Greenwald on Goldfarb on the Desirability of Killing (Some) Innocent Civilians

The last time I was talking about McCain campaign advisor and Weekly Standard editor Michael Goldfarb, it was for his famous “dead-air” moment on CNN back during the campaign, when anchor Rick Sanchez asked him to specify who the shadowy anti-semites were that Obama liked to pal around with, and Goldfarb, having started down the path of playing the Jeremiah Wright card, couldn’t come out and actually say the guy’s name (since, as we now know, McCain had explicitly ordered his campaign not to mention Wright). Goldfarb talked about that incident some with Ben Smith on this bloggingheads segment, which I found pretty interesting. Goldfarb basically said he did that as a “cathartic moment for the campaign,” because at least some of McCain’s staffers apparently really, really wanted to take the gloves off and attack Obama over his past membership in Wright’s church.

Now Goldfarb is back on the lefty-blog radar. This time it’s for his approving attitude toward the Israeli defense forces’ having blown up a Hamas leader in Gaza (along with 18 assorted bystanders). Writes Goldberg in his Weekly Standard blog (Ruthless):

The fight against Islamic radicals always seems to come around to whether or not they can, in fact, be deterred, because it’s not clear that they are rational, at least not like us. But to wipe out a man’s entire family, it’s hard to imagine that doesn’t give his colleagues at least a moment’s pause. Perhaps it will make the leadership of Hamas rethink the wisdom of sparking an open confrontation with Israel under the current conditions.

Glenn Greenwald (yes, I know) points out that Goldfarb, by talking up the salutary effects of killing a military target’s family, is basically making himself indistinguishable from terrorists. From Orwell, blinding tribalism, selective Terrorism, and Israel/Gaza:

There are few concepts more elastic and subject to exploitation than “Terrorism,” the all-purpose justifying and fear-mongering term. But if it means anything, it means exactly the mindset which Goldfarb is expressing: slaughtering innocent civilians in order to “send a message,” to “deter” political actors by making them fear that continuing on the same course will result in the deaths of civilians and — best of all, from the Terrorist’s perspective — even their own children and other family members.

To the Terrorist, by definition, that innocent civilians and even children are killed isn’t a regrettable cost of taking military action. It’s not a cost at all. It’s a benefit. It has strategic value. Goldfarb explicitly says this: “to wipe out a man’s entire family, it’s hard to imagine that doesn’t give his colleagues at least a moment’s pause.”

That, of course, is the very same logic that leads Hamas to send suicide bombers to slaughter Israeli teenagers in pizza parlors and on buses and to shoot rockets into their homes. It’s the logic that leads Al Qaeda to fly civilian-filled airplanes into civilian-filled office buildings. And it’s the logic that leads infinitely weak and deranged people like Goldfarb and Peretz to find value in the killing of innocent Palestinians, including — one might say, at least in Goldfarb’s case: especially — children.

Sigh. The downward spiral continues.

96 Responses to “Greenwald on Goldfarb on the Desirability of Killing (Some) Innocent Civilians”

  1. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    Some people are just amoral.

  2. shcb Says:

    Ok John, I’ll give you this Greenwald:-) he is right this time. But this is just a part of war. Terrorism is a tactic just as guerilla warfare is a tactic. The question is how far do you go in using that tactic. Dresden, Rotterdam, Hiroshima, London, Tokyo. The bombing of those cities in WW II had little military value but were meant to force so much pain on the civilian population that they would force their leaders to surrender. In the case of Rotterdam they had already surrendered, Hitler just did it for kicks. In this case in Gaza there was a military target, the military planners will say that they have so few chances to kill someone like this that the peripheral loss of life was justified. Is there a little “send a message” logic as well, sure. To paraphrase Churchill, when a civilized country goes to war with an uncivilized one the civilized country will always lose some of its civility.

    In the strictest since war itself is a terrorist act, it is asking how many of your mother’s sons are you willing to give up? But for modern purposes I think we have defined terrorism as an attack against a civilian population by non military personnel as defined by the Geneva conventions, no uniform, little or no governmental guidance etc. That may be a little self serving, but the Geneva conventions are something of a baseline to work from and both sides have to abide by them or the side that doesn’t becomes the uncivilized nation or group in the Churchill quote.

  3. leftbehind Says:

    Back in the days of Capone, mob figures would often keep “safe houses” where they would hide out when they had been tipped off that they were probable targets of violence from other gangsters. Other no circumstances would any of these guys ever house their own wife or children with them in such a hide out, since half the point of taking such a precaution was to keep the family at a safe distance. Have the leaders of Hamas never considered this? Certainly, a Hamas leader in the middle of a missile campaign against Israel realizes he’s a target, and that his family is obviously in as much danger as he is as long as he remains among them. Maybe that’s how it’s supposed to work. Maybe the children are of more Strategic Advantage to Hamas dead than they are alive.

  4. shcb Says:

    Rosen had Alan Dershowitz on yesterday and he made an interesting point that according to international law, he didn’t specify which law, if you purposely put civilians in harm’s way you have committed a war crime, and it is you, not the people dropping the bombs ore firing the gun that are guilty of murder.

  5. leftbehind Says:

    He’s probably talking about Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) Article 55, Section 7, which says:

    “The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. ”

    This does not, however, completely absolve the other side in such a situation if a civilian population used to shield military targets is attacked:

    “8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57. ”

    In short: it is under no circumstances legal to use civilians to shield military activities, but it is not necessarily legal to attack civilian populations used in this fashion either.

    The decision whether or not to attack in a “human shield” incident must, under international law stand the test of military necessity, which is governed by several constraints: An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

    Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ” the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).”

    Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are “clearly” excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
    (a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
    (b) the anticipated military advantage;
    (c) and whether (a) was “clearly excessive” in relation to (b).

    Thus, while the illegal use of human shields does hamstring the enemy’s ability to attack, it in no way neutralizes their ability to do so legally.

  6. shcb Says:

    Wow, I’m impressed, good work. So the secondary explosions being evidence of arms stores would make the house a military target but without the senior official being present it would probably not be a great enough of a target to justify the loss of civilian life unless the arms were particularly nasty

  7. leftbehind Says:

    …but it might be a good enough target. The Rules of War only ask that all military actions be evaluated on three criteria: Military necessity, distinction (between combatants and civilians) and proportionality (ie is the action of great enough strategic worth to justify the suffering it causes.) These are, necessarily, open-ended criteria, and are open to subjective interpretation. Outside of something like a My Lai, there are few open-and-shut cases involving the Rules of War. They do not operate in the same way as, say the American criminal justice system and were not designed to either totally eliminate civiliain casualties or seriously impede the progress of war. They are, instead, guidelines towards containing and lessening the horrors of war by encouraging commanders in the field to ask themselves whether or not the violence they inevitably inflict on the civilian population can be lessened when weighed against the necessities of combat.

  8. shcb Says:

    …and since these rules were made in an era when personal responsibility was an attribute they probably leave some of the responsibility of civilians to get the hell out of the way. But the military has to give them that opportunity. Of course in this type of asymmetrical warfare this is harder especially when the population is sympathetic to one side or the other. One of the great victories of the Surge was getting the population somewhat on our side, even if it was only so the war would move on to someone else’s neighborhood, this gave us better targets. Agree?

  9. leftbehind Says:

    I don’t know that the Rules of War make any demands of civilians at all, except to demand that civilians not become active participants in combat, not mistreat prisoners of war and render aide whenever possible to the wounded on both sides of the conflict.

    I’ll agree with you as far as to say that it does not seem that our enemies in Iraq were as quick as Hamas to sacrifice their own children by using them as shields the way Hamas seems to relish doing so. I would ask you though – if the civilians of the Palestinian Territory want to escape the warzone, and there is little to suggest that they really want to stick around, where are they supposed to go? How exactly does one “get the hell out of the way” when your own government is purposely directing the flow of combat towards your home and school, the neighboring enemy has no intention of allowing you to flee into his country and none of your Arab neighbors want you either?

  10. shcb Says:

    Good point, I think I meant more getting out of the house or moving a block or two over, but in this kind of warfare there really isn’t a “line” the battle is kind of everywhere. I would think the locals know who the leaders are and if I lived next door to one of them I would think I might go visit my sister for a while. That is probably simplistic. Sigh.

    What did you thing of the protest in Ft Lauderdale where the Arab girl was yelling at the Jews to go back to their ovens? Might have been more than just her, I just saw one clip.

  11. leftbehind Says:

    I didn’t see the protest, but she sounds like a real charmer.

  12. shcb Says:

    if you like Dennis Miller last weeks Miller time segment of the O’Reiley show has it just go to and then Bill’s show

  13. shcb Says:

    Here is a story of the Ft Lauderdale protest, I looks like it was just one idiotic woman yelling the go back to the ovens comments. But I loved this from one of the organizers

    Lopez, a state coordinator for ANSWER, admitted there is a problem with anti-Semitism within his organization’s ranks. But then he went on to call the supporters of Israel across the street “barbaric, racist” Zionist terrorists.

    No anti-Semitism there,2933,477450,00.html

  14. knarlyknight Says:

    That’s right shcb, and it’s about time you got that through your thick skull.

    Zionists are a relatively small (?) entity within Israel’s political universe and they have a cut-throat mentality for the aggrandizement of Israel (similar to the neo-cons strategy for America’s world dominance.) Most Israelis and most Jews are far more moderate.

    Being against Zionism does not mean a person is anti-semetic, most people I know who oppose Zionism do so because it is obvious to them that Zionist tactics are short-sighted and ultimately detrimental to long term Israeli / Jewish interests.

    These unrelenting attacks into Gaza’s densely populated captive civilian population, ordered by Zionists, are a case in point as the savagery is bringing universal condemnation (except from the USA) and it galvanizes an Arab hatred and vitrually ensures an epidemic of bloody useless reprisals against Israel and Jews.

    Expect to hear more about specific examples of IDF war crimes, such as the recent incident where the Israeli military instructed over 70 civilians to seek refuge in a specific house which was then targetted for an airstrike less than 24 hours later. A war crime? Sounds like it is based on your discussion with Lefty, it’ll be interesting to follow the investigations, unfortunately I doubt there are any impartial observers witnessing the horrors first hand, but at least there are pictures and video records… Refer to “UN: 257 Palestinian children killed in Gaza” :

  15. knarlyknight Says:

    And back to the topic of this post:

  16. knarlyknight Says:

    Zionism is a larger movement than I thought, my comments above relate only to the more extreme expressions of Zionism (such as results in the bombing of Gaza.) They were not meant to disparage the idea of maintaining the nation of Israel. More info on Zionism vs. Judaism here:

  17. knarlyknight Says:

    Or for the bigger picture, refer to Eric Idle:

  18. knarlyknight Says:

    try this instead:

  19. knarlyknight Says:

    Or this:

  20. shcb Says:

    A man cradling a wounded boy in a chaotic emergency room after Israel shelled a U.N. school.

    Why didn’t they mention that Hamas was firing rockets from that school?

    Before we boycott Israel, why don’t we ask the Arabs to embrace their neighbors? If the Israelis are still ornery then we boycott them. You see liberals in general are two things, lazy and weak. Instead of doing the hard and dangerous thing, defeat our enemy, they would rather control the rational, good member of the conflict because they can more easily and with less exposure to themselves of nasty consequences. Not just this conflict, any conflict. Haven’t they told us for years to not allow good honest people to carry a gun? No, just give the bad guys your money, they will leave you alone. A few years ago there was a lovely couple here in Denver walking home from dinner, bad guys brutally raped the young woman and killed the man even though they gave them everything they had, she never really recoverd emotionally. God I wish he had a Colt 1911 that night.

  21. enkidu Says:

    Why didn’t they mention that Hamas was firing rockets from that school?

    Because it wouldn’t be true. There were no rockets (the claim was actually mortars) fired from the school.

    “In briefings senior [Israel Defense Forces] officers conducted for foreign diplomats, they admitted the shelling to which IDF forces in Jabalya were responding did not originate from the school,” Gunness said. “The IDF admitted in that briefing that the attack on the UN site was unintentional.”

    Lazy and weak? What a incredibly stupid ass redneck microcephalic moran thing to say. How about: Rethuglikkkans are violent psychopaths who have but one solution to every problem: kill kill kill and then kill some more. Go fuck yourself. Really. I hope FDR meets you at the pearly gates, kicks your sorry fat ass and then sends you straight back to hell where you belong.

  22. shcb Says:

    “I have been authorised to say that in private briefings with diplomats, the Israeli army has admitted that the rockets from Jabalya (two days ago) came from outside the UNRWA school compound, not from inside it. Therefore the allegations against a neutral UN human development organization were entirely baseless. This increases pressure for an independent investigation. “

    So are we talking semantics? Were they shooting the motors (reports I read said rockets) from three feet from the wall? But no one is denying they were shooting something lethal from that general area.

  23. shcb Says:

    … and the UN says it abbandoned the school in 2007? Do I have all this right?

  24. knarlyknight Says:

    No you fucking idiot, that is irrelevent. The IDF instructed people to leave homes in areas of fighting and seek safe haven in places like the former school. The the IDF bombed the fuckin hell out of the school, knowing full well there were civilians seeking cover there. As for 2007:

    The trouble is that propaganda is most convincing for the propagandist himself. And after you convince yourself that a lie is the truth and falsification reality, you can no longer make rational decisions.

    An example of this process surrounds the most shocking atrocity of this war so far: the shelling of the UN Fakhura school in Jabaliya refugee camp.

    Immediately after the incident became known throughout the world, the army “revealed” that Hamas fighters had been firing mortars from near the school entrance. As proof they released an aerial photo which indeed showed the school and the mortar. But within a short time the official army liar had to admit that the photo was more than a year old. In brief: a falsification.

    Later the official liar claimed that “our soldiers were shot at from inside the school”. Barely a day passed before the army had to admit to UN personnel that that was a lie, too. Nobody had shot from inside the school, no Hamas fighters were inside the school, which was full of terrified refugees.

    But the admission made hardly any difference anymore. By that time, the Israeli public was completely convinced that “they shot from inside the school”, and TV announcers stated this as a simple fact.

    So it went with the other atrocities. Every baby metamorphosed, in the act of dying, into a Hamas terrorist. Every bombed mosque instantly became a Hamas base, every apartment building an arms cache, every school a terror command post, every civilian government building a “symbol of Hamas rule”. Thus the Israeli army retained its purity as the “most moral army in the world”.

    THE TRUTH is that the atrocities are a direct result of the war plan. This reflects the personality of Ehud Barak ­ a man whose way of thinking and actions are clear evidence of what is called “moral insanity”, a sociopathic disorder.

    The real aim (apart from gaining seats in the coming elections) is to terminate the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In the imagination of the planners, Hamas is an invader which has gained control of a foreign country. The reality is, of course, entirely different.

    The Hamas movement won the majority of the votes in the eminently democratic elections that took place in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. It won because the Palestinians had come to the conclusion that Fatah’s peaceful approach had gained precisely nothing from Israel – neither a freeze of the settlements, nor release of the prisoners, nor any significant steps toward ending the occupation and creating the Palestinian state. Hamas is deeply rooted in the population ­ not only as a resistance movement fighting the foreign occupier, like the Irgun and the Stern Group in the past ­ but also as a political and religious body that provides social, educational and medical services.

    From the point of view of the population, the Hamas fighters are not a foreign body, but the sons of every family in the Strip and the other Palestinian regions. They do not “hide behind the population”, the population views them as their only defenders.

    Therefore, the whole operation is based on erroneous assumptions. Turning life into living hell does not cause the population to rise up against Hamas, but on the contrary, it unites behind Hamas and reinforces its determination not to surrender. The population of Leningrad did not rise up against Stalin, any more than the Londoners rose up against Churchill.

  25. knarlyknight Says:


  26. shcb Says:

    Huh, you believe this and yet you still think I am a racist when I say a large percentage of the Arab population wands us and Israel dead.

  27. shcb Says:

    So the story I am hearing today is the Israelis sent three motors to the target which was 30 yards from the school and one of the mortar shells missed and hit the school , thirty yards, that isn’t much longer than a semi truck. I’m also wondering how so many people were killed with one shell. Were there secondary explosions? The enemy does have a history of placing arms stores with civilians.

  28. knarlyknight Says:

    “the story”? that’s rich. If their target was 30 yards from the school in which they had encouraged the people to seek refuge, then that is a war crime.

    “wondering how so many people were killed with one shell?” Duh. The density of Gaza is about 4000 people per acre average over both the rural and urban areas. Put his in terms you might understand: how many people do you think would have died if Blackwater USA had lobbed a shell into the New Orleans Superdome during Hurricane Katrina while hunting for looters?

    There were no reports of secondary explosions so go talk your inane conspiracy theories with your dog.

    “the enemy”? The 1.5 million or so Gazans are better described as “the prisoners”.

  29. knarlyknight Says:

    Israel should face charges for War Crimes as bluntly stated by Professor Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego. Writing in “Israel’s Collective Punishment of Gaza”, she cites four specific violations carried out by the Israelis:

    ‘Israel’s air and ground attack in Gaza violates Geneva in four ways.

    -First, it constitutes collective punishment of the entire population in Gaza for the acts of a few militants.

    -Second, it targets civilians, as evidenced by the large numbers of civilian casualties.

    -Third, it is a disproportionate response to the rockets fired into Israel.

    -Fourth, an occupying power has an obligation to ensure food and medical supplies to the occupied population; Israel’s blockade has created a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.’

    UN Relief workers discovered four starving children sitting next to their dead mothers and other corpses in a house in a part of Gaza City bombed by Israeli forces, as reported by the Red Cross. Scores of other such horrific circumstances litter the Gaza landscape. How long can the world and specifically the US pretend that Israel is a civilized nation, immune from censure for their on-going butchery?

    The NY Times reported that, “International aid groups lashed out at Israel on Thursday over the war in Gaza, saying that access to civilians in need is poor, relief workers are being hurt and killed, and Israel is woefully neglecting its obligations to Palestinians who are trapped, some among rotting corpses in a nightmarish landscape of deprivation.”

    The attack on Gaza is not war. It is a holocaust.

  30. knarlyknight Says:


  31. shcb Says:

    An enemy of my friend is my enemy. I was just wondering about the number killed, and the secondary explosions. I hadn’t read of any secondary explosions either.

    Their target is where there target is, read my discussion with LB above. If Hamas is hiding in the shadow of a safe haven then they are to blame.

    I’m amazed they can get a mortar within 30 yards of their target, good shooting.

  32. knarlyknight Says:

    There’s plenty of blame to go around. Your “they is bad” mentality is so stupid it is sickening.

    And it is you who needs to re-read LB’s comments above. Attackers have an obligation not to fire into an area where the military need is small and the civilian death toll is likely to be high. Doing so may be subjectively deemed to be a war crime. Hamas is guilty of firing rockets at civilians. They have killed what, 12 people in a year? So Israel should be working with the Arabs to create conditions where their is law and order and bring them to justice.

    The IDF is closing in on a thousand kills, most of them civilians and a third are children. In no way can that kind of a civilian death toll be justified, the military need for such barbaric killing is not justified. And to add to the stupidity, the attacks are destroying most of the trappings of civilized society in Gaza, creating more chaos and furthering conditions where “revolutionary” forces like Hamas will thrive. Idiotic, unless that the real motives are different than Israel’s stated motives.

  33. shcb Says:

    From what I understand Israel is working with people like Egypt to help bring this to a peaceful conclusion. But your assertion about population density is a double edged sword, on one hand you are saying Israel shouldn’t shoot if there are civilians close by, on the other hand you are saying Hamas can’t get away from the civilians. If Israel said “we won’t shell this 5 square block section” would Hamas encourage people to go there and be safe or would they set up rockets right in the middle of the place, my answer is both. This could all be ended by Arabs co-existing with Jews, that is how you tell the good guys from the bad guys.

  34. knarlyknight Says:

    We’ve seen the white phosphorous raining down on Gaza City.

    Here’s some exampoles of its use in the City of Falluja, see the 18 minute mark:

  35. knarlyknight Says:

    And in Gaza:

  36. knarlyknight Says:

    Now if Hamas had done that…

  37. shcb Says:

    Well, hell, let’s just hand Israel over to the Arabs and let them burn it to the ground, would that make you happy? You certainly have taken sides on this one, not just Gaza but the war on terror in general.

  38. knarlyknight Says:

    Yea, I’ve taken sides just like Jesus took sides, i.e. not. My stance is to resist violence, and speak out for change and understanding. We know your not so secret position on turning the middle east into a sheet of glance, so don’t go lecturing me about terrorist acts when there is so much evidence that the USA and Israel are just as dirty as Hamas (or more than a hundred times more dirty if you add up the number of dead civilians attributable to the bullets shot and bombs detonated by each side).

    Go ahead and keep up your work as head cheerleader for oppressive forces who have the power and psychopathy necessary to unleash hell on earth in crowded cities, and have been videotaped doing exactly that; there’s plenty of room in hell for the likes of you.

  39. knarlyknight Says:

    * “sheet of glass” – I’m sure Enk can provide the quote.

  40. shcb Says:

    Please do, you will find I said I don’t want that but a friend of mine does. She is from Iraq. But it is an option.

  41. knarlyknight Says:

    Found your doppelganger: citing ancient texts, rabbi promotes the carpet bombing of Gaza City. To hell with Geneva conventions he says, punish all the people, all 1.5 million (men women and children)

    Hitler would have loved this guy:

    My affinity for the Jewish people is being severely tested here.

  42. knarlyknight Says:

    These lawyers make a compelling case about Hamas war crimes and Israeli war crimes, in their open letter:

  43. shcb Says:

    Rosen had Shaha Azani, Counsel for media and public affairs of the Israeli Consulate, Los Angeles on yesterday, of course he is biased in the most severe way and did skirt a few issues, but was for the most part a well spoken if a little long winded gentleman. One of the points he made that I thought was interesting was how Israel is working with Fatah in the West Bank and how they are reciprocating. Life in the West Bank is getting better all the time because they have formed a working relationship largely because there are no rockets coming from the West Bank. He said all the Israeli people want is to not be shelled, and I believe him. Rosen had him on for two hours, I suggest you listen to both hours, you should be able to download to your IPOD.

  44. enkidu Says:

    nope – I am most definitely not listening to any hate radio… I don’t listen to the Hamas run radio stations either.

    I am curious wwnj, do you have any information that isn’t strongly biased? Why did the rocket attacks start again? Does the 18 month long blockade of food, medical supplies fuel, everything mean anything to you? You are as bad as the Hamas and other IENJs calling for 100:1 kills on the other side. Actually, I’d say worse since you were supposed to soak up some human kindness as an infant and in our school system. There are extremists on both sides and with each bloodthirsty comment you prove yourself to be further and further out along the sharp and nasty end of the bell curve.

    Decent human beings are saddened, sickened and unhappy about the loss of innocent life: you seem to crave it as long as you can label em all Bad Guys. Go look in the mirror some time. To use a quote that rings ever more true: have you no decency?

  45. knarlyknight Says:

    Thx Enk, that’s a perfect response to our pathological extremist.

    Except “seem to” is unnecessary, it is clearly evident that shcb revels in the loss of innocent life as long as there is some thread of convoluted logic to link the victims to bad guys.

  46. shcb Says:

    Blockade? I thought you guys were in favor of “economic sanctions”. so you’re just goint to ignore the West Bank success? the Arabs aren’t shooting the Jews and guess what the Jews aren’t shooting the Arabs, who stopped shooting?

  47. knarlyknight Says:

    A blockade to impose economic sanctions is one thing. Restricting food, medical supplies and fuel necessary for electricity generation for nearly two years is altogether unacceptable. Have you no decency?

    The West Bank could best be described as undergoing a lull in hostilities while issues simmer. With the bombing of Gaza, the simmering in the West Bank is approaching the point of boiling over.

    If that’s what you Republicans call success then you are losers.

  48. knarlyknight Says:

    I was wrong, the blockade was 3 years not 2.

    shcb could learn a lot from this straighforward historical background :

    How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe

    Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army and has never questioned the state’s legitimacy. But its merciless assault on Gaza has led him to devastating conclusions

  49. enkidu Says:

    maybe a boycott and economic sanctions will work?
    after all they worked so well in preventing the current situation (is that nuanced enough for you?)

    how about if the US – just once – actually signs on to the numerous UNSC condemnations of Israeli overreach and aggression? ooops our Israeli master have us on a very short leash (this one is just incredible)

    Olmert said he had demanded to talk to Bush with only 10 minutes to spare before a U.N. Security Council vote on a resolution opposed by Israel calling for an immediate ceasefire.

    “He gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favor of it — a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organized and maneuvered for. She was left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she arranged,” Olmert said.

    “They got him off the podium, brought him to another room and I spoke to him. I told him, ‘You can’t vote in favor of this resolution.’ He said, ‘Listen, I don’t know about it, I didn’t see it, I’m not familiar with the phrasing.'”

    Olmert said he then told Bush: “‘I’m familiar with it. You can’t vote in favor.”

    nice – the wwnj leader of Israel brags about shaming condi on the resolution she authored no less. You stay classy war criminals everywhere!

    note to wwnjs – aren’t you supposed to be all up in arms about sovereignty or something right now?

  50. enkidu Says:


  51. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    God should appear and say who he really meant to give the land to.

  52. knarlyknight Says:

    wtf is with you man, God’s busy enough answering all the prayers of wwnj’s baptists et al in the red states, and besides he already sent someone to tell us all about that – or maybe Jesus wasn’t good enough for you?

  53. enkidu Says:

    I usually wait a day or two to see what corroborating info can be found, but these are eyewitness accounts to brutal executions of women holding white flags. These are real war crimes.

    The Israelis order them to come out of their homes and go to the center of town. Then start murdering them as they emerge. Maybe they want them to all go to the center of town “where the school is” so they can use a minimum number of shells to execute them all at once?

    wwnj must be so proud!

  54. knarlyknight Says:

    they won’t find corroborating info. & if they do it’ll just be an “isolated incident” The IDF will protect any murders committed by their forces in the sme way they did in 2003

    His group of British journalists claimed they were carrying a white flag and had told troops who they were.

    But a soldier opened fire, hitting the father-of-two in the neck.

    The attitude seems to be that triggers get pulled for the hell of it sometimes. Just ask James Miller’s family (& note the Israeli cover-up)

    Also, there is a lot of support for war crimes within the Jewish community (probably about as much support as there is for “terrorism” in Islamic communities!) :

  55. enkidu Says:

    Israel shells UN headquarters in Gaza

    I am sure right wing nutjobs across our troubled land would love to do the same with the UN headquarters in NYC (heck until 9/11 does anyone recall the incredible vitriol and hate they piled on NYC as a whole? much less the UN?)

    hey quickdraw mcshotmyselfinthefoot, question for all you shoot first and then unload the clip types:

    If a bank robber was using a hostage as a shield, would you shoot through the hostage to get the robber?

  56. knarlyknight Says:


    How about a multiple choice test for the wwnj’s?

    If a bank robber had killed the bank security guard and was using a pregnant woman hostage as a shield, would you:

    (a) shoot through the hostage to get the robber?

    (b) use an air strike to level the bank and surrounding buildings?

    (c) blockade the bank for three years to preventing adequate food, medicine or heat to reach the hostages in the hope that the hostages will force the bank robbers to surrender (and when the hostages become alienated from this brutal blockade and the Stockholm syndrome sets in permanently, then use an airstrike)?

  57. shcb Says:

    I’ll answer your rhetorical question since I have nothing better to do. I wouldn’t shoot the hostage unless the situation was very severe, say it would keep the bad guy from setting off a bomb that would kill 50. That said I would take a shot a lot sooner than police currently do. The police seem to think they have a duty to try and save the life of the bad guy, I disagree with that, I think you give up that right when you take the hostage. Now that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t give them a chance, but once the situation has normalized to the point I can say “put the gun down or I shoot” I would give him 2 seconds to make up his mind and then the first chance I had I would take him out.

    As far as your siege comment goes, we had a deranged man take his mother hostage a few blocks from our house many years ago. By the end of the day he had let her go, the police did everything they could to get him out, teargas, shut all power and gas off, poured water into the house with fire hoses, you name it. After a few days they finally stormed the house with him shooting at the SWAT team the whole time. They finally found him in a closet and either he killed himself or the cops killed him. The house was destroyed and had to be bulldozed, the family sued and cried racism and police brutality, the city eventually settled for a couple mil. In 20/20 hind sight I probably would have taken out the hostage in that case.

  58. shcb Says:

    I don’t know if you have noticed or are willing to admit, but it looks like the Israeli plan is working. The population are pressuring Hamas to agree to a one year cease fire being brokered by Syria and Egypt, and Israel is willing to sign on as well, just as Shaha Azani said on The Mike Rosen show earlier this week. Not hate radio, talk radio. Another example of you guys being close minded and then accusing me of the same.

    I will guarantee there will be little latitude given Hamas if they toss even one rocket over the wall if this deal goes through, as it should be.

  59. enkidu Says:

    jeezuz you just don’t get it do you
    I have listened to that Macho Mike crap: it’s utter right wing nut job tripe.
    I don’t have to listen to it to know that the most recent show is partisan bullshit.

    Hey why don’t you go listen to the Hamas radio for the next week or so?
    Same hate radio, just the Bad Guys change.

    Your statements about the rockets also seems to be crap.

    The vast majority of these things are homemade rockets. You can watch some ienj idiots and extremists cook one up from fertilizer and sugar (the part where he is pounding it down with the end of wrench had me going ‘now they all go BOOM!’). Think of it like the meth labs that wwnjs love so much. At the end the thing fizzles. Scary!

    How many people have died now? Are we at your vaunted 100:1 kill ratio yet? Or do you have to keep going until it is 1000:1 or 1m:1? At what point do the Israelis pop enough caps into grama Pali’s head do you stop? The only people who are ‘winning’ here are the extremists on both sides. There will be lots more rockets as the ienjs will now have thousands of lives to avenge. Your cycle of violence leaves everyone dead.

    sheesh the guy who sold me my last honda is an avid rocket hobbyist and his birds are much much bigger. Note he is an american, licensed to fly them, has videos and make stuff that show these things being made. Sounds like Evil Doers could get some valuable intel from him! wwnj is phoning in an airstrike on the whole block. F!cking collaborators!

  60. knarlyknight Says:

    Sounds to me that it is the Israeli’s who have come back to the table after being unwilling to negotiate for weeks (months?), it’s not so much the other way around. As for the rockets, Hamas has far less ability to prevent the firing of rockets now that the police stations and all other government infrastructures have been destroyed in Gaza and the leadership fragmented by Israeli assassinations.

    Expect further acts of random violence as the potential moderating influences have been wiped off the face of the earth by Israeli attacks and assassinations.

    Hamas does not trust Israel, and has little reason to do so since Israel did not abide by the terms to remove their blockade of food, medicince etc. that was a condition of the previous 6 month cease fire.

    I heard a UN spokesman describe the contents of the buiilding that was destroyed by Israel – it was a warehouse full of releif supplies that were to be distributed once Israel stopped firing on the UN aid vehicles.

  61. knarlyknight Says:

    So the few supplies that got through the blockade under UN auspices were destroyed by an Israeli air strike. Geez, there aught to be a law against that.

  62. shcb Says:

    Part of the objective of this operation is to remove Hamas and replace it with a more moderate group of Palestinians like reside in the West Bank so yes Hamas has little ability to stop rocket attacks on Israel, but they also have little will to do so, they can’t fulfill their mission statement without killing Jews. I don’t think anyone thinks a ceasefire will last as long as Hamas is in power so this will be short lived and then the suffering will start all over until the common people have had enough and get a more moderate leadership. It’s sad but that is the way it will probably play out.

  63. enkidu Says:

    You do realize that Hamas is the democratically elected government of the Gaza Strip right? So, voters be damned we’re sending in the cluster bombs. Hey how’d that work out in Lebanon a few years back? Oh, right, Hizbollah is now part of the government and gained significantly.

    same Rethug solution to every problem: “me stupid! must smash! kill!”

    When will we get moderate Israeli leadership? Only after a long boycott and sanctions.

    Personally I think this is all about kneecapping Obama and rigging the Israeli elections. Just as the ‘bailout’ swindle is just the Thug way of destroying the last vestiges of the economy so Obama spends all his ‘mandate’ cleaning up after the worst president in US history. Heck of a job bushie.

  64. leftbehind Says:

    So what are you trying to say, Inky? That Hamas has the right to attack another country without fear of reprisal because they’ve been “democratically elected?” No wonder the other kids won’t elect you to the Student Council with that attitude – they’d all be living in a bomb shelter.

  65. leftbehind Says:

    Not just your Dad.

  66. leftbehind Says:

    And how is any of this going to “kneecap” Obama? If you think he isn’t as far in the pocket for Israel as Bush was, or any other U.S. President has been, you’re as stupid as you type.

    “My view is that the United States’ special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction,”

    “We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs.”

    “Our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region. That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: Our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point.”

    “We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States”

  67. leftbehind Says:

    I’m sure whoever you thought you were voting for feels differently, of course…

  68. leftbehind Says:

    “Last week, when Barack Obama became the first major candidate to break the silence on the situation in Gaza, he didn’t criticize Israel, whose blockade of a civilian population has been roundly condemned by human rights organizations, nor did he call for restraint from the United States’ top ally in the Mideast. Instead, he fired off a letter to U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad with a resounding message—one that could have been mistaken for words straight from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) website. “The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks against Israel.… If it cannot…I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all,” Obama wrote, adding he understood why Israel was “forced” to shut down Gaza’s border crossings…”

    I’m sure whoever you though you were voting for didn’t like that one, either…

  69. knarlyknight Says:

    Gee whiz it’s simple when you limit your knowledge to a few talking points.

    If you explore the reasons why Hamas was elected you’d find that it was not because of their violent stance toward Israel but rather it was despite that stance and because they were seen as being 100% dedicated to protecting and enhancing the deplorable living conditions of the Palestinian people.

    The more moderate opposition party/faction (Fathwa?) was amply demonstrated to have been saturated with corruption and unduly influenced by what the Palestinians see as the oppressors. It was relatively easy for Hamas to win the election “as a party of the people” when the leaders of the other party were living like princes from being bribed and from siphoning money off of foreign aid.

    NL – obviously Enk wasn’t suggesting Hamas rockets should be tolerated, perhaps rocket launches from Gaza should have been met with an immediate and proportionate response by airstrike on that rocket launch location (i.e. the old testament’s “an eye for an eye, …”) Whatever the case, a democratically elected government needs to be treated with a modicum of respect, doing otherwise is a grave insult the people who elected them. Refusing to speak with Hamas is one contributing factor to this easily predictable mess brought about by right wing hardliners. It’s like they toppling the dominoes that led to bloodshed rather than working constructively towards peace.

    Disproportionate responses (e.g. killing 600 Palestinian civilians in 3 weeks in reprisal for the 5 dead Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets over the past ccouple years) is profound confirmation to the Palestinians thet they are a people oppressed who need the “strongest” possible leadership they can get. And to a person trapped in Gaza, that means Hamas.

  70. enkidu Says:

    someone fart in here?

  71. enkidu Says:

    sorry knarls – I wasn’t commenting on your comment, but just prior there was a feltchy-kinda smell in here…

  72. knarlyknight Says:

    my response was in reply to Leftbehinds 12:17 post, “So what are you trying to say Enky?” and shcb’s prior posts.

    I have no problem with Lefty’s characterization of Obama as being as hawkish for Israel (or even more so) as Bush has been.

  73. knarlyknight Says:

    It’s okay, I smelled it too. Smells like someone who eats pickled baby heads.

  74. knarlyknight Says:

    OT but Good for a chuckle:

  75. leftbehind Says:

    Knarly – It’s good of you to to clarify Inky’s points for him, since he seems completely unable to do so for himself. Still, while I’m sure your ability to read Enkidu’s mind is second to none, I really think you’re stifling his creativity by not allowing him to answer questions posed to him by himself, especially when you have even less of an idea of what he’s trying to say than he does. I understand that Canadians know everything, of course, but the mind of Enkidu is a dark and tangled knot that even your amazing precognitive powers might not be able to untangle.

    Speaking of Canadians, the “pickled baby head” thing puzzles me, as an American. Is that a Canadian thing? I’ve often heard that most Canadians often keep some sort of “head” in their mouth, but really didn’t think the thing was called a “pickled baby.” Maybe the language barrier between our nations is greater than I imagined.

  76. leftbehind Says:

    You might have gathered a while back that not only is Enkidu a pilot, but he is also an expert on, or at least an enthusiast regarding, homosexuality and airport men’s rooms. Has he ever mentioned to you the fact that the AIDS epidemic has been traced back to a Canadian airline pilot? I guess that guy must have gotten a hold of some bad pickled baby.

  77. knarlyknight Says:

    It looks to me that the superior IDF firepower has resulted in decisive Israeli victories in this Gaza battle. I’m interested to hear how fast Hamas can restore itself and how the Palestinians will view Hamas now that it’s ability to govern Gaza is all but wiped out by Israeli bombs.

    An Israel Air Force strike in Gaza on Thursday killed Hamas’ Interior Minister Said Sayyam, one of the Islamist militant group’s three most senior leaders in the coastal strip.

    Sayyam, 50, was killed in an air strike that targeted the home of his brother Iyad. Also killed in the attack were his son, his brother, as well as Salah Abu Shreich, head of internal security in the organization and the person responsible for the liaison between the political and military wings of Hamas.

    Palestinian sources said Hamas’ military commander in Gaza City, Mahmoud Watfah, was also killed in the attack.

    The dead man’s words from the past:

    In an interview with Haaretz in November 1995, [2005?] Sayyam said, “I do not hate [Israelis] for being Jewish or Israeli but because of what they have done to us. Because of the acts of occupation.”

    In response to a question about whether he saw a chance for change in relations between Palestinians and Israelis, he said, “It is difficult to forget what was done to us. If the reason for the hate will not exist, everything is possible.

    “But if the reason remains, it is impossible to love. First we must convince in general and in principle that we have been wronged, then we can talk about ’67 or ’48. You still do not recognize that we have rights. The first condition for change is recognition of the injustice we suffered.”

  78. leftbehind Says:

    Ain’t that a kick in the “pickled baby”

  79. leftbehind Says:

    And that I’m around here enough to know anymore, but doesn’t anyone of quality still blog here, or is it just us?

  80. leftbehind Says:

    And NOT that I’m here enough…

  81. knarlyknight Says:


  82. shcb Says:

    So this guy is what we would consider in this country a liberal, far to the left. It seems unless you are Jewish this Palestinian issue has people choosing down conservative/liberal lines. Without getting into name calling and “because we have our episiotomy right and yours is wrong” type discussion I’m wondering why that is?

    I’ll start, when I was eighteen and getting ready to register to vote I asked my mom the difference between Democrats and Republicans, she said that she and my dad have always been Democrats because the party stood for the little guy, the downtrodden and oppressed and Republicans were for the rich and powerful. I thanked her and went and registered Republican, I knew which side of that equation I wanted to be on. I was always a mediocre athlete and when there was choosing of sides for a pickup game you wanted to be on Kerschner and Fyler’s teams because they were the studs and their team was probably going to win. I see that in so many discussions we have here that you guys tend to almost automatically pick the side of the less powerful, no matter what the situation. And I guess since I seem to be in disagreement with you guys almost exclusively, I pick the side of the more powerful. Thoughts?

  83. knarlyknight Says:

    Yea, you’re a moran.

  84. shcb Says:

    Hit a nerve?

  85. knarlyknight Says:

    no. See up here most people vote for the best candidate, usually and depending on the particular riding. So voting is not about picking a winning team, it’s about whose philosophy and plans fit the circumstances and expected realities over the next few years the best. I know that’s not what we’re talking about, but it is where I’m coming from in my comments.

    Voting for the rich and powerful party because you want to be one of them sounds retarded. If you think the rich and powerful need more, then fine that makes sense, maybe*. Voting for the more socialist party because you consider yourself downtrodden might make sense, but mostly if you don’t see much opportunity to rise above that. In either case, the thinking is pretty dull.

    What’s interesting are attitudes about the anomalies, the rich and powerful guy who always votes Democrat would be seen to do so out of a sense of charity (not because he thinks that someday he’ll be downtrodden and may need more social assistance.) But the opposite is assumed for the downtrodden person who votes for the rich and powerful party, that person is seen to be doing so because they think (hope) one day they’ll be rich and powerful and thus benefit from that vote (not out of a sense that the rich and powerful need more support, i.e. not out of a sense of charity for the rich).

    In any case, the thinking is confined and outdated. That’s why I called you a “moran” or moron. It is thinking in win/lose paradigms and parables, which served humanity adequately on this enormous planet up until about WWI or WWII (the winners became rich and powerful and the losers were exterminated or went away and started over elsewhere.) Now the world is much smaller, it’s harder to get away with exterminating a people and when you “win” at their expense, they stick around and the winners must forever incur the ever rising cost of keeping their treasures safe and keeping the downtrodden down.

    Thinking of the big picture, the “rich and powerful” who reign over a “win/lose” world paradigm reign over dystopian planet and thus are “rich and powerful” only in relation to the other impoverished inhabitants. War destroys capital and sets back potential. In contrast, the win/win paradigm builds success upon success and, if we ever get there, will prove far superior to paradigms that involve subjugation and destruction.

    * Hence the “maybe” above, as voting for party that favours the “rich and powerful” makes sense if they truly partake of a win/win philosophy. The neo-cons and others in control for the past eight years were of the Conquistador mindset – economically, politically and militarily. Instead of furthering “good” upon the planet they have set human relations back decades, and let loose an economic calamity.

    You thought you were picking the winning team, but the season is over.

  86. knarlyknight Says:

    Enuf of the diversion, back to topic. To plagiarize:

    When Israel Expelled Palestinians
    By Randall Kuhn
    The Washington Times

    “Think about what would happen if for seven years rockets had been fired at San Diego, California from Tijuana, Mexico.” Within hours scores of American pundits and politicians had mimicked Barak’s comparisons almost verbatim. In fact, in this very paper on January 9 House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor ended an opinion piece by saying “America would never sit still if terrorists were lobbing missiles across our border into Texas or Montana.” But let’s see if our political and pundit class can parrot this analogy.

    Think about what would happen if San Diego expelled most of its Hispanic, African American, Asian American, and Native American population, about 48 percent of the total, and forcibly relocated them to Tijuana? Not just immigrants, but even those who have lived in this country for many generations. Not just the unemployed or the criminals or the America haters, but the school teachers, the small business owners, the soldiers, even the baseball players.

    What if we established government and faith-based agencies to help move white people into their former homes? And what if we razed hundreds of their homes in rural areas and, with the aid of charitable donations from people in the United States and abroad, planted forests on their former towns, creating nature preserves for whites to enjoy? Sounds pretty awful, huh? I may be called anti- Semitic for speaking this truth. Well, I’m Jewish and the scenario above is what many prominent Israeli scholars say happened when Israel expelled Palestinians from southern Israel and forced them into Gaza. But this analogy is just getting started.

    What if the United Nations kept San Diego’s discarded minorities in crowded, festering camps in Tijuana for 19 years? Then, the United States invaded Mexico, occupied Tijuana and began to build large housing developments in Tijuana where only whites could live. And what if the United States built a network of highways connecting American citizens of Tijuana to the United States? And checkpoints, not just between Mexico and the United States but also around every neighborhood of Tijuana? What if we required every Tijuana resident, refugee or native, to show an ID card to the U.S. military on demand? What if thousands of Tijuana residents lost their homes, their jobs, their businesses, their children, their sense of self worth to this occupation? Would you be surprised to hear of a protest movement in Tijuana that sometimes became violent and hateful? Okay, now for the unbelievable part.

    Think about what would happen if, after expelling all of the minorities from San Diego to Tijuana and subjecting them to 40 years of brutal military occupation, we just left Tijuana, removing all the white settlers and the soldiers? Only instead of giving them their freedom, we built a 20-foot tall electrified wall around Tijuana? Not just on the sides bordering San Diego, but on all the Mexico crossings as well. What if we set up 50-foot high watchtowers with machine gun batteries, and told them that if they stood within 100 yards of this wall we would shoot them dead on sight? And four out of every five days we kept every single one of those border crossings closed, not even allowing food, clothing, or medicine to arrive. And we patrolled their air space with our state- of-the-art fighter jets but didn’t allow them so much as a crop duster. And we patrolled their waters with destroyers and submarines, but didn’t even allow them to fish.

    Would you be at all surprised to hear that these resistance groups in Tijuana, even after having been “freed” from their occupation but starved half to death, kept on firing rockets at the United States? Probably not. But you may be surprised to learn that the majority of people in Tijuana never picked up a rocket, or a gun, or a weapon of any kind. The majority, instead, supported against all hope negotiations toward a peaceful solution that would provide security, freedom and equal rights to both people in two independent states living side by side as neighbors. This is the sound analogy to Israel’s military onslaught in Gaza today.

    Maybe some day soon, common sense will prevail and no corpus of misleading analogies about Tijuana or the crazy guy across the hall who wants to murder your daughter will be able to obscure the truth. And at that moment, in a country whose people shouted We Shall Overcome, Ich bin ein Berliner, End Apartheid, Free Tibet and Save Darfur, we will all join together and shout “Free Gaza. Free Palestine.” And because we are Americans, the world will take notice and they will be free, and perhaps peace will prevail for all the residents of the Holy Land.

    Randall Kuhn is an assistant professor and Director of the Global Health Affairs Program at the University of Denver Josef Korbel School of International Studies. He just returned from a trip to Israel and the West Bank.

  87. shcb Says:

    Hamas is giving Israel one week to remove its troops and open the borders, like it is in a position to set the terms. Hamas is getting it ass handed to it and the people it is supposed to represent are growing weary of the results of their tactics. The “international community” read UN is demanding Israel stop and “hoping” Hamas will stop. Why not DEMAND Hamas stop. What a crazy, topsy turvy wourld we live in.

  88. shcb Says:

    I missed the part of his analogy of Hamas vowing the destruction of Israel, and he says me majority of the people just want to live in peace and yet we have been told Hama was voted in democratically, so that means 51% at least agree with their tactics.

  89. knarlyknight Says:

    That’s a lot of people that had lost all hope.

  90. shcb Says:

    so give them something to hope for, tell them exterminating Jews went out of style when the Arab allies lost the war in 1945. yell at them, scream at them, shake them, hell shoot them if you have to but make them realize they lost the war and the Jews aren’t going to be driven to the ovens in cattle cars anymore.

  91. knarlyknight Says:

    That last shcb comment displayed a willful, and complete, lack of understanding that serves to justify a hatred for the benefit of weapons manufacturers and agents of chaos. Typical wwnj.

    Thank God their religious, political, military and social creeds have finally been demonstrated as a false morality with self-serving artificial constructs to prop up radical policies that are ultimately disasterous.

    One More Day.

  92. enkidu Says:

    wwnj became a R because his mommy was a D?
    or you wanted some rich stud to pick you or something like that?
    where is lefty to ramble on about gay tanks or whatever nonsense he’s currently obsessed with?

    seriously funny stuff

  93. leftbehind Says:

    Yes – the cream of the jest. See how much more fun you inspire when you post as “Enkidu” instead of “JBC?”

  94. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    My dad’s mostly a Republican, my mom mostly a Democrat, both nearer the the center (as you’d think people their age would be) than the extremes of today. I registered as an independent. I had and have things I disagree and agree with on both parties. Ethical guidelines are what I look to as being important. I generally trend more toward Dems in that regard; probably being brought up in the rustbelt had something to do with that, I’m sure.

    I think it’s a logical fallacy to automatically take a side based on it’s size.

    After the actual guys on the baseball team got picked, I was usually the 3rd or so non-athlete kid to get picked for a team. I didn’t have much of an arm, but I could regularly get a single or double and could catch ok. I usually played 2nd base or shortstop when we played ball, again for what that’s worth.

  95. shcb Says:

    Ok, funny baseball story. As you know I grew up in a small town in Kansas, 4,000 people or so. We were within 3 or 4 games of going to Japan in the Little League World Series. All the good kids were picked, as you say Jason and I was 3rd alternate. So I never played but my folks were willing to take a car load to Des Moines and one of the kids dropped out so I was moved to 1st alternate. I was so far down the roster that my name was on the back of the scorecard so we would line up in front of the dugout, the announcer would call off everyone’s name, Kershner, Fyler, Stefens… silence… in a slightly muffled voice over the PA “there’s one kid left out there, do you know who he is?” snickers from the crowd… the coach would have to run to the announcers stand and yell up “Rick Mayer”, then in the deep announcers voice “RICK MAYER” the crowd would go wild as this 6 inch tall kid trotted to the line red faced.


    In the last inning of the last game we were playing a team from Madison that had 5 o’clock shadows at 10:30 in the morning, they were trouncing us like 20 to zip so I got to go in as the second to last batter “coming up to bat now is…” “it’s on the back of your card, remember?” “oh yeah, RICK MAYER” I lined out to right field. Getting a bat on that ball was worth all the embarrassment.

  96. knarlyknight Says:

    …an update on Gaza:

    …and the best analysis I’ve read yet (written January 9 but only now brought to my attention, it still holds true) :

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.