here ya go:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8245306.stm start there and work back to the original article igniting the recent flap and then to previous complaints going back years. there's a lot to answer for.
Chavez wants to silence anyone who doesn't agree with him.
Can we just accept that he's evil yet?
he's been making the effort to convince us all for a while but some people don't seem to want to listen. It's only the U$ Media that has been trying to convince us "he's evil" for a while now, so I read a few other sources just in case the U$ media isn't 100% fair and balanced and whatyaknow, not convinced he's evil yet. exactly the opposite in fact. (AM convinced the US media is monopolized by elite interests intent on swinging policy and perception in support of their Neocolonialist agenda)
You must live in Rushlimbaughstan. I can only imagine the potential for the United States and the world if we had leaders who cared about their country and the people living in it as much as Chavez does. (instead of catering to the ultra-wealthy)
the internets will thwart your scheme by design, as it will there's. it will be really fun when the gov's start slashing the wires wholesale. get ready to rrrrrrrrrumble!
Your solution sounds great but it's just an ideal without a plan for how to achieve it. Also consider whether it's even possible to achieve. Who would mete out the severe punishments for racist utterances? What happens if the majority is actually racist? (They can't be marginalized by definition.)
The problem with solutions like the one you present is they rely on social changes and the emergence of new social behavior rather than working with ground realities, objective goals, and when possible technical solutions.
Plenty of people argued that the blacks would never be integrated into US society, same in So. Africa, and though full integration is far from finished in either place, that is the future. the alternative is what you see, an atrocity that will get worse and anything is better than that. Social behavior changes, especially when all of the benefits start to appear. I like to think the average Israeli or Palestinian is not an irredeemable nutjob, but rather a human being trying to raise their family and enjoy a decent life.
Through backroom dealings, the Zionists convinced Britain to unilaterally grant them a "homeland", not a State. The State was declared unilaterally by the settlers. None of this was done with the agreement of the local inhabitants, neither have they been compensated for this appropriation. Many states now do recognize it, but obviously not everyone agrees with the declarations and if i recall correctly, there were conditions that the UN laid down to formally recognize statehood that have never been met, the right of return being a very large one. However legality and morality are not always in synch, the patent land theft and refugee problem has to be resolved to gain any moral claim to be there and that's where the lasting peace will be found.
You can't be serious. My original comment intended 'fair' to mean that the Palestinians have equal access to weaponry. You're saying that it's unfair that Palestinians resort to guerilla tactics? Go back and read it; You inserted the notion that what i'm really saying is that I just want Israel to lose, obvious now is that you were projecting your bias on me.
Fact is that I have much more complex feelings about the situation. I am part of a very large and wonderful Jewish family for one thing, so it is not trivial to dismiss Israel and all that it means to them. The final solution in my mind is a single state with any remaining racist zealots of any stripe marginalized and severely punished for any racist utterance. This may seem like 'losing' to a radical Zionist, but most people would call that a major win for Justice and Humanity.
I would also add that cultural identity is a key element. Neither side wants to lose their culture,
you've hit on THE essential point in this conflict. Israelis adamantly want a state for Jews only, but that has never been the goal of the Palestinians. An ethnically pure state does just doesnt work in this world. The solution is obviously full right of return and full reparations and one democratic state for everybody. And since the dream of eradicating them once and for all isn't going to happen, the One State solution is going to happen as sure as the sun rises.
whatever specious definition of 'fair' you're proposing obviously implies de facto Jewish superiority. you're tipping your hand here. and while youre revealing your perspective, explain how they are not completely dominated now. and, how does one "surrender" when driven out of one's home? You're saying "they would have all been exterminated by now...if it werent for those meddling goys". "fair' means not handcuffing Israel's manifest appointment with destiny with ridiculous concerns.
I could not find the Reuters article. The quote is from the Jerusalem Post [jpost.com]"
I couldn't find the Reuters article either. But this AP article seems to match, after you spell the name correctly and tune the dial a bit;
Hamas aide: Commander assassinated in Dubai was smuggling weapons to Palestinian areas
By DIAA HADID
Associated Press Writer
"GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- The right-hand man of a Hamas leader assassinated in Dubai confirmed Israeli claims that his boss supplied weapons to Palestinian militants, according to an interview transcript released Tuesday.
The aide, Damascus-based Mohammed Nassar, spoke to Hamas' Al Aqsa radio in Gaza."
I don't know where you live, but if every country that borders yours allowed missiles to be fired into your country on a daily basis, and most were pledged to the total destruction, not of only your country, but of everyone in your country, just what would you do? Just sit back and never respond?
This is a tired bait and switch. First, "Israel" is illegitimate, it isn't a country that just happened to have its neighbors decide to destroy it, it's a foreign occupation. Jewish interlopers started the terrorism and continues to this day to perpetrate blatant crimes against humanity and international law. Of course they want the colonists out, of course they want Israel GONE. Israel has no right to be there. They are squatting on the indigenous people's land by force of guns and ultra-terrorism. They should be gone. if it wasnt for their stranglehold on the US govt. they would be gone. US power allows it to continue... now the US has a debilitating war on terror, all to support the massive crime that is Israel.
Any human being would resort to the tactics Israel "has to deal with". It's just too bad it's not a fair fight, they should have to deal with much much more.
"Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. "
"My creed of nonviolence is an extremely active force. It has no room for cowardice or even weakness. There is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward. I have, therefore, said more than once....that, if we do not know how to defend ourselves, our women and our places of worship by the force of suffering, i.e., nonviolence, we must, if we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting. "
"I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by nonviolently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully. "
May the fierce resistance of the Palestinians never fade.
What you're saying is that nuke plants are simply not a great investment. Financing is not difficult for ventures that make sense. "loan guarantee" is no different from "bailout" or, as you say; "jacking up the rates" but by more stealthy means.
Nukes just don't work out in the big picture and it makes no economic sense to build them. And it's not simply that they're environmentally horrible, the economics in dollars and in EROEI are what has stopped them. (especially compared to any fossil fuel)... the concept of nuke plants solving our little 'energy problem' is only exciting to Cornucopian Fantasists who think that cheap energy is purely a technological problem and lap up high-tech industry generated screed like Millennialists lap up evidence of the upcoming rapture.
But bailout is the word of the century, and we'll be building them as sure as the sun sets. Bailout in this case isn't a lot diferent than the bailout of the financial mess, we're really just bailing out a "lifestyle to which we've become accustomed", with all the same implications as in the movie.
mini-mod +5 Agree strongly. The average citizen of the industrialized world has very little clue the amount of work being done by our petro slave labor force. Even the highly aware readers here grasp this fact intellectually, but have no aching muscles to _feel_ the reality. The effect of this detachment is the clusterfuck we've created with the motto: (said with a lazy southern drawl) "The lifestyle to which I've become accustomed"
HA! the strength of an argument is inversely proportional to the amount of bluster and insult one resorts to. you missed my point entirely and i'm not sure if you're pissed bc you just don't get it, or bc you can't deal with reflecting on your convictions (hate to be wrong).
you oversimplify the options, (you left out "getting out the vote" and similar deck chair rearrangement), but revolution is indeed a necessity to achieve what you (and i) desire. whether it be bloody or not is beside the point, a different system is the only thing that will supplant the anti-democratic progression of events. Hey, we've been voting our asses off the whole time! Ever wonder why your theory doesnt produce the desired results? Will you simply retort with the classic religious-sect argument, that everything would be perfect if everyone believed and acted as you believe and act?
and btw, your assumptions about my spirit and my activism are laughably off the mark and i see your conventionalism and idealism as the major stumbling block to achieving our mutual dream of a democratic and equitable society. so get serious or stfu!
You mistake 'fatalism' for "realism'. I have been where you are and we are indeed on the same populist side. There is a requirement to accept reality if one wants to change it. The very notion of 'democracy' is a bit like the notion of Santa Claus, it is a very exciting vision to those who have not yet gathered the facts about reality, that is to say, its promise doesnt really exist, never has and never will. There is irony in the fact that persisting in this mode of political analysis actually MAINTAINS a powerless state. It is as "tilting after windmills" . The salient factor here is _power_,power has to be met by power. Democracy, as taught to us and in practice, serves as palliation of an otherwise organized force of resistance.
Fight for anarcho-syndicalism if you want 'democracy'. and prepare to really fight, not with a piece of paper in a ballot box. power doesnt give way for anything less than the real thing.
its also the death of charismatic politicians. a politician's personality will now be sublimated to his corporate master's pr interests. and they WILL be working for corporate masters, rather than the general public.
seriously, you think this is new? that the general public is listened to in anything that matter$? if so then explain the Iraq war and healthcare for starters. strongly opposed by the citizens, strongly against their interests but very favorable to corporate interests. the US has been driven primarily by the paymasters for a very long time, certainly longer than my 50 years. now if the public got _organized_ that might be different, but our corporate media sees to it that that will never happen. if you're angry about this situation, just go shopping:>
Slashdot Mirror
here ya go: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8245306.stm
start there and work back to the original article igniting the recent flap and then to previous complaints going back years. there's a lot to answer for.
"If I said the same thing about Chavez, I would disappear. He's funny like that."
cite?
Chavez wants to silence anyone who doesn't agree with him. Can we just accept that he's evil yet? he's been making the effort to convince us all for a while but some people don't seem to want to listen.
It's only the U$ Media that has been trying to convince us "he's evil" for a while now, so I read a few other sources just in case the U$ media isn't 100% fair and balanced and whatyaknow, not convinced he's evil yet. exactly the opposite in fact. (AM convinced the US media is monopolized by elite interests intent on swinging policy and perception in support of their Neocolonialist agenda)
You must live in Rushlimbaughstan. I can only imagine the potential for the United States and the world if we had leaders who cared about their country and the people living in it as much as Chavez does. (instead of catering to the ultra-wealthy)
the internets will thwart your scheme by design, as it will there's. it will be really fun when the gov's start slashing the wires wholesale. get ready to rrrrrrrrrumble!
Plenty of people argued that the blacks would never be integrated into US society, same in So. Africa, and though full integration is far from finished in either place, that is the future. the alternative is what you see, an atrocity that will get worse and anything is better than that. Social behavior changes, especially when all of the benefits start to appear. I like to think the average Israeli or Palestinian is not an irredeemable nutjob, but rather a human being trying to raise their family and enjoy a decent life.
Through backroom dealings, the Zionists convinced Britain to unilaterally grant them a "homeland", not a State. The State was declared unilaterally by the settlers. None of this was done with the agreement of the local inhabitants, neither have they been compensated for this appropriation. Many states now do recognize it, but obviously not everyone agrees with the declarations and if i recall correctly, there were conditions that the UN laid down to formally recognize statehood that have never been met, the right of return being a very large one.
However legality and morality are not always in synch, the patent land theft and refugee problem has to be resolved to gain any moral claim to be there and that's where the lasting peace will be found.
You can't be serious. My original comment intended 'fair' to mean that the Palestinians have equal access to weaponry. You're saying that it's unfair that Palestinians resort to guerilla tactics? Go back and read it; You inserted the notion that what i'm really saying is that I just want Israel to lose, obvious now is that you were projecting your bias on me.
Fact is that I have much more complex feelings about the situation. I am part of a very large and wonderful Jewish family for one thing, so it is not trivial to dismiss Israel and all that it means to them. The final solution in my mind is a single state with any remaining racist zealots of any stripe marginalized and severely punished for any racist utterance. This may seem like 'losing' to a radical Zionist, but most people would call that a major win for Justice and Humanity.
you've hit on THE essential point in this conflict. Israelis adamantly want a state for Jews only, but that has never been the goal of the Palestinians. An ethnically pure state does just doesnt work in this world. The solution is obviously full right of return and full reparations and one democratic state for everybody. And since the dream of eradicating them once and for all isn't going to happen, the One State solution is going to happen as sure as the sun rises.
whatever specious definition of 'fair' you're proposing obviously implies de facto Jewish superiority. you're tipping your hand here. and while youre revealing your perspective, explain how they are not completely dominated now. and, how does one "surrender" when driven out of one's home? You're saying "they would have all been exterminated by now...if it werent for those meddling goys". "fair' means not handcuffing Israel's manifest appointment with destiny with ridiculous concerns.
I couldn't find the Reuters article either. But this AP article seems to match, after you spell the name correctly and tune the dial a bit;
Hamas aide: Commander assassinated in Dubai was smuggling weapons to Palestinian areas
By DIAA HADID Associated Press Writer
"GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- The right-hand man of a Hamas leader assassinated in Dubai confirmed Israeli claims that his boss supplied weapons to Palestinian militants, according to an interview transcript released Tuesday.
The aide, Damascus-based Mohammed Nassar, spoke to Hamas' Al Aqsa radio in Gaza."
and there's the strange coincidence of the assassins all using credit cards issued by one bank in the US...controlled by a former mossad special forces agent! http://warincontext.org/2010/02/24/dubai-money-trail-leads-back-to-israel/
This is a tired bait and switch. First, "Israel" is illegitimate, it isn't a country that just happened to have its neighbors decide to destroy it, it's a foreign occupation. Jewish interlopers started the terrorism and continues to this day to perpetrate blatant crimes against humanity and international law. Of course they want the colonists out, of course they want Israel GONE. Israel has no right to be there. They are squatting on the indigenous people's land by force of guns and ultra-terrorism. They should be gone. if it wasnt for their stranglehold on the US govt. they would be gone. US power allows it to continue... now the US has a debilitating war on terror, all to support the massive crime that is Israel.
Any human being would resort to the tactics Israel "has to deal with". It's just too bad it's not a fair fight, they should have to deal with much much more.
that was awesome
Ghandi:
"Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. "
"My creed of nonviolence is an extremely active force. It has no room for cowardice or even weakness. There is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward. I have, therefore, said more than once....that, if we do not know how to defend ourselves, our women and our places of worship by the force of suffering, i.e., nonviolence, we must, if we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting. "
"I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by nonviolently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully. "
May the fierce resistance of the Palestinians never fade.
yes
but not necessarily "right", "just" or "fair"
"for all intents and purposes..."
What you're saying is that nuke plants are simply not a great investment. Financing is not difficult for ventures that make sense. "loan guarantee" is no different from "bailout" or, as you say; "jacking up the rates" but by more stealthy means.
Nukes just don't work out in the big picture and it makes no economic sense to build them. And it's not simply that they're environmentally horrible, the economics in dollars and in EROEI are what has stopped them. (especially compared to any fossil fuel)... the concept of nuke plants solving our little 'energy problem' is only exciting to Cornucopian Fantasists who think that cheap energy is purely a technological problem and lap up high-tech industry generated screed like Millennialists lap up evidence of the upcoming rapture.
But bailout is the word of the century, and we'll be building them as sure as the sun sets. Bailout in this case isn't a lot diferent than the bailout of the financial mess, we're really just bailing out a "lifestyle to which we've become accustomed", with all the same implications as in the movie.
mini-mod +5 Agree strongly.
The average citizen of the industrialized world has very little clue the amount of work being done by our petro slave labor force. Even the highly aware readers here grasp this fact intellectually, but have no aching muscles to _feel_ the reality. The effect of this detachment is the clusterfuck we've created with the motto: (said with a lazy southern drawl) "The lifestyle to which I've become accustomed"
Here's an article that concludes that luxury seems intrinsically linked to self-interest. http://www.nationalpost.com/life/story.html?id=2519066#ixzz0foqDMjQm
an odd set
HA! the strength of an argument is inversely proportional to the amount of bluster and insult one resorts to. you missed my point entirely and i'm not sure if you're pissed bc you just don't get it, or bc you can't deal with reflecting on your convictions (hate to be wrong).
you oversimplify the options, (you left out "getting out the vote" and similar deck chair rearrangement), but revolution is indeed a necessity to achieve what you (and i) desire. whether it be bloody or not is beside the point, a different system is the only thing that will supplant the anti-democratic progression of events. Hey, we've been voting our asses off the whole time! Ever wonder why your theory doesnt produce the desired results? Will you simply retort with the classic religious-sect argument, that everything would be perfect if everyone believed and acted as you believe and act?
and btw, your assumptions about my spirit and my activism are laughably off the mark and i see your conventionalism and idealism as the major stumbling block to achieving our mutual dream of a democratic and equitable society. so get serious or stfu!
You mistake 'fatalism' for "realism'. I have been where you are and we are indeed on the same populist side. There is a requirement to accept reality if one wants to change it. The very notion of 'democracy' is a bit like the notion of Santa Claus, it is a very exciting vision to those who have not yet gathered the facts about reality, that is to say, its promise doesnt really exist, never has and never will. There is irony in the fact that persisting in this mode of political analysis actually MAINTAINS a powerless state. It is as "tilting after windmills" . The salient factor here is _power_,power has to be met by power. Democracy, as taught to us and in practice, serves as palliation of an otherwise organized force of resistance.
Fight for anarcho-syndicalism if you want 'democracy'. and prepare to really fight, not with a piece of paper in a ballot box. power doesnt give way for anything less than the real thing.
that is to say, heathcare reform strongly _favored_, Iraq war strongly opposed...
seriously, you think this is new? that the general public is listened to in anything that matter$? if so then explain the Iraq war and healthcare for starters. strongly opposed by the citizens, strongly against their interests but very favorable to corporate interests. the US has been driven primarily by the paymasters for a very long time, certainly longer than my 50 years. now if the public got _organized_ that might be different, but our corporate media sees to it that that will never happen. if you're angry about this situation, just go shopping:>