrified of substance. You're so full of yourself and
>> as Holman says, you have such a fragile ego that you're a waste of
>> time. I've got to go now but when I return I'll paste in an example
>> from alt.revisionism. And I'll also reply to your assertion that the
>> problem lies equally with the two sides. That, sir, is ignorant to say
>> the least.
>
>
>
> As 'Holman' says? I must have missed that one. But then, so-termed
> 'fragile egos', which you yourself personify, generally move to the froth
> when spoken to or confronted with virtually anything and that's simply
> not my way. Now, in a run-away attempt from my assessment of you, you
> went on and on about my not being a professional writer and my in-situ
> reaction was , hey, so what, believe or disbelieve as you wish! Why? A
> matter of long-term discipline with blowhards such as yourself and, as I
> stated, part of the satirist's territory.
>
> Meanwhile, my assessment of you stood unchallenged and remains so while
> you concurrently begin snipping and clipping what I have to say. Talk
> about fragile egos! Whew! You look the fool talking about fragile egos
> what with your poster on and off again blow-offs and assorted antics
> with me and other posters who simply call you on your drool.
>
> Anyway, keep beating feet from my assessment of you for what you are and
> your palpable agenda which I pegged and do what you feel the , shall we
> say, 'voices', both internal and external, apparently dictate for you to
> do.
>
>
> Doc Tony
> ;-)
>
>
> "Presently we [!] critics of Zionism and Israeli barbarity -- we [!]
> supporters of recovering our sovereignty and controlling our
> relationship with Israel-- dominate these newsgroups." [sic -- Hunter
> "When Hunter talks, Jews walk!�" Watson]
>
> Hunter, you are about as effective [!] a spokesperson for the "we" as
> Alex "Muleschlep�" Vangel [Topaz] is for revisionists in his advocating
> Osama bin Laden as a "revisionist ally" [sic] and revisionist friend!
>
> The embarrassment is watching your unraveling and lame attempts to run
> away from the assessment which you asked me for and I which I rendered
> to you. That you don't care for it is simply not my problem nor concern.
> Now, if you wish to cull 13 years of my Usenet posts to find something,
> again, be my guest but I would appreciate anything you cite be given in
> full since I have the same archive input as you do. And by all means,
> 'do' come back! You've already done the blow-off post previously so if
> you're coming back, then 'stay' back and at least be consistent in something!
>
>
> The Voice: "Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!"
>
> ;-)
A couple of typos corrected in the original.
Doc Tony
;-)
dsharavi
> Hunter, fess up, are you on the hash or crack pipe or the sauce?
It is my considered opinion that the old MCP is on the sauce, tequila
specifically.
>>On Jun 2, 2:50 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
>><coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>I don't often read you, Deb.
.
>On Jun 2, 10:37 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>Especially when you know I've proven you wrong, yet again, and exposed
>>your lies. Have you already forgotten your requests to which I
>>responded? Here they are again, for your convenience. Do you plan to
>>respond to MY requests--or are you going to continue making your usual
>>lame excuses?
On Jun 3, 4:56 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>I told you I don't read you.
Wrong again. You stated "I don't often read you, Deb." Your assertion
that you do NOT read me, period, is, of course, a blatant lie.
>Have you made requests? Feel free too outline
>them here, and if I miss them, remind me.
I've done that quite a few times. You have either ignored my
requests,
or produced lame excuses, or outright lies.
>>=====================
>>From: dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>
>>Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 07:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
>>Subject: Re: Hunter Watson: Lying again, being an idiot, and too
>>stupid to know what else to do
>Given that I haven't seen your "requests," how do you come to the
>conclusion above. Lying, idiocy, stupidity. Really now. Send us your
>"requests". I look forward to gratifying you requests.
Yet another lie. You've seen them many times. You ignore them, or lie
about them, because you can't respond to them.
>My God, Deborah! I can't imagine not facing anything you have ever
>said competently and without mendacity.
Yet another of your lies.
> Usually, however, what you say is beneath contempt, either
>intellectually or morally. Don't hesitate should you have asked
>a fair-minded and cogent question.
I asked you repeatedly to produce evidence to support your false
allegations against me. You failed and refused to do so every time,
because you can't produce any evidence. Put simply, you lied.
Repeatedly.
>>>>>On May 27, 4:26 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>Wrong as usual, stupid old man. I knew who Morris was years before you
>>>>>>started squatting on these NGs.
>You knew of *Morris* but definitely not of his academic work.
>That is obvious. This response is devious, Deborah, like most
>everything you write.
I read Morris years before you popped up on these groups, and quoted
his works extensively. Stop lying.
[snip Watsonian palaver]
>>>On May 28, 9:33 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>>None of this changes the fact that I knew who Morris was years before
>>>>you started squatting on these NGs -- and I still know more about
>>>>Morris than you know.
>>>>>It was that conflation of
>>>>>the two very different Benny Morris realities which led you to make
>>>>>the blunder of your famous "Don't ya just love Benny Morris" comment.
>>>>>You loved Morris for his personal apologetics about ethnic cleansing.
>>>>As I have show several times, old fool, it was YOU who posted the
>>>>"don't you just love Benny Morris" comment, which you attributed to
>>>>Ilan Pappe.Want the link to your old post again?
>You know that's a lie. You rely on the belief that I can no longer
>resurrect it from the archives with Google's browser.
Really? I can "resurrect it", quite easily. Here are a few posts,
with
links thereto, where you made the same false assertion, as well as
other false assertions:
I've read Benny Morris about whom you once inadvisably
exclaimed something like: "Don't you just love Benny Morris?"
--From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/beae41c9865486a5
"Don't ya just love Benny Morris!?" Deborah.
--From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/106eef6aaeec7e9a
Don't you just love Benny Morris, Deborah?
--From: HHW <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/b8d9e7121318e10a
And his revisionist narrative goes further than that of Professor
"Don't you just love" Benny Morris.
--From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 18:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/7dda1465e0c00a92
"Don't you just love Benny Morris," Nyob? You love him. You said it.
Don't forget it. You hadn't read his book and didn't realize that
he's
the NEW HISTORIAN who first confirmed the NAKBA took place, the
forced
expulsion of the Palestinian people, the "catastrophe". If you had
any
moral fiber you could avoid such humiliations.
It's said you've got family in israel and that's all that matters to
you. Is that true? Or is it that you simply are thrilled by crimes
against humanity so long as Israelis are dishing it out?
What an ignorant schnorrer you are, Nyob. Abandoned and unemployed,
filled with hate. Worse though is your failure in attaining a decent
education. Given your level of pretension that's fatal.
You know, Nyob, I don't think there are any actual Jews here who
respect you.
Apparently there is something which distinguishes
a bachelors degree in Jewish History from getting an education.
You know nothing. You simply puff yourself up and issue insinuation
after insinuation. But you never win so much as a single round. I
don't mind this trivial crap a bit because I'm confident that you'll
emerge bloody.
Try again to attain an education. It might not be too
late. You're just in your sixties. As am I.
--From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 00:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/be5b424690443a5d
"Don't ya just love Benny Morris?" (Deborah)
From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/16ea72bb70f8d34c
"Don't you just love Benny Morris." (Deborah)
--From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/08f93a77714909a4
you can get a lot of good stuff from Benny Morris. You know,
the Morris of whom Deborah famously said, "Don't you just love
Benny Morris" before having read him.
From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:49:54 -0800 (PST)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/f8357cef67527b8d
Don't you just love Benny Morris? Why didn't you defend that
miserable fraudster against Mearsheimer & Walt?
--From: HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 11:26:46 -0800 (PST)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/fc266835ce125708
You can start with the histories which have been written in
the last fifteen or twenty years. Don't you just love Benny Morris?
--From: "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.palestine/msg/4d940bfda8be...
>>On May 28, 9:42 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
>><coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>Paste the whole thing in, Deb. We want everyone to see it.
>>I'll just bet you do.
>You bet, Deb. We want everyone to see it. Paste it in.
Already did. Are you going to lie, again, that you missed it?
>>>>[flush nonsense]
>>>Repost what Deb couldn't bear for the readership to see:
>>As stated previously, comments like this are amusing as well as
>>indicative of the poster's ignorance. If Poster A doesn't want "the
>>readership", to use Hunter Watson's inflated designation, to see what
>>Poster B posted, there's nothing Poster A can do to prevent it.
>A mere justification for hiding and obscuring your duplicity.
You mean, of course, your own oft-demonstrated mendacity, duplicity,
cowardice, and dishonesty.
>>>Your post here is a perfect example as to why you are constantly on
>>>the defensive. It has to do with failures of probity and candor on
>>>your part. My point regarding you and Professor Benny Morris is
>>>PRECISELY that you knew something about Morris' personal political
>>>views, e.g., as were displayed in 2004 in the Shavit interview
>>One reason is because I read, and posted, that interview back in
>>January 2004,
>That proves my point. You knew something about his personal political
>views.
Morris never made any secret of them. Your problem is that you've
never read Morris's works. Your point is pointless.
>>as well as several times thereafter.
>See immediately above.
>>Another reason is
>>that those "personal political views", as reflected in that article,
>>came as no great surprise. The most salient reason is that I
>>obviously know more about the subject than Hunter Watson,
.
>The subject? What's that, Deb? Certainly it's not what Morris wrote in
>his seminal book about the Naqba! You've always denied what he writes
>there. You've always adhered slavishly to the traditional Israeli
>historiography which in retrospect was an obvious plethora of lies.
>When we first met you this was the line you took invariably. Today you
>have lost your self-confidence.
You really should give up the bottle, Hunter, and get yourself to
regular AA meetings. They might be able to help your delusions.
>>who, rather than
>>making any attempt to learn, is content to obfuscate, misdirect, gave
>>way to chronic flights of hyperbolic fantasy, and generally lie.
>Point them out, bitch.
Let's just confine ourselves to a measly few of your false claims as
set forth in this post, for starters -- for which you've repeatedly
failed and refused to produce any support:
1) You claim I stated "Don't you just love Benny Morris?", which, for
some weird reason, you keep repeating, although it was YOU who made
this remark.
2) You claimed I made a "racist remark" about Al Sharpton -- but you
repeatedly failed and refused to produce that remark.
3) Although you claim I "love Benny Morris", you also claim I "never
read his book", never "realized he's a NEW HISTORIAN", didn't know he
"first confirmed the NAKBA took place", until a "conversation" some
two years ago, where you advised me of all of the above.
4) You claim I've "got family in israel and that's all that matters
to
you."
5) You assert that I have "a bachelors degree in Jewish History",
while at the same time I'm a " failure in attaining a decent
education". I "know nothing", and I'm an "ignorant schnorrer".
6) You state I'm "just in your sixties".
Have you any evidence at all for any of the above? No.
>>And now, to accede to the request above, here's the whole post again:
>>From: dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>
>>Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 19:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
>>On May 27, 5:15 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>>I post this reply again because I didn't recognize it in Ratner's
>>>response AND because the original had been truncated. Readers, please
>>>go through to the end. Ratner doesn't want you to read this.
>>Comments like this are amusing, and indicative of the poster's
>>ignorance: if one poster doesn't want a post read, there's not much
>>he can do to prevent it.
>The question is whether given the circumstances and given Ratner's
>squirming it is more or less likely to be read. That something of a
>judgment to be made in light of that very squirm factor. The readers
>will judge that.
>>>Cliip debris from previous posts of no substantive connection to the
>>>thread.
>>"Debris", lol
>>Translation: "Readers, Watson doesn't want you to read this."
>Debris is only the computer generated path whereby this post passed by
>way of others to the present. They mean nothing of substance and you,
>lying bitch, know it.
YOU made the silly statement "Ratner doesnt want you to read this". I
parroted your original silliness.
>>>Note: I will clip nothing more of Ratner's maiden post which is very
>>>valuable to the actual discussion.
>>A pronouncement of selective editing, from the resident Pompous
>>Pronouncements Master.
>Precisely the opposite, lying bitch.
Irrelevant to your status as the resident Pompous Pronouncements
Master. The comment regarding your, shall be be polite about it,
"selective editing" is factual. That you routinely falsify posts is
also factual.
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Other than to say that Morris is currently in his neo-Zionist phase
>>>>>>>>>>and determined not to be driven from Israel like the others, this post
>>>>>>>>>>doesn't merit a response.
>>So Watson splutters on for another 900 lines about these meritless
>>posts.
>Can't handle my neo-Zionist allegation against Morris?
Look up the term "neo-Zionist" so you'll be able to use it properly.
Ditto "schnorrer".
>>>It is probable he wished to escape this interview.
>>It's more probably he read it any one or more of the half dozen times
>>I posted it in the half dozen years since it was published. For the
>>complete interview, see my 12 January 2004 post:
>Where, other than sheer desperation, did you acquire this self-
>destructive instinct, Deborah. The fact that you knew ONLY Morris'
>personal political views proves my case.
You don't know what I know, old man -- especially since, by your own
statements, "I don't often read you, Deb" ( Jun 2, 2:50 pm) and "I
told you I don't read you" (Jun 3, 4:56 pm). What I don't know is how
to translate into intelligible English your statements immediately
above.
>Why do you continue to emphasize it? The Shavit article is about
>his personal politics. Tell us, do you now admit that Flapan but
>mostly Morris was the leader of the New Historians?
One can hardly "admit" what never was. I can't, anyway.
>Morris tore the curtain of lies from the Naqba,
>the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Neither Morris nor Flapan nor Segev wrote anything that hadn't
already
been covered by American and British historians, who, unlike the so-
called "New Historians", made extensive use of Arab sources.
>>Survival of the Fittest
>>Ari Shavit
>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.feminism/msg/67f2ffe335ef0442
.
>>>Morris' parents were Marxists. He was born on a communal farm in
>>>Israel.
.
>>His parents ...
>were socialists
[truncation by HHW restored:
His parents were British immigrants; leftists, not communists. He was
born in Kibbutz Yasur, grew up in Jerusalem, where his parents moved
when he was a year old, and in New York, where the family spent six
years; his father was a diplomat and a published historian and poet.
>which in their era usually meant Marxists. The issue
>among them was whether to follow Marx or Lenin, the deviationist, on
>the nature of the revolutionary process. I'll leave you to sort that
>out. But don't hesitate to sort out the intellectual origins of Benny
>Morris' parents. As the lived on a communal kibutz I'm sure they are
>sainted in your view.
You're "sure" of a lot of things which are proven rubbish. Morris's
parents were Hashomer Hatza'ir, which lost its Marxist orientation
after WWI; they emigrated from England in 1947; Morris was born in
1948; the family moved to Jerusalem in 1949, and to New York in 1957.
You made several ridiculous claims about Morris's service record --
or
rather, his lack of one -- which were wrong.
[restoration of what HHW truncated]:
>He refused to serve in a call-up of his reserve unit and spent
>three weeks in prison as a matter of principle.
Morris served his sadir, was a paratrooper in the Six Day War, and
wounded in 1969 during the War of Attrition. In 1982, he served as a
reservist in a mortar unit in Lebanon, when his unit was called up,
and he took part in the siege of West Beirut. It was Morris's
subsquent refusal to serve in the territories which landed him in the
pokey.
.
>That could hardly have
>been Zionist principle.
.
Zionists protesting Zionists' actions is ENTIRELY Zionist principle.
.
>He obtained his PhD from Cambridge, not
>exactly an intellectual atmosphere conducive to the excesses of
>rightist political ideologies such as Zionism.
.
Especially as his doctorate was in Anglo-German relations. He earned
his undergrad degree in history from Hebrew U.
.
>Thereafter he wrote his
>first book which was a ground breaking expose of the Israeli crimes of
>1948, not the choice of subject one would expect from an ardent
>Zionist, even if one might expect it from an ambitious young
>historian. It's the one I read precisely because it was an
>international bombshell and related to the vexing problems we
>Americans were having with Israel.
.
If H had actually read the "international bombshell" -- which he
doesn't seem able to name -- he would have known that Morris covered
nothing that hadn't been covered a few years earlier by both Sachar
and Kurzman -- both of whom, unlike Morris, utilized Arab sources.
.
>After being blacklisted in Israel,
.
?
.
>he made some sort of promise to the President or Prime minister,
>whichever, and was given an academic post.
.
?
>His career in Israel was saved, but at what cost?
.
?
Morris was working at the J'lem Post when he published his first
book, and Morris remained at the J'lem Post for several years
after he published it. The "sort of promise to the President or
Prime minster" which H alleges is a figment of H's imagination--
or, more likely, that of whichever idiot propagandist H pilfered
this from.
"In 1996, he was on the verge of emigrating to a job in America, and
told a journalist as much. At noon the day the article appeared, he
was summoned to the office of the country’s President, Ezer Weizmann,
who interrogated him for an hour about 1948. “Partly he wanted to
know if I really am a historian, and also he wanted to know if I was
an anti- Zionist as all my critics are portraying.” Satisfied that
Morris was a good Zionist and a good historian, the President
ordered a close aide to find Morris a job; and by the time he had
walked him from the office — about fifteen minutes — one had
been lined up for him. It took about a year for all the formal hoops
to be jumped through, but then he was established as a professor
of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of the Negev in
Beersheba, a post he still holds."
http://www.thewormbook.com/elegans/helmintholog/archives/BM%20for%20h...
.
>In recent years at the personal level at least Morris has turned hard
>right.
.
Morris is still Meretz, which no one can accuse of being "hard
right." Well, H can, probably.
.
>He saved his
>career in Israel where men who couldn't make those compromises at the
>intellectual level were driven from the country. A prime example is
>Ilan Pappe. I suspect the same was true of Avi Shlaim but haven't
>researched it.
.
H "suspects" but hasn't "researched". That describes what passes in
H's posts for facts.
.
Pappe wasn't "driven from the country"; he was fired from Haifa U for
fucking up. Thereafter he was hired by Exeter U, in a position H
elevated to "Chair of the History Department". Actually, Pappe was
hired as an occasional lecturer.
.
Avi Shlaim was born in Iraq, read history at Jesus College [<g>],
Cambridge, has lived in England since 1966, and is -- gasp! -- one of
those Evil Dual Citizens whom H perpetually denigrates.
.
Such are the perils of "suspect" over "research" Not that H gives a
whit, of course.
.
>>>>>>>Whatever post that may be. Since H snipped it, being obviously afraid
>>>>>>>of it, one can't tell.
.
>It was your post, wasn't it? And it contained your usual filth, didn't
>it?
.
"Filth" in the Watsonian lexicon of English usage: facts and truths
which Hunter Watson is too cowardly and dishonest to face.
.
>So you have everything you need to know regarding what post it was
>and why clippage was applied. I'm fully justified in clipping every
>post you write as they are all filled with ad hominem slurs. It hasn't
>occurred to you that you gave me this right. You never understood the
>law of unanticipated consequences. When you reject the basic rules of
>gentlemanly discourse, Ratner, you pay a price and can't expect me to
>fail to exact it.
.
Ratner, huh. H is obviously as muddled over whom he's addressing as
he is over facts he merely "suspects" but never bothers to research.
.
>>>>>>>It's amusing to note H batting his usual .00001. Benny Morris, a neo-
>>>>>>>Zionist? He's written about neo-Zionism, certainly, as have Anita
>>>>>>>Shapira, Uri Ram, and others. Nobody except the brilliant Herr
>>>>>>>Watson, though, has thought to daub Morris as a neo-Zionist.
.
>Bad girl, Debbie. Anything to distract. And why not? Tell us about
>Wiki on neo-Zionism. Don't cheat now.
.
Wow, it took Herr Watson this long to respond?
.
>>>>>>You actually think he knows what neo-Zionism is? He read the term on
>>>>>>some website. His branding Morris as such is par for the course.
>>>>>>Whenever I think he's lost it and can't sink any further, he surprises
>>>>>>me.
.
>>>>>It was my phrase.
.
>In fact, I did not know there was already a gloss on the phrase and I
>still don't know whether given that fact there was ever any real
>conflict. It's not worth my time. Perhaps the magisterial mystic
>Debbie will explain it.
.
Watson lies again. There never any "gloss on the phrase", which has
been in use several decades. Naturally Watson can't be expected to
know this, as it's merely one of the myriad facts beyond his grasp.
Ergo, Watson can be expected to lie about it, then backpedal
furiously when caught in his lie -- as he does here.
.
>>>>Liar.
>>>>Neo-Zionism
>>>>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>>>Neo-Zionism emerged in the 1970s.[2] It is mainly constituted of
>>>>settlers and members of the "national camp" in Israel. It is
>>>>politically represented by the National Religious Party and the Likud
>>>>and other small parties such as Tehiya, Tzomet and Moledet.[2]
.
>Haha, I used it to describe a man who had turned to the right. It
>looks as though I was pretty close.
.
Backpedal, backpedal. Previously, Herr Watson claimed he never saw
the phrase before he coined it himself.
.
>>>>>I don't recall ever having seen it before.
>>>>Another load of balls.
.
>Get it together, Deb. It doesn't help you to assert that I am all-
>knowing.
.
>>>>>All I
>>>>>mean by it is that after taking a lot of heat from inside Israel,
>>>>>Morris has personally turned to the right.
>>>>Crap.
.
>See above, Deb.
.
What I see above, from Herr Watson, is merely MOTSC.
.
>>>>>Shlaim explains it. Morris is definitely a "New Historian".
>>>>Imagine that.
>>>>Deborah
.
>>On May 27, 1:02 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>>"Imagine that" In the beginning you thought he was a traditional
>>>Israeli historian and were pretending to use him to refute me.
.
Talk about delusional. In the beginning? Watson wasn't even around
"in the beginning" when we were debating Morris and his works
on these NGs some fifteen years ago. Lacking facts, as usual, Herr
Watson prefers his lies.
.
>>>You
>>>even said to one of your henchmen, "Don't you just love Benny Morris."
.
The archives show that the first to post this phrase was none other
than Herr Watson himself.
"And his revisionist narrative goes further than
that of Professor "Don't you just love" Benny Morris."
From: HHW <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 18:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/7dda1465e0c00a92
.
>>>Once you learned that he was the leader and progenitor of the new
>>>historians one heard nothing more from you about him though I did
>>>remind you on occasion that you love him.
.
Herr Watson quoted himself, as above. And as the above shows, any
facts Herr Watson has learned above Morris he learned from me.
.
>On May 27, 10:32 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>OK, folks, this is for those of you who may still harbor a milligram
>>of respect for HHW. As most know, HHW has crafted his posts involving
>>Benny Morris to strongly imply that he has read Morris's books.
.
We know he hasn't, any more than he's read Sachar.
.
>See above.
What Herr Watson proved above is that he doesn't know doodle about
Benny Morris, and that he has lied repeatedly.
.
>Everyone read his blockbuster about the Palestinian refugee
>problem, Ratner.
.
Herr Watson hasn't. One can tell that from the hyperbole he spews
about it as follows. One can also tell by the fact that Herr Watson
has never once showns he has a clue what it's about.
.
>It caused an international brouhaha. It represented
>the fatal breach in the curtain of bullshit which had been wrapped
>around Israeli history. No little Dutch boy could put his finger in
>that dike. I haven't been the same since. It resulted in what you see
>here today in thousands of us.
.
What, senile delusions?
.
>Perhaps you feared that would happen to
>YOU? It's dated now, but Pappe brought it up to date a few years ago
>in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and I understand that Morris has
>"revistied" it and doubled its size,
.
Morris "revisited" it half a decade before Pappe published his
'Ethnic Cleansing' crappe. One wonders why Watson his spewing
all this about Morris, considering how he denigrated Morris not
too long ago.
.
>As Deb loves Benny Morris, she can no
>longer speak of "Pappe's Crappe" when confronted with those facts.
.
We know who really loves Benny Morris: according to Herr Watson's
original post, it was Ilan Pappe.
.
>>Nothing could be further from the truth. The above quote is
>>reminiscent of the fiasco involving Hilberg - a few days after I
>>mentioned him, suddenly HHW started implying that Hilberg was one of
>>his heroes,
.
>He is something of a hero, though I based that on what is said *about*
>him as a scholar and a man of consummate integrity, not from reading
>his massive two volume study of the Holocaust.
.
AIR, H implied he'd read Hilberg too.
.
>>although it was crystal clear he had never heard of
>>Hilberg before my mention.
.
>Don't pump yourself up.
.
Pumping oneself up is Herr Watson's domain.
.
>I heard about Hilberg from the redoubtable
>Norman Finkelstein.
.
And that, obviously, was the flimsy basis of Herr Watson's pretended
expertise on the subject. AIR, Herr Watson performed a similar stunt
on Benjamin Pogrund, after first spending some time denigrating him.
.
>And that was long before you and I had that
>conversation about him in which you got so hot about the fact that I
>favored Hilberg's figure on Jewish Holocaust dead. You decided that it
>was anti-Semitic for me to favor the conclusion of the most famed and
>respected Jewish Holocaust scholar.
.
>>Now above we have him pontificating about
>>Benny Morris.
.
Amusing, isn't it?
.
>No Pontiff I, Ratner. But I have learned quite a bit about Morris.
.
Enough to feel he can lie about it -- but not enough to make his lies
believable.
.
>Haven't you? Surely so, eh? But then perhaps that's not included in
>the job description of resident Zionist slime monger.
.
>>To put this into perspective, read below, from a
>>discussion between H and me from a few days ago. Remember, this is
>>coming from someone who has just today said to Deb "In the beginning
>>you thought [Morris] was a traditional Israeli historian":
.
>Precisely so. She obviously did.
.
Obviously I did not. This is merely another lie, since H wasn't
around when the members of this NG were discussing Morris
and his works back in the 90s and early years of this decade.
.
>That is easily deduced from the fact
>that she was praising him and on one occasion even said, "Don't ya
>just love Benny Morris?"
.
H forgets that it was H himself who first posted that phrase.
.
>Her mistake was that she thought Morris was a
>defender of the old historiography, the only kind she has any record
>of supporting. She had apparently picked up Morris' recent apologetics
>for ethnic cleansing without understanding that he was the man who
>originally exposed it and is currently finishing a fine career by
>embellishing his earlier exposes.
.
lol
H is obviously far more desperate than previously suspected.
Possibly, H is drunk again, as well.
.
>Before going below, recall who Deb
>is, a right wing racist, an equal opportunity racist having multiple
>targets, and a deeply conflicted Zionist-American who doesn't give a
>damn about her mother country if Israel is involved.
.
This is amusing, coming from H, who has a prissy tizzy fit over ad
homs. In this case, however, all H has is ad homs. He hasn't any
facts, that's for sure.
.
>She sees anti-
>Semites under every bed and is, barring you, the most filthy
>defamation artist on these groups. She and I go back as far as you and
>I do. I know her as well as I know you.
.
lol
And we both know that H doesn't know enough to find his backside with
both hands and a flashlight at high noon.
.
>>>How about the ultimate Israeli establishment historian,
>>>Benny Morris?
.
>>LOL! Does anyone need more proof of the incredible ignorance of HHW?
.
Nope, neither of his ignorance, nor of his mendacity.
.
>>Benny Morris IS A NEW HISTORIAN, and as such, by definition is not an
>>"Israeli establishment historian", whatever that is. Idiot, idiot,
>>idiot. In fact, the very term "new historians" was coined by him.
.
>But he is now the establishment court historian irrespective of what
>he writes
.
Because H says so, and according to H, the sun revolves around H's
pronouncements.
.
[snip H's drunken childish PP stuff]
.
>>Clearly, five days ago HHW had NO IDEA that Morris was anything but an
>>"Israeli establishment historian" - can anyone even conceive of
>>someone without the mental defects of HHW referring to Morris as such?
.
H still thinks Morris is an "Israeli establishment historian". He
made another of his PPs to prove it.
.
>Ha, you are forgetting the exchange with Deb in which I was the one
>who knew Benny Morris and that was something like two years ago.
.
No. Naturally, H can't produce any quotes from that imaginary
discussion, let alone an actual link. And if there's anything which
shows Hunter Watson in all his absurdity, it's this statement of his:
.
>Historians are forbidden to lie
>The exchanges between Shavit and Benny Morris are posted here as
>context for what I say above:
.
More selective editing. The entire article is here:
.
From: dshar...@hotmail.com (Deborah Sharavi)
Date: 31 Aug 2004 10:43:28 -0700
Survival of the Fittest, by Ari Shavit
.
H posted ALMOST the entire article. H snipped the last comment and
Morris's final response, as follow:
.
Shavit:
The title of the book you are now publishing in Hebrew is
"Victims." In the end, then, your argument is that of the two victims
of this conflict, we are the bigger one.
Morris:
"Yes. Exactly. We are the greater victims in the course of
history and we are also the greater potential victim. Even though we
are oppressing the Palestinians, we are the weaker side here. We are
a small minority in a large sea of hostile Arabs who want to
eliminate
us. So it's possible than when their desire is realized, everyone
will understand what I am saying to you now. Everyone will
understand we are the true victims. But by then it will be too late."
.
>>A normal person, ignorant of Morris, would not be opening his mouth
>>about a topic he knows nothing about, but total ignorance has never
>>inhibited our village idiot.
.
H's overinflated ego is the problem. His inherent mendacity is
another.
.
>>Now, exactly FIVE DAYS after I inform him
>>that Morris, far from being an establishment historian, is the very
>>coiner of the term "New Historians", HHW jumps in with his totally
>>ignorant embellishment, that Morris is the "progenitor" of the New
>>Historians. Of course, this, too, is wrong -
.
Yes. Morris seems to have coined the term to refer to Israeli
historians who challenged the "George Washington and the Cherry Tree"
stories about the War of Independence. I doubt it referred to
historians like Sachar, Kurzman, and others who never bought those
stories -- and who are not, of course, Israeli historians.
.
>>I am fairly certain that
>>the first major author classified as a New Historian is Simha Flapan.
.
>Who had a much lower profile both inside and outside of Israel than
>does Morris.
.
lol
As if Watson would know.
.
>Let them share the honor if you wish. Morris was
>considered their "leader" in the early days. He is certainly a
>progenitor of the movement. You don't need to pick nits on this.
>Especially when you are only "fairly certain" of something.
.
H doesn't want anyone "picking nits" -- i.e., noting the details --
on this for fear his errors will be noted. H's errors include almost
everything in the above paragraph, i.e.: There was never any "New
Historians" movement, as H suggests, and thus, Morris was never its
"progenitor", nor it "leader". Morris used the term to describe a
group of recent -- in 1988 -- Israeli historians, which included
himself, Shlaim, Segev, Cohen, Pappe, and later, Flapan. Flapan was
included later, because he died in 1987, but had written two
histories (in 1979 and 1987) debunking the myths supposedly debunked
by the "New Historians".
.
>>Of course, HHW has never heard of Flapan before this very moment,
.
>Establishing facts on the ground are you Ratner?
.
Stating a probability.
.
>>but
>>in a few days he will present himself as fully versed not only in
>>Flapan's entire output, but also what he preferred for lunch and what
>>his pastimes were. Such is the norm for a person who can no longer
>>distinguish truth from lies, reality from fantasy.
.
Could he ever?
.
>Tell us about Simcha Flapan, Ratner. That would be a boon for all
>of us.
.
Especially for H.
.
>Yes, please tell us about him. I'm beginning to sense a new field
>of endeavor is opening up for me. First I'll look for articles on the
>web, eh?
.
Second, H will extrapolate from whatever he can find, then present
himself as an expert on Flapan's writings -- which, of course, H has
never heard of.
.
>>>Then you took to denying you
>>>ever said it because Google's search engine will no longer bring it
>>>up. You're a bad girl, Debbie.
.
>Yes, a bad, bad girl, Debbie.
.
No, "bad bad Ratner"? After all, much of the above was with Ratner,
but one can hardly expect sense from a sexist pig who is also senile,
and one should NEVER expect facts from Hunter Watson.
Deborah
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/4df818319b1aff39
.
And now, about that "racist remark" you keep falsely alleging I made
regarding Al Sharpton -- where is it?
Deborah
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/a3f897dd1bcbae14
.
So, Hunter, where IS that "racist remark" you keep falsely alleging I
made regarding Al Sharpton. Just can't find it, can you? Want a link
to the thread in which you made your first false allegation on this?
Deborah
dsharavi
> As 'Holman' says? I must have missed that one. But then, so-termed
> 'fragile egos', which you yourself personify, general move to the froth
> when spoken to or confronted with virtually anything and that's simply
> not my way. Now, in a run-away attempt from my assessment of you, you
> went on and on about my not being a professional writer and my in-situ
> reaction was , hey, so what, believe ot disbelieve as you wish! Why? A
> matter of long-term discipline with blowhards such as yourself and, as I
> stated, part of satirist's territory.
> Meanwhile, my assessment of you stood unchallenged and remains so while
> you concurrently begin snipping and clipping what I have to say. Talk
> about fragile egos! Whew! You look the fool talking about fragile egos
> what with your poster on and off again blow-offs and assorted antics
> with me and other posters who simply call you on your drool.
More Hunter Watson drool which he was called on, and from which he,
characteristically, ran like a goat.
[snip Watsonian palaver]
[truncation by HHW restored:
.
?
.
.
?
>See above.
Deborah
>
Doc Tony
> On Jun 10, 3:19 pm, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>>As 'Holman' says? I must have missed that one. But then, so-termed
>>'fragile egos', which you yourself personify, generally move to the froth
>> when spoken to or confronted with virtually anything and that's simply
>>not my way. Now, in a run-away attempt from my assessment of you, you
>>went on and on about my not being a professional writer and my in-situ
>>reaction was , hey, so what, believe or disbelieve as you wish! Why? A
>>matter of long-term discipline with blowhards such as yourself and, as I
>>stated, part of the satirist's territory.
>>Meanwhile, my assessment of you stood unchallenged and remains so while
>>you concurrently begin snipping and clipping what I have to say. Talk
>>about fragile egos! Whew! You look the fool talking about fragile egos
>>what with your poster on and off again blow-offs and assorted antics
>>with me and other posters who simply call you on your drool.
>
>
> More Hunter Watson drool which he was called on, and from which he,
> characteristically, ran like a goat.
>
Well, my own interest in Hunter came about when he attempted to seek the
indulgence [!] of AR's resident track shoes runner, one "Papagei�" Ebe.
[** the AR nym 'Johannes von Ebersdorf], and Hunter essentially pleaded
with Ebe that he [Hunter] had been misinterpreted after Ebe blew Hunter
off as is Ebe's usual MO when he reads things he doesn't like. Anyway,
Hunter tells Ebe, "I'm a bourgeois professional, not an academic." [sic]
! Once Ebe was satisfied that Hunter was not challenging him or asking
pesky questions which Ebe resents from anyone, Ebe backed off.
In a subsequent comment by Hunter to one 'Uncle Toad', Hunter writes,
"If one loses his basic civility [**!**] he's lost most everything. I am
occasionally over-bearing [!] I suppose, but I think what I do here is
as important as anything else I can do as a retired gent in his eighth
decade living in a foreign country." [sic 3-15-10, 10:07 PM US-EST].
Now I've asked Hunter about this 'foreign country' business at least
three times but it was ignored. A simple archives check indicates that
he's residing in Latin America but the 'only' reason I asked is because
Hunter had made other public comment that he will not return to the
United States until the Palestinians are free. In other words, instead
of being part of the solution on his home turf and taking such legal
actions or group initiatives that are within any US citizen's right
whether individually or within a group, Hunter beats feet, whines about
the Jews being the 'singular' cause of 'all' the woes in the Middle East
and hence Hunter merely becomes part of the problem since talk is cheap.
Even cheaper when done from afar and blaming one side and one side only
for 'all' that is wrong in the Middle East. In effect, an agenda.
Bottom line, a blowhard, who not only blows off posters but is equally
at home in blowing off his own nation rather than attempting to bring
change from within.
Now me, I think there are criticisms for 'all' sides in the ME matter
and have said so. However, when there are criticisms made of Israel's
neighbors or indeed Islam itself, Hunter becomes riled because in his
mind, there is only 'one' definitive "culprit" and that is Israel and
the Jewish lobby. Any other 'sides' are completely blameless and hence
'victims'. Again, and as I stated, simply a latter day retro-whine by
Hunter that "The Jews are our misfortune" [!] and apparently if the Jews
, Israel and the Jews in 'America' and their lobby are taken out of the
equation, ahhhhh, a veritable "nirvana state" will descend upon the
Middle East and all be well for the duration of the species. You know,
of course, that Hunter is willing to 'volunteer' his services as a
'speech writer' for President Obama in Hunter's envisioned latter day
FDR-like "Fireside chats" after the Jews are essentially told to take a
friggin' hike and beat it but the more one reads Hunter's drool, I think
he'd be a better speech writer, in terms of his 'Jews Out!' and Jews as
the only culprit mind-set, for Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!
Doc Tony
;-)
[and then ...]
Deborah Sharavi [plays a hunch ... waits until Hunter is pre-occupied in
another matter and then affects a perfect Arabic accent and says ...]:
"Al Salam Alaikum!"
Hunter [by sheer habit responds immediately with the old right hand
quick-movement hand tap to the forehead and heart thing when turning
around to see who is addressing him... ]: "Al Salam Alaikum al Sa...
[sees who it is!] YOU! DEBORAH! YOU TRICKED ME! [Hunter suddenly pulls
an ad hoc rather high pitched Marlene Dietrich [!] on Deborah, you know,
in the "Witness for the Prosecution" flick when the 'Frau Helm' letters
were exposed and Marlene, but in this case Hunter, shrieks to Sir
Wilfrid, in this case Deborah, to wit...] DAMNNNNNNN YOUUUUUUUU!
DAMMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNNN YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!"
Deborah: "Thank you! Point made!"
Hunter's cat [from the other bit]: "Meowwwwwwwwwwwww!"
Hunter: "Shut-up, Mittens! When I want your opinion [!], I'll ask for
it!" [!]
Hunter's cat: [prior to imbibing from the water dish]: "L'CHIAM!" [!]
Hunter: "My pills! MY PILLS! It's happening again! WHY, 'ALLAH' [!], WHY
ME! Have I not been your faithful servant! Have I not chastised the
'infidel' [!] and left their citadel [!] and 'exposed' the 'Jew' [!] and
the "Israeli barbarity" [sic -- Hunter] sufficiently enough! SPEAK!
OHHHHHHH, SPEAK THAT I MIGHT PROFIT FROM YOUR WORD! S P E A K !"
'ALLAH' : [no stranger to the quip ... especially to a schmuck!]:
"Hunter! READ [!] Belle Barth [** 1911-1971]! How can you say it's not a
Jewish world ... when the sun's real name is 'Sol' !"
;-)
> was summoned to the office of the country�s President, Ezer Weizmann,
> who interrogated him for an hour about 1948. �Partly he wanted to
> know if I really am a historian, and also he wanted to know if I was
> an anti- Zionist as all my critics are portraying.� Satisfied that
> Morris was a good Zionist and a good historian, the President
> ordered a close aide to find Morris a job; and by the time he had
> walked him from the office � about fifteen minutes � one had
>>"When Hunter talks, Jews walk!�" Watson]
>>
>>Hunter, you are about as effective [!] a spokesperson for the "we" as
>>Alex "Muleschlep�" Vangel [Topaz] is for revisionists in his advocating
Doc Tony
> dsharavi wrote:
>
>> On Jun 10, 3:19 pm, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As 'Holman' says? I must have missed that one. But then, so-termed
>>> 'fragile egos', which you yourself personify, generally move to the
>>> froth
>>> when spoken to or confronted with virtually anything and that's simply
>>> not my way. Now, in a run-away attempt from my assessment of you, you
>>> went on and on about my not being a professional writer and my in-situ
>>> reaction was , hey, so what, believe or disbelieve as you wish! Why? A
>>> matter of long-term discipline with blowhards such as yourself and, as I
>>> stated, part of the satirist's territory.
>>> Meanwhile, my assessment of you stood unchallenged and remains so while
>>> you concurrently begin snipping and clipping what I have to say. Talk
>>> about fragile egos! Whew! You look the fool talking about fragile egos
>>> what with your poster on and off again blow-offs and assorted antics
>>> with me and other posters who simply call you on your drool.
>>
>>
>>
>> More Hunter Watson drool which he was called on, and from which he,
>> characteristically, ran like a goat.
>>
>
>
> Well, my own interest in Hunter came about when he attempted to seek the
> indulgence [!] of AR's resident track shoes runner, one "Papagei®" Ebe.
> Hunter's cat: [prior to imbibing from the water dish]: "L'CHAIM!" [!]
>
> Hunter: "My pills! MY PILLS! It's happening again! WHY, 'ALLAH' [!], WHY
> ME! Have I not been your faithful servant! Have I not chastised the
> 'infidel' [!] and left their citadel [!] and 'exposed' the 'Jew' [!] and
> the "Israeli barbarity" [sic -- Hunter] sufficiently enough! SPEAK!
> OHHHHHHH, SPEAK THAT I MIGHT PROFIT FROM YOUR WORD! S P E A K !"
>
> 'ALLAH' : [no stranger to the quip ... especially to a schmuck!]:
> "Hunter! READ [!] Belle Barth [** 1911-1971]! How can you say it's not a
> Jewish world ... when the sun's real name is 'Sol' !"
>
> ;-)
>
Two typos corrected. BTW, Belle Barth was a popular Jewish comedienne
in New York City [where I was born and raised -- Queens] back the 50's
and 60's. Like "Levy's Real Jewish Rye" [sic], one did not have to be
Jewish to appreciate her humor. "My next story is a little risqué ... "
[sic -- Belle Barth]
Anyway, I've made public criticisms of Israel and gave my reasons for
same JUST AS I've made public criticisms of Israel's neighbors and those
reasons therein. Unfortunately, nothing has worked in the Middle East
since 1948 but I don't think it's wholly one-sided and only 'one'
culprit. The Gaza matter, in my view, is more of an 'effect' of the
'cause' itself, Middle East chaos and disharmony. Find a ready
'Band-Aid' for Gaza does 'not' solve the larger problem(s) within the
region. Hence, it's not 'just' Gaza. It's much more than that. What I
would like to see is an increase in the authority of the United Nations
and having the requisite member nation stones [over 'labels'] to working
WITH that already established entity as a neutral arbiter of sorts, and
putting together some solutions that are not willy-nilly rejected or
ignored out of hand by various and sundry nations! And if they are
rejected or ignored, then such things as continued aid to 'any' ignoring
nation can be with-drawn until compliance is made. Favoritism out,
'realities' in. A sustained peace is the goal, not an agenda. On the
other hand, if a given nation, 'any' nation, is bent on
self-destruction, international pariah status and an armed conflict,
well, you do what you can and hope for a leadership of any given nation
that can either compromise or go under. As recorded history itself duly
demonstrates. I'm a dyed in the wool realist and, yes, cynical, because
I find one of the greatest problems on this globe to be human nature and
conflict is part and parcel of the species [as recorded history 'also'
duly records] and the 'best' one can hope for are at least 'sustained'
periods of peace until the next conflict arises somewhere on the planet
and again, one, but in the sense of 'collectively', does the best they
can to ameliorate the matter ... at least until the 'next' crisis and
human conflict pops up [and it surely will, somewhere] and hopefully
cool heads and realistic endeavors for peace can prevail. Remember the
horrors of World War 'I' and the millions slaughtered and the call after
it was over that it was "the war to end all wars" [sic] -- how long did
that noble slogan last! 21 years. And conflicts since and to this day.
I blame human nature. That's the way it is. You do what you can to deal
with it ... until the next conflict arrives. I offer recorded history
itself as my 'proof' ! So termed "a universal nirvana where everybody
gets along" on earth? A noble goal, indeed, but realistically untenable
in the long-haul of things. You do what you can and make the best of it.
'Compliance', in my view, will 'always' be met with 'defiance.' That's
human nature!
Doc Tony
;-)
[...] Refer to the thread for the other material
NefeshBarYochai
> On Jun 3, 9:58 am, A Moose In Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 12:50 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Obama administration wants change of Israel's Gaza blockade policy
>
> > > Top story: Amidst the diplomatic fallout over Israel's raid on a Gaza-
> > > bound flotilla, which resulted in the deaths of nine pro-Palestinian
> > > activists, the Obama administration regards the Israeli blockade of
> > > the Gaza Strip as increasingly untenable, according to senior U.S.
> > > officials. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vigorously
> > > defended the blockade, saying that it is necessary for Israel's
> > > security. The unnamed administration officials, however, asserted that
> > > Netanyahu was privately in agreement that the current policy had to be
> > > modified.
>
> > > This debate comes as another ship, the Rachel Corrie, will try to
> > > breach the Gaza blockade as early as Friday. The ship, which
> > > originated in Ireland, is carrying cement, educational materials,
> > > toys, and medical supplies meant for the people of Gaza. The European
> > > Campaign to End Siege on Gaza also announced that it had raised enough
> > > funds to sponsor three ships in a new flotilla.
>
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > elsewhere. They are causing too much trouble. One solution would be
> > to move Israel to Saskatchewan in Canada and give them enough room on
> > farmland. The original farmers would of course be compensated two
> > fold and that money would have to be repayed by the farmers of New
> > Israel in a 25 year plan. They would be allowed no military and have
> > a few RCMP detachments on the ground just in case some of them went
> > sociopath. Or they could just move to other countries and
> > assimilate. That's solution solution. You can't kick people out of
> > their houses and expect peace. Who the fuck thought of that in the
> > first place? They should be in prisin.
>
> Assimilate! Are you kidding, when has any Jew ever assimilated?
> They've been pulling this shit since the Babylonian Empire in
> Mesopotamia. They've been tossed out of every political sphere of
> influence who would have them.
>
> What have the nice Canadian people ever done to deserve that fate?
>
> I agree with a nice cold refrigerated environment. ...Maybe Antartica,
> or better yet the moon!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The place where you belong is under the skirt of a fat farting woman
you demented candy-ass. You really should stop masturbating. Don’t
you know you can go blind from masturbating you troll fuckner. Stop
using an Irish name you nasty Muslim queer.
NefeshBarYochai
> I am a US Vietnam War Army Combat veteran. My personal experiences as
> a combat soldier concomitant with the ethical decisions inherent with
> the same give me some insight into the ethical imperatives relative to
> humane behavior in warfare.
> Given the aforementioned, it is clear to me that the total blockade of
> Gaza by Israel is a definite war crime of huge proportions.
> The world community should insist that, although an arms blockade is
> acceptable, any other type of blockade is unacceptable as a War Crime.
> This is, especially, the case given the unique political, military,
> religious, and ethnic circumstances surrounding this specific
> conflict.
> If Israel refuses the demands, in this regard, of the world community,
> hopefully, through the United Nations should authorize the use of
> force to end this cruel and inhuman blockade.
> I, personally, believe that the USA should remain neutral with regard
> to this conflict specifically because of the religious nature of the
> same.
> Providing humanitarian assistance and a forum for the peaceful
> settlement of this conflict to all parties as a neutral should replace
> the current American policy of providing unqualified support for
> Israel.
You should have been fragged in Vietnam you traitorous asshole. Your
probably a Hun or a stinky Muslim that has never been anywhere near
Vietnam. You too should stop jacking off before you go completely
blind candy-ass.
NefeshBarYochai
>
> - Show quoted text -
Look you stupid son of a dirty cunt. Every US Marine Corps Drill
Instructor is ordered to teach every recruit the chain of command as
God, Country and Corps in that order. Now stop looking at those
little girls and wanting to fuck them you deviate piss face. I hope
somebody kills you.
Zion is going down taking USA with them and so are the fake jews
news:70ec75d1-f222-4ea9...@n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> Obama administration wants change of Israel's Gaza blockade policy
>
> Top story: Amidst the diplomatic fallout over Israel's raid on a Gaza-
> bound flotilla, which resulted in the deaths of nine pro-Palestinian
> activists, the Obama administration regards the Israeli blockade of
> the Gaza Strip as increasingly untenable, according to senior U.S.
> officials. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vigorously
> defended the blockade, saying that it is necessary for Israel's
> security. The unnamed administration officials, however, asserted that
> Netanyahu was privately in agreement that the current policy had to be
> modified.
>
> This debate comes as another ship, the Rachel Corrie, will try to
> breach the Gaza blockade as early as Friday. The ship, which
> originated in Ireland, is carrying cement, educational materials,
> toys, and medical supplies meant for the people of Gaza. The European
> Campaign to End Siege on Gaza also announced that it had raised enough
> funds to sponsor three ships in a new flotilla.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel was established based on lies, deception, and false history, so
Netanyahu is not different, he is also employing lies and deception as part
of Jewish heritage!!
NefeshBarYochai
are the fake jews" <frankopi...@aol.com> wrote:
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:70ec75d1-f222-4ea9...@n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Obama administration wants change of Israel's Gaza blockade policy
>
> > Top story: Amidst the diplomatic fallout over Israel's raid on a Gaza-
> > bound flotilla, which resulted in the deaths of nine pro-Palestinian
> > activists, the Obama administration regards the Israeli blockade of
> > the Gaza Strip as increasingly untenable, according to senior U.S.
> > officials. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vigorously
> > defended the blockade, saying that it is necessary for Israel's
> > security. The unnamed administration officials, however, asserted that
> > Netanyahu was privately in agreement that the current policy had to be
> > modified.
>
> > This debate comes as another ship, the Rachel Corrie, will try to
> > breach the Gaza blockade as early as Friday. The ship, which
> > originated in Ireland, is carrying cement, educational materials,
> > toys, and medical supplies meant for the people of Gaza. The European
> > Campaign to End Siege on Gaza also announced that it had raised enough
> > funds to sponsor three ships in a new flotilla.
>
>
> Israel was established based on lies, deception, and false history, so
> Netanyahu is not different, he is also employing lies and deception as part
>
> - Show quoted text -
Look you illegitimate mamzer baby of 1000 fathers you will never have
a Palestine as long as the Dome of the Rock is where it is at. The
next phase will be a plague from HaShem and Muslims will die by the
millions.
Amen
Zion is going down taking USA with them and so are the fake jews
coaste...@yahoo.com
> iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Jun 9, 11:45 am,DocTony<doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> >>DocTonywrote:
>
>
> Hunter, you are about as effective [!] a spokesperson for the "we" as
coaste...@yahoo.com
> iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Jun 9, 11:45 am,DocTony<doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> >>DocTonywrote:
>
>
> >>>Hunter, go sleep it off and relax.
>
> > You really are a bore. It's a pain to read you if only because you
> > wander and are terrified of substance. You're so full of yourself and
> > time. I've got to go now but when I return I'll paste in an example
> > from alt.revisionism. And I'll also reply to your assertion that the
> > problem lies equally with the two sides. That, sir, is ignorant to say
> > the least.
>
> As 'Holman' says? I must have missed that one.
Oh no. You didn't miss it. I was there. Holman is your master, one of
them at least, on alt.revisionism.
But then, so-termed
> 'fragile egos', which you yourself personify, general move to the froth
> when spoken to or confronted with virtually anything and that's simply
> not my way.
YOU eschew froth?! You define it. Your "serious" posts are completely
without substance and your "satire" is an aimless mishmash innocent of
insight. It can't be defined as satire even at the lowest level as it
is without structure and insight.
Now, in a run-away attempt from my assessment of you,
You don't assess me. You accuse me of smoking crack cocaine instead.
And then you make the pretense of waspish rectitude by pretending to
avoid naughty words.
you
> went on and on about my not being a professional writer
I didn't go on and on. I stated the obvious. I based it on the
absolute lack of professional quality in your output here---and on
your reluctance to give us an example of your work. Hey, I offered to
review it free of charge!
and my in-situ
> reaction was , hey, so what, believe ot disbelieve as you wish! Why? A
> matter of long-term discipline with blowhards such as yourself and, as I
> stated, part of satirist's territory.
Do you doubt the wisdom of your "in-situ" reactions, you sitting on
your ass reactions? Or are you just addicted to using Latin as a part
of your self-puffery.
>
> Meanwhile, my assessment of you stood unchallenged and remains so while
> you concurrently begin snipping and clipping what I have to say.
You have made no assessment of me. You've just picked up slanders from
a couple of my enemies here. Were you intent on actually evaluating
what I write here you would have responded specifically to what you
requested of me and ran from, i.e., my policy suggestions for ending
the struggle over Palestine. Until you deal with them one by one--
seriously--you will not have even attempted to assess me.
Talk
> about fragile egos! Whew! You look the fool talking about fragile egos
> what with your poster on and off again blow-offs and assorted antics
> with me and other posters who simply call you on your drool.
Well, that was Holman. I agree with him. I read what you post as
evidence of insecurity and attention-getting behavior.
> Anyway, keep beating feet from my assessment of you for what you are and
> your palpable agenda which I pegged and do what you feel the , shall we
> say, 'voices', both internal and external, apparently dictate for you to
> do.
Here's an example of a vacuous four-liner. You conflate a boot in the
ass with beating feet. You haven't worked up anything on "my agenda"
and want the readers simply to assume something so you won't have to
argue it yourself. As to voices, why don't you begin by explaining why
you perceive it to be amusing to add two or three meaningless
characters to the "read more" button in a long post. You think it is
"satirical". Or more probably you want the idiot who gets that far to
presume so.
>
> DocTony
> ;-)
>
> "Presently we [!] critics of Zionism and Israeli barbarity -- we [!]
> supporters of recovering our sovereignty and controlling our
> relationship with Israel-- dominate these newsgroups." [sic -- Hunter
> "When Hunter talks, Jews walk!�" Watson]
Yes, "we". There are tens of thousands of us in the movement. And yes
it is a movement even though very loosely coordinated. I notice you
don't touch "...critics of Zionism and Israeli barbarity." You sense,
I suppose, that Zionism at the policy level and Israeli barbarity are
not going to be constructive topics for you. Not opposite me anyway.
You're right about that but you might attempt it as a matter of
intellectual courage. You don't touch "recovering our sovereignty and
controlling our relationship with Israel" either. You're not going
face them. Nor are you going to face the fact that people in the
movement, critics of Israeli policy and people for example whose
concerns are with the long term well being of the United States,
dominate these newsgroups. There are good reasons, Doc. Israeli policy
and behavior is indefensible legally, morally, and historically and
this augurs poorly for the other side of the argument. At bottom line
our concern for the welfare of our own country is of equal priority.
Just where is the US going to stand on what should actually be non-
negotiable items. I care a lot about that and frivolous usenet
"personalities" such as you are just going to be elbowed aside.
BTW, what the hell does "Jews walk!�" mean? I propose that it means
absolutely nothing. Feel free to contradict me. We'll have a good
time.
Bluntly said, crimes against Jews in 1940s Europe don't justify
unrelated crimes against Arabs and other Muslims in the 21st Century.
They certainly don't justify America's one sided, mostly involuntary
entanglement in it. If you think they do justify them, argue your
point in English without umlauted "i"s and Spanish notation.
> Hunter, you are about as effective [!] a spokesperson for the "we" as
> Alex "Muleschlep�" Vangel [Topaz] is for revisionists in his advocating
> Osama bin Laden as a "revisionist ally" [sic] and revisionist friend!
Bin Laden appears to have admitted to mass murders. I want to seem him
hang after good old American due process. Have you a problem with
that?
> The embarrassment is watching your unraveling and lame attempts to run
> away from the assessment which you asked me for and I which I rendered
> to you.
YOU DID? Surely you're joking. I didn't think you could possibly have
been serious. Tell me, how does one know when you've deviated from
being oriented in time and space to "satire"? I'll certainly go look
for it.
That you don't care for it is simply not my problem nor concern.
Don't jump to that conclusion. I thought you weren't serious.
> Now, if you wish to cull 13 years of my Usenet posts to find
> something, again, be my guest but I would appreciate anything you cite
> be given in full since I have the same archive input as you do. And by
> all means, 'do' come back! You've already done the blow off post
> previously so if you're coming back, then stay back and at least be
> consistent in something!
Thirteen years of YOU? I'm not Catholic and therefore not a candidate
for purgatory. I'll be back so long as I think giving you some of my
time benefits the cause.
>
> The Voice: "Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!"
Keep stroking that fragile ego, Doc.
>
> ;-)
coaste...@yahoo.com
> DocTonywrote:
Tony wrote that he had replied to my post in which I gave him what he
asked for, i.e., what Obama should do about the stand-off in
Palestine.
Okay, I've looked. I have no idea which post YOU THINK contains a
reply to mine on the policy level. I don't think it exists. If it does
please paste it in here in its entirety.
dsharavi
wrote:
>You don't assess me. You accuse me of smoking crack cocaine instead.
That was wrong. It would be more accurate to accuse Hunter of abusing
tequila.
>I didn't go on and on. I stated the obvious.
"The obvious" being: Herr Watson lied -- as per his usual, as the
following shows:
>My God, Deborah! I can't imagine not facing anything you
> have ever said competently and without mendacity.
Repeatedly.
[snip Watsonian palaver]
>Point them out, bitch.
the so-called "New Historians", made extensive use of Arab sources.
>were socialists
[truncation by HHW restored:
Zionists protesting Zionists' actions is ENTIRELY Zionist principle.
which H alleges is a figment of H's imagination– or, more likely, that
of whichever idiot propagandist H pilfered this from.
"In 1996, he was on the verge of emigrating to a job in America, and
told a journalist as much. At noon the day the article appeared, he
was summoned to the office of the country’s President, Ezer Weizmann,
who interrogated him for an hour about 1948. “Partly he wanted to know
if I really am a historian, and also he wanted to know if I was an
anti- Zionist as all my critics are portraying.” Satisfied that Morris
was a good Zionist and a good historian, the President ordered a close
aide to find Morris a job; and by the time he had walked him from the
office — about fifteen minutes — one had been lined up for him. It
took about a year for all the formal hoops to be jumped through, but
dsharavi
wrote:
> Okay, I've looked. I have no idea which post YOU THINK contains a
> reply to mine
See the following:
Repeatedly.
[snip Watsonian palaver]
>Point them out, bitch.
the so-called "New Historians", made extensive use of Arab sources.
>were socialists
[truncation by HHW restored:
Zionists protesting Zionists' actions is ENTIRELY Zionist principle.
which H alleges is a figment of H's imagination– or, more likely, that
of whichever idiot propagandist H pilfered this from.
"In 1996, he was on the verge of emigrating to a job in America, and
told a journalist as much. At noon the day the article appeared, he
was summoned to the office of the country’s President, Ezer Weizmann,
who interrogated him for an hour about 1948. “Partly he wanted to know
if I really am a historian, and also he wanted to know if I was an
anti- Zionist as all my critics are portraying.” Satisfied that Morris
was a good Zionist and a good historian, the President ordered a close
aide to find Morris a job; and by the time he had walked him from the
office — about fifteen minutes — one had been lined up for him. It
Doc Tony
icono...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jun 10, 5:19 pm, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>>iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 9, 11:45 am,DocTony<doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>DocTonywrote:
>>>
>>>>>>What you are more than anything else,Doc, is a bore.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hunter, go sleep it off and relax.
>>>>
>>>You really are a bore. It's a pain to read you if only because you
>>>wander and are terrified of substance. You're so full of yourself and
>>>as Holman says, you have such a fragile ego, that you're a waste of
>>>time. I've got to go now but when I return I'll paste in an example
>>>from alt.revisionism. And I'll also reply to your assertion that the
>>>problem lies equally with the two sides. That, sir, is ignorant to say
>>>the least.
>>
>>As 'Holman' says? I must have missed that one.
>
>
> Oh no. You didn't miss it. I was there. Holman is your master, one of
> them at least, on alt.revisionism.
>
How about a cite so I can see what you're talking about.
> But then, so-termed
>
>>'fragile egos', which you yourself personify, general move to the froth
>> when spoken to or confronted with virtually anything and that's simply
>>not my way.
>
>
> YOU eschew froth?! You define it. Your "serious" posts are completely
> without substance and your "satire" is an aimless mishmash innocent of
> insight. It can't be defined as satire even at the lowest level as it
> is without structure and insight.
>
When it hits home, it's always negatively described and that's how I
know it's not only registered but it's rarely refuted! You're still
running from the assessment which you asked me for and which I gave you.
If you don't like it, tough! I also think you're a whacko. And I said
so. Why? Because you are!
>
> >Now, in a run-away attempt from my assessment of you,
>
> You don't assess me. You accuse me of smoking crack cocaine instead.
> And then you make the pretense of waspish rectitude by pretending to
> avoid naughty words.
>
See how you run away from my assessment of you? A smoke screen just as
you do with others who have you pegged 'both' the whacko and the
belching 'Jews Out!' blowhard. Easy to spot and just as easy to expose.
The rest is watching you unravel.
> >you
>
>>went on and on about my not being a professional writer
>
>
> I didn't go on and on. I stated the obvious. I based it on the
> absolute lack of professional quality in your output here---and on
> your reluctance to give us an example of your work. Hey, I offered to
> review it free of charge!
>
Who is this "us" you keep referring to? Do you honestly think a fool and
blowhard like yourself represents the "us" ? You're dumber than I
thought!
You're a whacko, Hunter! Face it!
>>DocTony
>>;-)
>>
>>"Presently we [!] critics of Zionism and Israeli barbarity -- we [!]
>>supporters of recovering our sovereignty and controlling our
>>relationship with Israel-- dominate these newsgroups." [sic -- Hunter
>>"When Hunter talks, Jews walk!�" Watson]
>
>
> Yes, "we". There are tens of thousands of us in the movement.
I think that says it all! And "we" in the "movement" ! Whew. Take your
pills, Hunter, and stop making a greater fool of yourself as you already
have. Even your age isn't an excuse not your beating beat from both my
assessment of you ... and your own nation to boot.
>And yes
> it is a movement even though very loosely coordinated.
[!]
>I notice you
> don't touch "...critics of Zionism and Israeli barbarity." You sense,
> I suppose, that Zionism at the policy level and Israeli barbarity are
> not going to be constructive topics for you. Not opposite me anyway.
> You're right about that but you might attempt it as a matter of
> intellectual courage. You don't touch "recovering our sovereignty and
> controlling our relationship with Israel" either. You're not going
> face them. Nor are you going to face the fact that people in the
> movement, critics of Israeli policy and people for example whose
> concerns are with the long term well being of the United States,
> dominate these newsgroups. There are good reasons, Doc. Israeli policy
> and behavior is indefensible legally, morally, and historically and
> this augurs poorly for the other side of the argument. At bottom line
> our concern for the welfare of our own country is of equal priority.
> Just where is the US going to stand on what should actually be non-
> negotiable items. I care a lot about that and frivolous usenet
> "personalities" such as you are just going to be elbowed aside.
>
> BTW, what the hell does "Jews walk!�" mean? I propose that it means
> absolutely nothing. Feel free to contradict me. We'll have a good
> time.
>
> Bluntly said, crimes against Jews in 1940s Europe don't justify
> unrelated crimes against Arabs and other Muslims in the 21st Century.
> They certainly don't justify America's one sided, mostly involuntary
> entanglement in it. If you think they do justify them, argue your
> point in English without umlauted "i"s and Spanish notation.
>
Zzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzzzzz
>
>>Hunter, you are about as effective [!] a spokesperson for the "we" as
>>Alex "Muleschlep�" Vangel [Topaz] is for revisionists in his advocating
>>Osama bin Laden as a "revisionist ally" [sic] and revisionist friend!
>
>
> Bin Laden appears to have admitted to mass murders. I want to seem him
> hang after good old American due process. Have you a problem with
> that?
>
>
>>The embarrassment is watching your unraveling and lame attempts to run
>>away from the assessment which you asked me for and I which I rendered
>>to you.
>
>
> YOU DID? Surely you're joking. I didn't think you could possibly have
> been serious. Tell me, how does one know when you've deviated from
> being oriented in time and space to "satire"? I'll certainly go look
> for it.
>
> >That you don't care for it is simply not my problem nor concern.
>
> Don't jump to that conclusion. I thought you weren't serious.
>
>
Now you know better! I was serious! You're a whacko and a runner!
>> Now, if you wish to cull 13 years of my Usenet posts to find
>>something, again, be my guest but I would appreciate anything you cite
>>be given in full since I have the same archive input as you do. And by
>>all means, 'do' come back! You've already done the blow off post
>>previously so if you're coming back, then stay back and at least be
>>consistent in something!
>
>
> Thirteen years of YOU? I'm not Catholic and therefore not a candidate
> for purgatory. I'll be back so long as I think giving you some of my
> time benefits the cause.
>
You're a candidate for the padded room, Hunter, and psychotropic
medication! Stay in Latin America and froth on about the "we" and the
"movement" and your admitted latter day philosophy of "the Jews are our
misfortune" but 'do' write to President Obama as I'm certain he'll be
all open arms when you offer to write his speeches for those latter day
"Fireside chats" and once the Jews are told to take a hike which
constitutes your sole cure and your sole culprit for the Middle East.
Have you ever considered living in Iran, Hunter, as opposed to hiding
out in Latin America? As long as you're beating feet from your own
nation, why not go where your rhetoric would be thoroughly embraced,
appreciated and Salaamed to the heavens!
>>The Voice: "Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!"
>
>
> Keep stroking that fragile ego, Doc.
>
Stroking you does nothing, 'exposing' you is the key! But then, you
expose yourself quite readily once a few buttons are pushed and then
your agenda becomes quite clear. Good luck with your "movement" although
I tend to think it's more of a multiple bowel variety although the
stench of same is unmistakable. That you've become immune to it is also
quite evident. As for your 'enemies', well, most blowhards like
yourself frequently cite numerous "enemies", both seen and unseen, as
they go on and on talking about and allegedly representing the "we".
Flatus in the wind. But they wallow in it and seemingly enjoy it
although when they're pegged and exposed, they tend to whine like stuck
pigs.
Doc Tony
;-)
[and then ....]
Hunter: "Why the livvvvving nerrrrrve! Let Doc Tony come down here
[Latin America] and see how even the peas..ehhh...natives [!] respect me
and, hahahaha, even gave me a special name, no doubt in deference to my
years and vast experience. I'm not sure what it means but I like the
sound of it when they call out to me in the street and seemingly bow
when they say, "Ola, Hunter, El Cabron!" " [!]
;-)
PS: I'll be away this week, so try to keep calm with all those "enemies"
[!] and stay on your medication.
;-)
>>;-)
>
>
dsharavi
> Well, my own interest in Hunter came about when he attempted to seek the
> [** the AR nym 'Johannes von Ebersdorf], and Hunter essentially pleaded
> with Ebe that he [Hunter] had been misinterpreted after Ebe blew Hunter
> off as is Ebe's usual MO when he reads things he doesn't like.
Sounds like Hunter's MO when HE reads something HE doesn't like.
> Anyway,
> Hunter tells Ebe, "I'm a bourgeois professional, not an academic." [sic]
> ! Once Ebe was satisfied that Hunter was not challenging him or asking
> pesky questions which Ebe resents from anyone, Ebe backed off.
Hunter's a retired attorney, who spent several decades practicing in a
tiny Northern town which still has fewer residents than my high school
had students.
> In a subsequent comment by Hunter to one 'Uncle Toad', Hunter writes,
> "If one loses his basic civility [**!**] he's lost most everything. I am
> occasionally over-bearing [!] I suppose, but I think what I do here is
> as important as anything else I can do as a retired gent in his eighth
> decade living in a foreign country." [sic 3-15-10, 10:07 PM US-EST].
lol
And marijuana is a performance-enhancing drug.
> Now I've asked Hunter about this 'foreign country' business at least
> three times but it was ignored. A simple archives check indicates that
> he's residing in Latin America but the 'only' reason I asked is because
> Hunter had made other public comment that he will not return to the
> United States until the Palestinians are free.
lol
Hunter spends half the year living the loafer's life in a Mexican
villa, waited on by servants.
> In other words, instead
> of being part of the solution on his home turf and taking such legal
> actions or group initiatives that are within any US citizen's right
> whether individually or within a group, Hunter beats feet, whines about
> the Jews being the 'singular' cause of 'all' the woes in the Middle East
> and hence Hunter merely becomes part of the problem since talk is cheap.
Particularly for Herr Watson, since talk seems about all he's ever
done.
> Even cheaper when done from afar and blaming one side and one side only
> for 'all' that is wrong in the Middle East. In effect, an agenda.
> Bottom line, a blowhard, who not only blows off posters but is equally
> at home in blowing off his own nation rather than attempting to bring
> change from within.
Don't forget to include "coward" and "mendacious" among adjectives
describing Hunter Watson.
> Now me, I think there are criticisms for 'all' sides in the ME matter
> and have said so. However, when there are criticisms made of Israel's
> neighbors or indeed Islam itself, Hunter becomes riled because in his
> mind, there is only 'one' definitive "culprit" and that is Israel and
> the Jewish lobby. Any other 'sides' are completely blameless and hence
> 'victims'. Again, and as I stated, simply a latter day retro-whine by
> Hunter that "The Jews are our misfortune" [!] and apparently if the Jews
> , Israel and the Jews in 'America' and their lobby are taken out of the
> equation, ahhhhh, a veritable "nirvana state" will descend upon the
> Middle East and all be well for the duration of the species. You know,
> of course, that Hunter is willing to 'volunteer' his services as a
> 'speech writer' for President Obama in Hunter's envisioned latter day
> FDR-like "Fireside chats" after the Jews are essentially told to take a
> friggin' hike and beat it but the more one reads Hunter's drool, I think
> he'd be a better speech writer, in terms of his 'Jews Out!' and Jews as
> the only culprit mind-set, for Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!
>
> Doc Tony
> ;-)
I think you have got it.
rotflol
Deborah
> > was summoned to the office of the country s President, Ezer Weizmann,
> > who interrogated him for an hour about 1948. Partly he wanted to
> > know if I really am a historian, and also he wanted to know if I was
> > an anti- Zionist as all my critics are portraying. Satisfied that
> > Morris was a good Zionist and a good historian, the President
> > ordered a close aide to find Morris a job; and by the time he had
> > walked him from the office about fifteen minutes one had
> >>"When Hunter talks, Jews walk! " Watson]
>
> >>Hunter, you are about as effective [!] a spokesperson for the "we" as
> >>Alex "Muleschlep " Vangel [Topaz] is for revisionists in his advocating
dsharavi
On Jun 13, 5:26 pm, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
> When it hits home, it's always negatively described and that's how I
> know it's not only registered but it's rarely refuted! You're still
> running from the assessment which you asked me for and which I gave you.
Typical Watson move. Whenever he doesn't like anything -- usually
facts, like those set forth below -- Hunter runs like a wild goat from
them, as he keeps running from the following facts:
On Jun 13, 1:21 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2:00 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 11, 7:39 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> I'm reading "1948" now.
Just like you read Sachar. Not.
>>"iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>I don't often read you, Deb.
.
>dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>Especially when you know I've proven you wrong, yet again, and exposed
>>your lies. Have you already forgotten your requests to which I
>>responded? Here they are again, for your convenience. Do you plan to
>>respond to MY requests--or are you going to continue
>>making your usual lame excuses?
iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>I told you I don't read you.
Wrong again. You stated "I don't often read you, Deb." Your assertion
that you do NOT read me, period, is, of course, a blatant lie.
>Have you made requests? Feel free too outline
>them here, and if I miss them, remind me.
I've done that quite a few times. You have either ignored my
requests, or produced lame excuses, or outright lies.
>>=====================
>>From: dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>
>>Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 07:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
>>Subject: Re: Hunter Watson: Lying again, being an idiot,
>>and too
>>stupid to know what else to do
>Given that I haven't seen your "requests," how do you come to >the
>conclusion above. Lying, idiocy, stupidity. Really now. Send >us your
>"requests". I look forward to gratifying you requests.
Yet another lie. You've seen them many times. You ignore them, or lie
about them, because you can't respond to them.
>My God, Deborah! I can't imagine not facing anything you
> have ever said competently and without mendacity.
Repeatedly.
[snip Watsonian palaver]
the so-called "New Historians", made extensive use of Arab sources.
[truncation by HHW restored:
Zionists protesting Zionists' actions is ENTIRELY Zionist principle.
which H alleges is a figment of H's imagination– or, more likely, that
Cazador
> iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 5:19 pm, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> >>iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>On Jun 9, 11:45 am,DocTony<doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>DocTonywrote:
>
> >>>>>>What you are more than anything else,Doc, is a bore.
>
> >>>>>Hunter, go sleep it off and relax.
>
> >>>You really are a bore. It's a pain to read you if only because you
> >>>wander and are terrified of substance. You're so full of yourself and
> >>>as Holman says, you have such a fragile ego, that you're a waste of
> >>>time. I've got to go now but when I return I'll paste in an example
> >>>from alt.revisionism. And I'll also reply to your assertion that the
> >>>problem lies equally with the two sides. That, sir, is ignorant to say
> >>>the least.
>
> >>As 'Holman' says? I must have missed that one.
>
> > Oh no. You didn't miss it. I was there. Holman is your master, one of
> > them at least, on alt.revisionism.
>
> How about a cite so I can see what you're talking about.
It's in the alt.revisionism thread in which this encounter began. You
can find it as easily as I.
> > But then, so-termed
>
> >>'fragile egos', which you yourself personify, general move to the froth
> >> when spoken to or confronted with virtually anything and that's simply
> >>not my way.
>
> > YOU eschew froth?! You define it. Your "serious" posts are completely
> > without substance and your "satire" is an aimless mishmash innocent of
> > insight. It can't be defined as satire even at the lowest level as it
> > is without structure and insight.
>
> When it hits home, it's always negatively described and that's how I
> know it's not only registered but it's rarely refuted!
Nonsense, the negative description is fully warranted by what you
post. Go ahead, show as an example of your "satire" which you believe
is good stuff. You're a fake, Tony.
You're still
> running from the assessment which you asked me for and which I gave you.
> If you don't like it, tough!
At least you admit you're running. That goes to the bank.
I also think you're a whacko. And I said
> so. Why? Because you are!
If the readers are interested in drawing conclusions about me they
won't do it while you're still running from a post you demanded I
write. That's what this is about, idiot. You demanded it. You got it.
and now you run from it. That doesn't make ME a "whacko".
> > >Now, in a run-away attempt from my assessment of you,
>
> > You don't assess me. You accuse me of smoking crack cocaine instead.
> > And then you make the pretense of waspish rectitude by pretending to
> > avoid naughty words.
>
> See how you run away from my assessment of you? A smoke screen just as
> you do with others who have you pegged 'both' the whacko and the
> belching 'Jews Out!' blowhard. Easy to spot and just as easy to expose.
> The rest is watching you unravel.
There is no question that I have enemies here. One is judged by his
enemies but only after the Judge evaluates THEM. They too have long
term histories here. You don't do that. You get pushed into a corner
and to defend yourself immediately pick up their defamations. You
repeat them knowing nothing about them.
>
> > >you
>
> >>went on and on about my not being a professional writer
>
> > I didn't go on and on. I stated the obvious. I based it on the
> > absolute lack of professional quality in your output here---and on
> > your reluctance to give us an example of your work. Hey, I offered to
> > review it free of charge!
>
> Who is this "us" you keep referring to? Do you honestly think a fool and
> blowhard like yourself represents the "us" ? You're dumber than I
> thought!
Do you think we're operating in a vacuum here? I'm certainly not.
By the way, I also don't believe that you receive any substantial
amount of e-mail about what you write here. You're talking to yourself
to flatter that fragile ego.
> >> >and my in-situ
>
> >>reaction was , hey, so what, believe ot disbelieve as you wish! Why? A
> >>matter of long-term discipline with blowhards such as yourself and, as I
> >>stated, part of satirist's territory.
>
> > Do you doubt the wisdom of your "in-situ" reactions, your sitting on
> > your ass reactions? Or are you just addicted to using Latin as a part
> > of your self-puffery.
>
> >>Meanwhile, my assessment of you stood unchallenged and remains so while
> >>you concurrently begin snipping and clipping what I have to say.
>
> > You have made no assessment of me. You've just picked up slanders from
> > a couple of my enemies here. Were you intent on actually evaluating
> > what I write here you would have responded specifically to what you
> > requested of me and ran from, i.e., my policy suggestions for ending
> > the struggle over Palestine. Until you deal with them one by one--
> > seriously--you will not have even attempted to assess me.
>
> >> Talk
> >>about fragile egos! Whew! You look the fool talking about fragile egos
> >>what with your poster on and off again blow-offs and assorted antics
> >>with me and other posters who simply call you on your drool.
>
> > Well, that was Holman. I agree with him. I read what you post as
> > evidence of insecurity and attention-getting behavior.
They are what you are serious about, nothing else.
> >>Anyway, keep beating feet from my assessment of you for what you are and
> >>your palpable agenda which I pegged and do what you feel the , shall we
> >>say, 'voices', both internal and external, apparently dictate for you to
> >>do.
>
> > Here's an example of a vacuous four-liner. You conflate a boot in the
> > ass with beating feet. You haven't worked up anything on "my agenda"
> > and want the readers simply to assume something so you won't have to
> > argue it yourself. As to voices, why don't you begin by explaining why
> > you perceive it to be amusing to add two or three meaningless
> > characters to the "read more" button in a long post. You think it is
> > "satirical"? Or more probably you want the idiot who gets that far to
> > presume so.
>
> You're a whacko, Hunter! Face it!
>
> >>DocTony
> >>;-)
>
> >>"Presently we [!] critics of Zionism and Israeli barbarity -- we [!]
> >>supporters of recovering our sovereignty and controlling our
> >>relationship with Israel-- dominate these newsgroups." [sic -- Hunter
> >>"When Hunter talks, Jews walk! " Watson]
>
> > Yes, "we". There are tens of thousands of us in the movement.
>
> I think that says it all! And "we" in the "movement" ! Whew. Take your
> pills, Hunter, and stop making a greater fool of yourself as you already
> have. Even your age isn't an excuse not your beating beat from both my
> assessment of you ... and your own nation to boot.
>
> >And yes
> > it is a movement even though very loosely coordinated.
>
> [!]
You need a definition of very loosely coordinated?
>
> >I notice you
> > don't touch "...critics of Zionism and Israeli barbarity." You sense,
> > I suppose, that Zionism at the policy level and Israeli barbarity are
> > not going to be constructive topics for you. Not opposite me anyway.
> > You're right about that but you might attempt it as a matter of
> > intellectual courage. You don't touch "recovering our sovereignty and
> > controlling our relationship with Israel" either. You're not going
> > face them. Nor are you going to face the fact that people in the
> > movement, critics of Israeli policy and people for example whose
> > concerns are with the long term well being of the United States,
> > dominate these newsgroups. There are good reasons, Doc. Israeli policy
> > and behavior is indefensible legally, morally, and historically and
> > this augurs poorly for the other side of the argument. At bottom line
> > our concern for the welfare of our own country is of equal priority.
> > Just where is the US going to stand on what should actually be non-
> > negotiable items? I care a lot about that and frivolous usenet
> > "personalities" such as you are just going to be elbowed aside.
>
> > BTW, what the hell does "Jews walk! " mean? I propose that it means
> > absolutely nothing. Feel free to contradict me. We'll have a good
> > time.
>
> > Bluntly said, crimes against Jews in 1940s Europe don't justify
> > unrelated crimes against Arabs and other Muslims in the 21st Century.
> > They certainly don't justify America's one sided, mostly involuntary
> > entanglement in it. If you think they do justify them, argue your
> > point in English without umlauted "i"s and Spanish notation.
>
> Zzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzzzzz
You're not asleep. You're running and you've clipped the umlauted "i"
and your inverted Spanish question mark too. What the hell do you
think they mean added to anything in an English sentence?
>
>
>
> >>Hunter, you are about as effective [!] a spokesperson for the "we" as
> >>Alex "Muleschlep " Vangel [Topaz] is for revisionists in his advocating
> >>Osama bin Laden as a "revisionist ally" [sic] and revisionist friend!
>
> > Bin Laden appears to have admitted to mass murders. I want to seem him
> > hang after good old American due process. Have you a problem with
> > that?
>
> >>The embarrassment is watching your unraveling and lame attempts to run
> >>away from the assessment which you asked me for and I which I rendered
> >>to you.
>
> > YOU DID? Surely you're joking. I didn't think you could possibly have
> > been serious. Tell me, how does one know when you've deviated from
> > being oriented in time and space to "satire"? I'll certainly go look
> > for it.
>
> > >That you don't care for it is simply not my problem nor concern.
>
> > Don't jump to that conclusion. I thought you weren't serious.
>
> Now you know better! I was serious! You're a whacko and a runner!
Fine, fine, you were serious. Now, precisely which post are you
speaking of. You've made such a mess of the thread I have no idea
which one you mean. Post it in whole if you please.
>
> >> Now, if you wish to cull 13 years of my Usenet posts to find
> >>something, again, be my guest but I would appreciate anything you cite
> >>be given in full since I have the same archive input as you do. And by
> >>all means, 'do' come back! You've already done the blow off post
> >>previously so if you're coming back, then stay back and at least be
> >>consistent in something!
>
> > Thirteen years of YOU? I'm not Catholic and therefore not a candidate
> > for purgatory. I'll be back so long as I think giving you some of my
> > time benefits the cause.
>
> You're a candidate for the padded room, Hunter, and psychotropic
> medication!
Because I use the word "we" when speaking of like minded movement
people?
Stay in Latin America and froth on about the "we" and the
> "movement" and your admitted latter day philosophy of "the Jews are our
> misfortune"
You posted that racist comment, not me. I never speak of "the Jews".
You're the racist, not me.
I will certainly say that Israeli Zionism, the Israeli Zionist
leadership in Israel, Israeli occupation and brutality against the
Palestinian people, Israeli ethnic cleansings and the depredations of
our Israel Lobby on our Congress are legitimate criticisms and have
nothing to do with anti-Semitism. If you've got the chutzpah to
question them I'll be looking forward to it.
but 'do' write to President Obama as I'm certain he'll be
> all open arms when you offer to write his speeches for those latter day
> "Fireside chats" and once the Jews are told to take a hike which
> constitutes your sole cure and your sole culprit for the Middle East.
You get away with what you think is satire and I don't?
As to Jews "taking a hike" that's your imagination speaking. I'm a
green line man. I support American policy on the settlement
negotiations. Where do you stand on questions other than crack
cocaine?
> Have you ever considered living in Iran, Hunter, as opposed to hiding
> out in Latin America?
We have two homes, asshole. We don't hide. A million of us live here.
We never see bad weather, not a snowflake in the last seven years. The
sun shines almost every day. In the summer its our place on Lake
Superior.
As long as you're beating feet from your own
> nation, why not go where your rhetoric would be thoroughly embraced,
> appreciated and Salaamed to the heavens!
Address the real issues, Tony.
That was good for a satiric double wink, eh?
Doc Tony
icono...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jun 10, 5:19 pm, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>>iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 9, 11:45 am,DocTony<doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>DocTonywrote:
>>>
>>>>>>What you are more than anything else,Doc, is a bore.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hunter, go sleep it off and relax.
>>>>
>>>You really are a bore. It's a pain to read you if only because you
>>>wander and are terrified of substance. You're so full of yourself and
>>>as Holman says, you have such a fragile ego, that you're a waste of
>>>time. I've got to go now but when I return I'll paste in an example
>>>from alt.revisionism. And I'll also reply to your assertion that the
>>>problem lies equally with the two sides. That, sir, is ignorant to say
>>>the least.
>>
>>As 'Holman' says? I must have missed that one.
>
>
> Oh no. You didn't miss it. I was there. Holman is your master, one of
> them at least, on alt.revisionism.
>
How about a cite so I can see what you're talking about.
> But then, so-termed
>
>>'fragile egos', which you yourself personify, general move to the froth
>> when spoken to or confronted with virtually anything and that's simply
>>not my way.
>
>
> YOU eschew froth?! You define it. Your "serious" posts are completely
> without substance and your "satire" is an aimless mishmash innocent of
> insight. It can't be defined as satire even at the lowest level as it
> is without structure and insight.
>
When it hits home, it's always negatively described and that's how I
know it's not only registered but it's rarely refuted! You're still
running from the assessment which you asked me for and which I gave you.
If you don't like it, tough! I also think you're a whacko. And I said
so. Why? Because you are!
>
> >Now, in a run-away attempt from my assessment of you,
>
> You don't assess me. You accuse me of smoking crack cocaine instead.
> And then you make the pretense of waspish rectitude by pretending to
> avoid naughty words.
>
See how you run away from my assessment of you? A smoke screen just as
you do with others who have you pegged 'both' the whacko and the
belching 'Jews Out!' blowhard. Easy to spot and just as easy to expose.
The rest is watching you unravel.
> >you
>
>>went on and on about my not being a professional writer
>
>
> I didn't go on and on. I stated the obvious. I based it on the
> absolute lack of professional quality in your output here---and on
> your reluctance to give us an example of your work. Hey, I offered to
> review it free of charge!
>
Who is this "us" you keep referring to? Do you honestly think a fool and
blowhard like yourself represents the "us" ? You're dumber than I
thought!
>> >and my in-situ
You're a whacko, Hunter! Face it!
>>DocTony
>>;-)
>>
>>"Presently we [!] critics of Zionism and Israeli barbarity -- we [!]
>>supporters of recovering our sovereignty and controlling our
>>relationship with Israel-- dominate these newsgroups." [sic -- Hunter
>>"When Hunter talks, Jews walk!�" Watson]
>
>
> Yes, "we". There are tens of thousands of us in the movement.
I think that says it all! And "we" in the "movement" ! Whew. Take your
pills, Hunter, and stop making a greater fool of yourself as you already
have. Even your age isn't an excuse nor your beating feet from both my
assessment of you ... and your own nation to boot.
>And yes
> it is a movement even though very loosely coordinated.
[!]
>I notice you
> don't touch "...critics of Zionism and Israeli barbarity." You sense,
> I suppose, that Zionism at the policy level and Israeli barbarity are
> not going to be constructive topics for you. Not opposite me anyway.
> You're right about that but you might attempt it as a matter of
> intellectual courage. You don't touch "recovering our sovereignty and
> controlling our relationship with Israel" either. You're not going
> face them. Nor are you going to face the fact that people in the
> movement, critics of Israeli policy and people for example whose
> concerns are with the long term well being of the United States,
> dominate these newsgroups. There are good reasons, Doc. Israeli policy
> and behavior is indefensible legally, morally, and historically and
> this augurs poorly for the other side of the argument. At bottom line
> our concern for the welfare of our own country is of equal priority.
> Just where is the US going to stand on what should actually be non-
> negotiable items. I care a lot about that and frivolous usenet
> "personalities" such as you are just going to be elbowed aside.
>
> BTW, what the hell does "Jews walk!�" mean? I propose that it means
> absolutely nothing. Feel free to contradict me. We'll have a good
> time.
>
> Bluntly said, crimes against Jews in 1940s Europe don't justify
> unrelated crimes against Arabs and other Muslims in the 21st Century.
> They certainly don't justify America's one sided, mostly involuntary
> entanglement in it. If you think they do justify them, argue your
> point in English without umlauted "i"s and Spanish notation.
>
Zzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzzzzz
>
>>Hunter, you are about as effective [!] a spokesperson for the "we" as
>>Alex "Muleschlep�" Vangel [Topaz] is for revisionists in his advocating
>>Osama bin Laden as a "revisionist ally" [sic] and revisionist friend!
>
>
> Bin Laden appears to have admitted to mass murders. I want to seem him
> hang after good old American due process. Have you a problem with
> that?
>
>
>>The embarrassment is watching your unraveling and lame attempts to run
>>away from the assessment which you asked me for and I which I rendered
>>to you.
>
>
> YOU DID? Surely you're joking. I didn't think you could possibly have
> been serious. Tell me, how does one know when you've deviated from
> being oriented in time and space to "satire"? I'll certainly go look
> for it.
>
> >That you don't care for it is simply not my problem nor concern.
>
> Don't jump to that conclusion. I thought you weren't serious.
>
>
Now you know better! I was serious! You're a whacko and a runner!
>> Now, if you wish to cull 13 years of my Usenet posts to find
>>something, again, be my guest but I would appreciate anything you cite
>>be given in full since I have the same archive input as you do. And by
>>all means, 'do' come back! You've already done the blow off post
>>previously so if you're coming back, then stay back and at least be
>>consistent in something!
>
>
> Thirteen years of YOU? I'm not Catholic and therefore not a candidate
> for purgatory. I'll be back so long as I think giving you some of my
> time benefits the cause.
>
You're a candidate for the padded room, Hunter, and psychotropic
medication! Stay in Latin America and froth on about the "we" and the
"movement" and your admitted latter day philosophy of "the Jews are our
misfortune" but 'do' write to President Obama as I'm certain he'll be
all open arms when you offer to write his speeches for those latter day
"Fireside chats" and once the Jews are told to take a hike which
constitutes your sole cure and your sole culprit for the Middle East.
Have you ever considered living in Iran, Hunter, as opposed to hiding
out in Latin America? As long as you're beating feet from your own
nation, why not go where your rhetoric would be thoroughly embraced,
appreciated and Salaamed to the heavens!
>>The Voice: "Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!"
>
>
> Keep stroking that fragile ego, Doc.
>
Stroking you does nothing, 'exposing' you is the key! But then, you
expose yourself quite readily once a few buttons are pushed and then
your agenda becomes quite clear. Good luck with your "movement" although
I tend to think it's more of a multiple bowel variety although the
stench of same is unmistakable. That you've become immune to it is also
quite evident. As for your 'enemies', well, most blowhards like
yourself frequently cite numerous "enemies", both seen and unseen, as
they go on and on talking about and allegedly representing the "we".
Flatus in the wind. But they wallow in it and seemingly enjoy it
although when they're pegged and exposed, they tend to whine like stuck
pigs. All those "enemies", you see.
Cazador
> iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Who is this "us" you keep referring to? Do you honestly think a fool and
> blowhard like yourself represents the "us" ? You're dumber than I
> thought!
All the people who read my posts according to the Google stats:
My profile & stats
coaste...@yahoo.com
Your 7-day activity
14 discussions started
127 discussions replies
259 direct replies to your messages
14527 views of your messages
82 views of your profile
Doc Tony
Indeed! Even tho' it doesn't appear in the original -- 'your' browser
put them together! Look and see! A minor faux pas but then, you should
be well used to such things. Hunter, especially as they escalate. And
mightily so to the major faux pas arena! But then too, and even under
your nym "Cazador", the 'El Cabron' thing doesn't get refuted! No doubt
you've been relegated as 'El Cabron' previously and probably thought it
was the equivalent of something along the lines of El Cid, yes?
As for the Holman cite, you mentioned it, so produce it! I have no idea
what you're talking about. I would, however, be 'most' interested in
Holman commenting on the matter of fragile egos. 'Most' interested.
Kindly produce it. By the way, didn't you say you would not return to
the USA until the Palestinians were free so, what, you're telling me
you're simply 'vacationing' in Latin America, is that it? Be careful
now, because I have one of your posts that disputes that along the lines
of your "refusal" to go home! But then, Hunter, you're certainly no
stranger to, shall we say, telling porkies and as others have duly
pointed out. And demonstrated.
You're a whacko, Hunter, and a flatus spewing machine! The kind of
blowhard at a get-together that causes folks to either instantly go on
the nod out of sheer boredom at your railings or leave early or make
with the eye rolls a la mode to others as you drool and bray on and on
and on supposedly speaking for the "we" and your mentioned "movement"
[!] and inform them that if only the Jews can be told to take a friggin'
hike, the world would be so much better off. This is why I suggested you
send your material to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! Who knows, Hunter, perhaps
there is a 'kufi' in your future ... versus an oversized sombrero!
Doc Tony
;-)
Hunter "When Hunter talks, Jews walk!Ž" Watson [pulling an ad hoc
"Colonel" Brady ["Inherit the Wind"] albeit with a script mod ...]: "El
Cabron! I like the sound of that! [!] People of Usenet [!], you 'know'
why I have come! It is the 'Jew' [!] who is our misfortune and if these
people can be wiped ou...ehhhh...hahahaha...wiped away from their power
in America and crush..ehhh...resisted in the Midle East, then all be
will well! My friends, let me just say this to you and I say it from the
bottom of my heart because I've expressed it! YES, MY FRIENDS! I've
expressed and identified the true and ONLY culprit [!] and therefore I
feel entirely justified in saying to you ... 'by fighting against the
Jews, I do the work of the Lord!" [! -- Readers! Ring a bell?] ]
"PapageiŽ" Ebe [with literal tears in his eyes now!]: "Kamerad! I am
with you! [pauses and reverts forthwith...] Die Juden sind unser
Unglück! Das, ja, ist die Wahrheit!" [pauses again and becomes emotional
that Hunter can so clearly pinpoint the sole culprit for what is wrong
in the Middle East, America, and the world!] "HUNTER BEFEHL! 'WIR' [!]
FOLGEN!" [!]
/:=| [from the Vale ...]: "Mich auch, ehh, El Cabron!" [** "Me too!"]
Hunter: "Ohhhhhhh, to be young once again! Soooooo many Jews [!], so
little time!"
;-)
Joe Bruno
> On Jun 3, 9:58 am, A Moose In Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Obama administration wants change of Israel's Gaza blockade policy
>
> > > Top story: Amidst the diplomatic fallout over Israel's raid on a Gaza-
> > > bound flotilla, which resulted in the deaths of nine pro-Palestinian
> > > activists, the Obama administration regards the Israeli blockade of
> > > the Gaza Strip as increasingly untenable, according to senior U.S.
> > > officials. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vigorously
> > > defended the blockade, saying that it is necessary for Israel's
> > > security. The unnamed administration officials, however, asserted that
> > > Netanyahu was privately in agreement that the current policy had to be
> > > modified.
>
> > > This debate comes as another ship, the Rachel Corrie, will try to
> > > breach the Gaza blockade as early as Friday. The ship, which
> > > originated in Ireland, is carrying cement, educational materials,
> > > toys, and medical supplies meant for the people of Gaza. The European
> > > Campaign to End Siege on Gaza also announced that it had raised enough
> > > funds to sponsor three ships in a new flotilla.
>
>
> > Maybe force is neccessary. The country of Israel needs to be moved
> > elsewhere. They are causing too much trouble. One solution would be
> > to move Israel to Saskatchewan in Canada and give them enough room on
> > farmland. The original farmers would of course be compensated two
> > fold and that money would have to be repayed by the farmers of New
> > Israel in a 25 year plan. They would be allowed no military and have
> > a few RCMP detachments on the ground just in case some of them went
> > sociopath. Or they could just move to other countries and
> > assimilate. That's solution solution. You can't kick people out of
> > their houses and expect peace. Who the fuck thought of that in the
> > first place? They should be in prisin.
>
> Assimilate! Are you kidding, when has any Jew ever assimilated?
> They've been pulling this shit since the Babylonian Empire in
> Mesopotamia. They've been tossed out of every political sphere of
> influence who would have them.
http://www.nmajmh.org/exhibitions/catalog-hallOfHeroes/cat23.php
Zionism is a cancer growing
wrote:
> Obama administration wants change of Israel's Gaza blockade policy
>
> Top story: Amidst the diplomatic fallout over Israel's raid on a Gaza-
> bound flotilla, which resulted in the deaths of nine pro-Palestinian
> activists, the Obama administration regards the Israeli blockade of
> the Gaza Strip as increasingly untenable, according to senior U.S.
> officials. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vigorously
> defended the blockade, saying that it is necessary for Israel's
> security. The unnamed administration officials, however, asserted that
> Netanyahu was privately in agreement that the current policy had to be
> modified.
>
> This debate comes as another ship, the Rachel Corrie, will try to
> breach the Gaza blockade as early as Friday. The ship, which
> originated in Ireland, is carrying cement, educational materials,
> toys, and medical supplies meant for the people of Gaza. The European
> Campaign to End Siege on Gaza also announced that it had raised enough
> funds to sponsor three ships in a new flotilla.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jews are pretty good liars most of the time, but they tell so many
lies they are bound to trip themselves up sometimes. Their
exaggerations, half-truths, and outright inventions about the so-
called "Holocaust," easily the most lied-about topic ever, are a good
example.
The Peeler
These Google numbers about the "views" are ridiculously high. I doubt that
more than a few dozen (if at all) posters are reading the flame wars or any
content here (even if the dumb trolls that are here "with a mission" keep
wishing it were otherwise <BG>).
My take is that the high number of alleged "views" is brought about by
various search engines that are constantly spidering the Net, and anytime a
search engine scans through an archived message this is recorded as a "view"
by Google. Maybe there are also additional explanations, but any person with
a sane mind cannot believe that the trolling activities and flame wars here
are regularly observed by (most likely non-existent) curious lurking readers
who want to educate themselves on political issues. Heck, even I read only
perhaps about 5-10% of all the stuff that gets posted here.
dsharavi
> If the readers are interested in drawing conclusions about me
Most aren't. If some are, they can draw their conclusions about Herr
Watson from his various responses following:
dsharavi
> My profile & stats
Meaningless. OTOH, the following is not:
Kayed Al-Kuffar
and outright inventions about the so-called "Holocaust," easily the most
dsharavi
OTOH, it's no shock when Hunter Watson lies; he does it so frequently,
as can be seen throughout the following:
Repeatedly.
[snip Watsonian palaver]
[truncation by HHW restored:
On Jun 14, 10:05 am, "Kayed Al-Kuffar" <kayed...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nothing much.
Deborah
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:23:31 -0700 (PDT), Cazador wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 7:26 pm, Doc Tony <doct...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >> iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> Who is this "us" you keep referring to? Do you honestly think a fool and
> >> blowhard like yourself represents the "us" ? You're dumber than I
> >> thought!
>
> > All the people who read my posts according to the Google stats:
>
> > My profile & stats
> > Your 7-day activity
> > 14 discussions started
> > 127 discussions replies
> > 259 direct replies to your messages
> > 14527 views of your messages
> > 82 views of your profile
>
> These Google numbers about the "views" are ridiculously high. I doubt that
> more than a few dozen (if at all) posters are reading the flame wars or any
> content here (even if the dumb trolls that are here "with a mission" keep
> wishing it were otherwise <BG>).
>
> My take is that the high number of alleged "views" is brought about by
> various search engines that are constantly spidering the Net, and anytime a
> search engine scans through an archived message this is recorded as a "view"
> by Google. Maybe there are also additional explanations, but any person with
> a sane mind cannot believe that the trolling activities and flame wars here
> are regularly observed by (most likely non-existent) curious lurking readers
> who want to educate themselves on political issues. Heck, even I read only
> perhaps about 5-10% of all the stuff that gets posted here.
Who knows. Maybe you're correct, but wouldn't that defeat Google's
purpose in providing personal stats? They could easily filter crap
like that out. And wouldn't it also mean that if true all of us must
show close to 15,000 views? That would be easy to discover if everyone
is honest about it.
The Peeler
I never check Google groups, so don't know anything about their "profiles".
But the answer might be in what I hinted at as "additional explanations".
Like sloppy way by Google of recording views (similar to the issue some
people keep reporting that sometimes postings "archived" by Google don't
appear any more but then sometimes, later, might, or might not, appear
again).
Could even be that alone "search items" used by any users, when they do an
online search, produce a hit if such a search item is found within a
message. ...or even more explanations.
I simply won't believe that more than a few dozen folks are reading the
garbage here, especially not AFTER some time has passed, like two or three
days after the messages have been posted.
Personally, I NEVER am interested in any of those "battles" here the moment
I've read (or not read) them. But I do notice that sometimes single Usenet
messages might appear in those tens of thousands or even millions of search
results (because my "search item" was used in a Usenet message) and then,
accidentally, I find myself reading (or rather quickly clicking away) some
old uninteresting Usenet post. ;-)
Kayed Al-Kuffar
news:70ec75d1-f222-4ea9...@n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> Obama administration wants change of Israel's Gaza blockade policy
and outright inventions about the so-called "Holocaust," easily the most
dsharavi
wrote:
> Who knows. Maybe you're correct
Maybe? Definitely I am correct, and Hunter Watson proves himself a
liar over and again.
Repeatedly.
[snip Watsonian palaver]
>>>>[flush nonsense]
>See immediately above.
>Point them out, bitch.
>>"Debris", lol
>were socialists
[truncation by HHW restored:
Deborah