Trending Topics:

British Parliamentarians pay homage to Dick Cheney during debate over ISIS

Middle East
on 81 Comments
On 3rd December 2015 at the United States Capitol in Washington a statue was unveiled in honor of Richard “Dick” Cheney, former vice President to George W. Bush. In line with all other past vice-presidents a marble bust will now rest alongside all other United States vice-Presidents.

Coincidentally, the previous day witnessed the British parliament, specifically the House of Commons, inadvertently honor Cheney in the debate on whether to extend the military intervention aimed at ISIS in Iraq into ISIS’s supposed heartland in Syria.

In August 2002 to what is now the run-up to the British-American invasion of Iraq, Dick Cheney addressed the Veteran of Foreign Wars organisation wherein he premiered the “risk of inaction” argument. He first claimed that “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction” before adding the coup de grace:

“Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or the two working together, constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined. The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action.”

Opening the debate in the House of Commons on 2nd December, Prime Minister David Cameron reformulated Cheney’s argument by insisting that past mistakes should not be “an excuse for indifference or inaction” before substantiating “inaction does not amount to a strategy for our security or that of the Syrian people, but inaction is a choice.”[1]

Former Defence Secretary (under the previous Cameron coalition government) Liam Fox, claimed that “to do nothing is a policy position which will have its own consequences.”[2]

One of Tony Blair’s Foreign Secretary’s Margaret Beckett admonished on the “consequence of inaction” against ISIS before concluding “inaction too leads to death and destruction” as though Blair’s invasion of Iraq inaugurated a period of world peace.[3]

Gisela Stuart, a Blairite politician and the only British Labour parliamentarian to support the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004 argued that “there are some things that we do know, and one of them is that just as actions have consequences, so does inaction.”[4]

Dr. Sarah Wollaston, a Conservative also elaborated and warned of the “consequence of inaction” for the security of the United Kingdom.[5]

Angela Smith, a Labour politician rhetorically queried as though as it was the first time someone ever asked, “Does not this choice involve risk? The risk involved in doing something has to be balanced against the risk involved in doing nothing, which equally carries great risk for this country and for the world.” Clearly, she never thought of the risk of plagiarising Dick Cheney.[6]

Wendy Morton, a newly elected Conservative thunderously decried that “We need military action, not inaction.”[7]

Ruth Smeeth, Labour member and former PR guru for the British Israeli lobby group, BICOM, then picked up the baton to beam that “there is a cost of inaction, as much as there is a cost of action, and if we allow atrocities to go unpunished and unrestrained we will bear the burden.”[8] Needless to say Smeeth is not on record noticing any of Israel’s atrocities in its occupation of Palestine over the last several decades.

Chloe Smith, a Conservative who was elected to parliament on the back of the previous Labour incumbent for her area being accused of nepotism, insisted that “no action is not an option. We all know there is history behind and there is risk ahead.”[9]

Simon Hoare, another newly elected Conservative and Oxford University History graduate, reformulated “risk of inaction” pitch claiming that there was “nothing splendid in isolation.”[10] This was a clever play on words and history as the foreign policy of the British state in the late Victorian period was known as “splendid isolation.” That is the British Empire could afford to dwell in “splendid isolation” because they were more powerful than their two nearest global imperialist competitors France and Russia and had no need for allies, therefore Great Britain was in “splendid isolation”. The rise of Germany led the British elite to scurry and seek salvation in a “special relationship” with another rising power, its former colony, the United States.

Wrapping up the debate in support of David Cameron’s motion to supposedly attack ISIS in Syria, the current Foreign Secretary, Phillip Hammond emphasised that “We have to be clear—I think the right hon. Member for Derby South (i.e. Margaret Beckett) was the first to say this—that the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action.”[11] Hammond was clearly not paying close attention to his leader as it was Cameron who began the “risk of inaction” ball rolling during the debate.

According to Bob Woodward, the world renowned investigative journalist, the “risk of inaction” formulation emanates from one of Cheney’s favourite military historians Victor Davis Hanson.[12]

However, there must be something ‘rotten in the state of Denmark’ when the British Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, former Defence Secretary and a former Foreign Secretary all employ and rehash an argument of a discredited, warmongering vice-President. Furthermore, not once in the debate did anyone question the credibility of a team of arsonist having any moral right in putting out the fire they had caused in the first place.

When Cheney employed the “risk of inaction” line it was to justify pre-emptive war on Iraq based on partly British supplied false intelligence. This time round, it was to justify further intervention in the Middle East in response to what the original invasion produced, al-Qaeda in Iraq, which became ISIS.

At the unveiling ceremony of the bust, Dick Cheney claimed the vice-President busts were “one shot at being remembered.” In the British parliament the previous day prominent politicians did more than remember him – they invoked him to vote for more imperialist war.

Notes

[1] House of Commons, Deb 2 December 2015, Vol 603, Col 339

[2] ibid., Col 358

[3] ibid., Col 363

[4] ibid., Col 387

[5] ibid., Col 431-432

[6] ibid., Col 453

[7] ibid., Col 455

[8] ibid., Col 462

[9] ibid., Col 478

[10] ibid., Col 480

[11] ibid., Col 489

[12] Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack, (Simon & Schuster, London, 2004), pg. 428-429

About Nu'man Abd al-Wahid

Nu’man Abd al-Wahid is a Yemeni-English independent researcher specialising in the political relationship between the British state and the Arab World. His main focus is on how the United Kingdom has historically maintained its political interests in the Arab World. A full collection of essays can be accessed at http://www.churchills-karma.com/. Twitter handle: @churchillskarma.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

81 Responses

  1. HarryLaw
    January 18, 2016, 1:23 pm

    The Parliamentary debate on bombing Islamic State in Syria ruled out supporting the only effective boots on the ground capable of eradicating these Jihadists, namely the Syrian Army, therefore any bombing would be entirely symbolic since the US coalition are already bombing Islamic State [or so they say]. The US have been after regime change in Syria for years, to that end have only tried to ‘contain’ Islamic State hoping that they could weaken Assad sufficiently for their Free Syrian Army conscripts to bring Assad down, another US foreign policy blunder. Continuing in this vein and trying to achieve by negotiation what they have patently failed to do by force, UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said a couple of days ago “We are not saying Assad and all his cronies have to go on day one,”. “What I am not prepared to discuss is what I understand to be the Russian and Iranian position, that we need to move to elections in Syria and it will be for the Syrian people to decide in those elections whether Assad should remain as their president.http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/09/isis-regime-change-uk-strikes-syria-philip-hammond Could there be anything more undemocratic than that statement? The Foreign Secretary is a fool, Syria, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah will have to finish the job in Syria without the hindrance of the ‘West’.

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      January 19, 2016, 10:49 am

      They never cared about human rights in Syria, otherwise, they would have pushed for violent regime change in Saudi Arabia, and yes, Israel and the occupied territories. I never take neocons or neoliberals serious.

      • Egbert
        January 19, 2016, 12:28 pm

        A few years ago Cameron tried to run the same regime change ploy, explicitly targetting Assad. In the new mission, the UK planes flew a grand total of 5 missions immediately after the Parliamentary OK, then nothing. They did not join the Syrian/Russian/Iranian/Lebanese coalition actually fighting ISIS and its blood-brother ‘moderate’ head-chopping FSA. The intention was possibly to ‘accidentally’ bomb Srian Arab Army positions, the Russsian S-400 system has made them see sense. NATO has never taken on opposition the could defend itself before. This must be a chastening experience for them.

        British forces were up to their neck training the ‘rebels’ in Libya who butchered Gadhaffi and did nothing to stop the flow of arms and chemical weapon precursors to Turkey where they were transferred to ISIS. There is circumstantial evidence that the British were involved in training unidentified ‘vetted’ rebels in Jordan presumably at the Special Operations Training Center in the north of Amman. In 2013, a British Chinook helicopter crash landed in the West Bank, supposedly on a ‘routine’ flight between Amman and Cyprus. About this time, rebels admitted they were being trained at the SOTC.

        The UK Special Forces veterans website has a wealth of detail that is not mentioned in the MSM. It notes the irony that Britsh SF have been sent back to Libya to fight the very groups they trained in the first place.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 19, 2016, 5:15 pm

        It notes the irony that Britsh SF have been sent back to Libya to fight the very groups they trained in the first place.

        yeah. thanks for the info egbert.

  2. Annie Robbins
    January 18, 2016, 2:31 pm

    i think they are counting on everyone’s memories being wiped clean every 3 months or something. perhaps shorter and shorter attention spams are one negative aspect of the internet age and they are taking advantage of them.

    • miriam6
      January 20, 2016, 12:19 am

      Annie [email protected] :

      It notes the irony that Britsh SF have been sent back to Libya to fight the very groups they trained in the first place.

      yeah. thanks for the info egbert.

      Annie [email protected]

      i think they are counting on everyone’s memories being wiped clean every 3 months or something.

      Annie Robbins – You yourself are forgetting Philip Weiss’s gloating endorsement of the NATO assault on Libya and the bloody removal of Ghadafi right here within the pages of MW in 2011 ..

      Exulting over Libya

      http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/exulting-over-libya

      How ironic that you have implicated yourself in the same hypocritical forgetfulness you accuse others of ..

      A negative aspect of prolonged involvement in and exposure to Philip Weiss’s narcissistic and ignorant ‘activism’ no doubt ..

      • Annie Robbins
        January 20, 2016, 4:49 am

        You yourself are forgetting Philip Weiss’s gloating endorsement of the NATO assault on Libya and the bloody removal of Ghadafi right here within the pages of MW in 2011…ironic that you have implicated yourself in the same hypocritical forgetfulness

        miriam, you should try doing some homework before making such stupid comments. i made these following comments just last week (if you click on my archives you can find other references to libya too) word for word, but i just added the bold for you:

        1/14/2016:

        it just goes to show just because a movement is going to be in solidarity over one issue, doesn’t mean they will solidify over every other issue. even phil was supportive of invading libya (omg did i ever tell him what a nightmare that was).

        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/response-norton-silence#comment-820215

        iow, i never forgot for one sec phil supported libya. we had way too many email conversations about it at the time (disagreements) that neither of us will be forgetting — ever.

        btw, i didn’t know british troops had been sent back to libya, that’s what i meant by “thanks for the info egbert”.

        here’s another from 1/14/2016:

        why should we sit here all snug in our blankies while places like libya are being overtaken by daesh (BECAUSE OF US)?

        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/methodist-divestment-highlights#comment-820238

        1/15/2016:

        i fought against the iraq war for years and years, that’s how i learned how the US operates in the ME. that’s why i didn’t support our intervention in libya or syria.

        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/response-norton-silence#comment-820322

  3. HarryLaw
    January 18, 2016, 5:27 pm

    Cheney admits visiting the dark side and to be complicit in the torturing of suspects, [waterboarding, a war crime] and said live on TV he would do it again.
    Obama said “we tortured some folks” but instead of prosecuting Cheney and other war criminals, as he is obliged to do under International law, said “we must look forward not back” as a pathetic excuse not to do so. Proving once again America’s contempt for International law. And then they ask, why do they hate us?

    • eljay
      January 18, 2016, 9:02 pm

      || HarryLaw: Cheney admits visiting the dark side and to be complicit in the torturing of suspects, [waterboarding, a war crime] and said live on TV he would do it again. … ||

      Cheney is a truly evil human being. He should be required to undergo for a period of six months any torture he proposes using on others. If it’s good enough for “them”, it should be good enough for him, too.

      || … Obama said “we tortured some folks” but instead of prosecuting Cheney and other war criminals, as he is obliged to do under International law, said “we must look forward not back” … ||

      And that was the very moment I lost all respect for Barry O.

    • miriam6
      January 20, 2016, 9:10 pm

      Annie [email protected]

      Lol

      You offer three paltry blockquoted examples – ALL of them from dating from this month in 2016!
      Close to five years on from the relevant date you finally agree that the NATO assault on Libya wasn’t such a great idea as Weiss thought it back in 2011!!

      Lets open up the MW archive and refer back to August 2011 and the publication of Weiss’s empty headed endorsement of NATO intervention in Libya shall we?

      What we find is THIS comment from you. Hardly amounting to any kind significant criticism of Weiss’s argument.

      August 24, 2011, 1:22 pm phil, i like your enthusiasm and wish i could share it with you. sure, i’m hopeful..but..like ehrens i am reserving judgement for similiar reasons mentioned in his post. still, your energy here feels good.

      http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/exulting-over-libya

      Do try to be honest Annie

      You have had very little to say by way of condemnation of the NATO assault on Libya nor Weiss’s cheerleading for it.

      And what you have had to say by way of condemnation is five years too late and irrelevant so long after the event

      • Annie Robbins
        January 21, 2016, 12:35 am

        five years too late and irrelevant so long after the event

        miriam, you have no idea what you’re talking about. i made my position clear on our intervention in libya long before phil’s article in aug 2011. i recommend my comments in this thread:

        The U.N.’s rogue alliance in Libya by Virginia Tilley on May 2, 2011

        this is a few in a row, but there are others in the thread and many others throughout many threads.

        annie May 3, 2011, 1:00 am
        Part of the Libyan intervention is to establish the Maghreb as a NATO area of responsibility. This in coordination with AFRICOM, which commanded the first phase of the NATO assault, and which is currently headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany because no African nation would accept the headquarters on their soil.

        i’ve mentioned this a few times, about africom wrt this assault on libya. we used to have an airforce base there, Wheelus Air Base. when the attack began i wondered if the goal was to find a home for africom on the continent. the base was closed in june ’70 after gaddafi over thru the king in ’69.
        wiki: This page was last modified on 18 April 2011 at 15:39. i’m not the only one thinking about that base. i’ve visited it numerous times since the invasion and it keeps changing, expanding.

        i’m thinking home for africom.

        annie May 3, 2011, 1:14 am
        i radically recommend reading Understanding Africom. both parts one and two.

        this essential article acquired 3rd place on project censored’s top censored stories of ’08.

        although it was largely ignored in the msm, acquiring a home for africom on the continent of afica was a major goal of the cheney administration and country after country denying a home for africon was an embarrassment and a failure of cheney’s administration. no african country wanted the headquarters of US domination of the continent on their soil.

        if obama accomplishs this in his tenure it would have a huge impact. huge. imho this is the prize and it makes me sick.

        annie May 3, 2011, 1:21 am

        In February 2007 the White House announced the formation of the US African Command (AFRICOM), a new unified Pentagon command center in Africa, to be established by September 2008. This military penetration of Africa is being presented as a humanitarian guard in the Global War on Terror. The real objective is, however, the procurement and control of Africa’s oil and its global delivery systems.
        The most significant and growing challenge to US dominance in Africa is China. An increase in Chinese trade and investment in Africa threatens to substantially reduce US political and economic leverage in that resource-rich continent. The political implication of an economically emerging Africa in close alliance with China is resulting in a new cold war in which AFRICOM will be tasked with achieving full-spectrum military dominance over Africa.
        AFRICOM will replace US military command posts in Africa, which were formerly under control of US European Command (EUCOM) and US Central Command (CENTCOM), with a more centralized and intensified US military presence.
        A context for the pending strategic role of AFRICOM can be gained from observing CENTCOM in the Middle East.

        that’s from the intro of the project censored link above . i recommend the whole article in the original @ MOA.

        ——– See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2011/05/the-u-n-s-rogue-alliance-in-libya#comment-315323

        and in the same thread i also linked to this article from 2008: http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=20735 titled Gathafi: US, China competing over Africa with this blockquote and commentary:

        and, in another article reporting on his talk,

        The Libyan leader began his talk addressing the challenges the African continent faces today amid competing foreign interferences, namely the US and China.

        Gathafi argues that while in the past Africa had been a fighting ground between American and former Soviet interests, today the dark continent faces the same dilemma, only this time it is between the US and China.

        Although both of the US and China are competing to obtain more influence in Africa, the Libyan leader continues, American interference has been much more harmful and hypocritical.

        The US only uses terms like ‘democracy’ or ‘human rights’ to set foot in the African continent, while it pursuits its own personal interests in a brutal manner, said Gathafi.

        It is time that this conflict over interests is exposed to the larger public, and we must not shy away from addressing the issue, he added.

        very much agreed

        my record on libya was clear from the get go, quit biting on my ankles, you’re acting foolish.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 21, 2016, 12:50 am

        P.S. context, is everything. so in that comment you copied where i wrote “like ehrens i am reserving judgement for similiar reasons mentioned in his post.” — here is what ehrens wrote (my bold):

        ehrens August 24, 2011, 12:10 pm
        Everyone can exult if they want, but I’m reserving judgment. The US/NATO campaign in Libya is not an example of a more cautious, humanitarian-driven Western intervention in the Middle East. The West has had a bullseye on Ghadafy for decades, even after he started selling Europeans oil and giving the US intel on salafists. His 2009 speech at the UN was probably the last straw: reminding everyone that the UN Security Council is really still only a White colonist’s country club. Now that we know that there were plenty of boots on the ground and that hawks like Richard Haass want “in” on recreating a new Libya, and now that mainstream foreign policy wonks are obsessing about possible Islamists in Libya’s future government, Libya will be another Iraq. Get ready for lots of foreign meddling in its selection of legislators, prime minister, defense chief. Get ready for lots of US bumbling which will foster the creation of factions and slow national reunification. Expect us to become the salesmen for new weaponry to replace all that’s been expended, advocates for turning Libya into a heavily armed nation. Of course American advisors, mercenaries, security companies, and all the trimmings — perhaps fresh from Iraq — will be necessary to complete the transformation. Hell, if we keep it up and have only one war every 3 years we could keep Xe and companies like it employed for a long time. If Libya turns into another Egypt or Jordan, the Arab Spring will be a bitter joke. In fact, the jury’s still out on what the accomplishments of the Spring are in Egypt, as influential as the military is. Ultimately the only thing we know for sure is that the Western colonial powers have flexed their muscles and shown those benighted people of the Middle East who’s really the boss. Colonialism is safe, at least for a few more years.

        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/exulting-over-libya#sthash.sxgFiiQ0.dpuf

  4. Atlantaiconoclast
    January 19, 2016, 10:46 am

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlM8Sui6-X0 I want Cheney and his defenders to explain his stand down order on 9/11. http://dotheordersstillstand.blogspot.com/ “During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”

    • miriam6
      January 20, 2016, 12:31 am

      So you would have preferred that Cheney give the order to shoot down a passenger plane? Really?

      How inhumane of you.

      As it happened on the day stopping a hijacked passenger plane was only spoken about as an option rather late after 3 planes had already been deliberately crashed

      The fourth plane was brought down by the passengers themselves thus rendering military intervention a moot and unnecessary point

      • Atlantaiconoclast
        January 21, 2016, 4:57 pm

        That is the default order, so yes. And didn’t people die in the Pentagon? It could have been hundreds killed in the Pentagon had the plane hit in a different area of the bldg. So, yes, the stand down order is puzzling.

        And so what about the fourth plane. The one that was headed toward the Pentagon is the one I am referring to.

        And be assured that Cheney has never acknowledged his stand down order, his deliberate choice to NOT allow the default order to take place.

      • lysias
        January 21, 2016, 5:34 pm

        I thought it was very uncertain that what hit the Pentagon was a passenger plane rather than something else, like a missile.

        And whether or not it was a plane, the part of the Pentagon that it hit (a) had very few people working in it, as it was undergoing renovations and (b) had people in it involved in the Pentagon’s financial dealings, like the billions of dollars Rumsfeld admitted on 9/10 had gone missing. It certainly did not have in it any of DOD’s movers and shakers. (World Trade Center 7, which mysteriously collapsed, happened to have in it the SEC’s New York records.) Somebody might have been sure, for whatever reason, what side of the Pentagon would be hit, by whatever it was that hit it.

  5. Palikari
    January 19, 2016, 10:57 am

    Cheney was much better than Biden, and Bush was certainly much better than Obama.

    Aww, I miss the good old days!

    • eljay
      January 19, 2016, 11:25 am

      || Palikari: Cheney was much better than Biden, and Bush was certainly much better than Obama. Aww, I miss the good old days! ||

      Aww, you don’t have to miss them: Just look in the mirror and you’ll see that the “good old days” of pride in both evil and idiocy still exist.

      Feel better? :-)

  6. rugal_b
    January 19, 2016, 2:23 pm

    This just further proves that the idea of sovereign, independent actors seeking their own interests in the current global conflict is not accurate. White supremacy is the primary driving force for US and its allies. I doubt they would also erect a statue of Powell and Rice to commemorate their contributions to the allied foreign policy.

    • tree
      January 19, 2016, 4:35 pm

      I doubt they would also erect a statue of Powell and Rice to commemorate their contributions to the allied foreign policy.

      The British didn’t erect a statue of Cheney either.

      You didn’t read the article, did you? You just looked at the headline and the picture and assumed the statue was something that the British erected. Wrong. The statue was the most recent addition to the long line of busts of US vice presidents, commissioned by the US. Every past Vice President gets one eventually. This was explained in the first two paragraphs:

      “On 3rd December 2015 at the United States Capitol in Washington a statue was unveiled in honor of Richard “Dick” Cheney, former vice President to George W. Bush. In line with all other past vice-presidents a marble bust will now rest alongside all other United States vice-Presidents.

      Coincidentally, the previous day witnessed the British parliament, specifically the House of Commons, inadvertently honor Cheney…”

      Reading comprehension does not seem to be your strong suit.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 19, 2016, 4:47 pm

        maybe he’s unclear what “inadvertently” honored even means — since there’s no indication cheney’s name was even mentioned in the house of commons the other day.

        but since it’s unlikely he read the article…

    • Brewer
      January 22, 2016, 2:12 am

      Rice has her own memorial:

      Don’t miss the throwaway line at the finish – “We could probably save a lot of lives if we just got her a boyfriend – or girlfriend”

      • rugal_b
        January 22, 2016, 8:18 am

        I’m sure it wasnt your intention, but that so called throwaway line is a really offensive one Brewer. It is misogynistic with homophobic undertones, not really a good one to share in a progressive and inclusive website such as MW.

      • Mooser
        January 22, 2016, 12:41 pm

        ” It is misogynistic with homophobic undertones, not really a good one to share in a progressive and inclusive website such as MW.”

        No, the line was a one-sentence paean to the salutary effects of of romance and love!
        Loving one who loves you, and then taking those vows? It’s nice work, if you can get it. And you can get it- if you try.

      • Brewer
        January 22, 2016, 7:01 pm

        rugal_b
        Yes, I did consider that aspect but I don’t think Earle is either misogynistic or homophobic. The song is deeply satirical, sending up those who “get off” on power like Condoleeza, who is a symbol for the cabal that has killed so many. I drew attention to the line because I believe Earle put it there to dispel any ambiguity in the song. Don’t forget the performance was at Montreux which attracts a progressive audience and the reaction by that audience was positive. I think Earle used a little off-beat humour to make his point that these people are lacking in simple humanity.
        That being said, I must admit to being a little politically incorrect in that I judge verbal “assaults” by the degree of harm they are capable of inflicting rather than the modes promoted today. Earle’s comment has the potential to hurt no-one but Rice and I doubt that she, who is party to the deaths of over a million civilians is likely wounded by having her humanity questioned. I kinda wish she was but that is his point isn’t it?
        In general, I am often amused by the current trend towards making crimes out of words. It seems to me that members of that fraternity are quick to call others “sexist”, “racist” or “anti-Semitic” (labels that can really do some harm) in response to either valid criticism or a little fun.
        My mother (1903-1978) taught me “sticks and stones will break my bones, words can never hurt me”. I have never, during a long life amply supplied with insult and name-calling, had reason to doubt her wisdom.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 22, 2016, 7:43 pm

        It is misogynistic with homophobic undertones

        triple yawn. murderers are fair game as far as i am concerned. either way “We could probably save a lot of lives if we just got her a boyfriend – or girlfriend” is inclusive and neither misogynistic or homophobic.

      • eljay
        January 22, 2016, 10:39 pm

        || Mooser: No, the line was a one-sentence paean to the salutary effects of of romance and love! … ||

        That – without a hint of misogyny or homophobia or even “disease of white supremacy” – is how I read it.

      • Mooser
        January 22, 2016, 11:41 pm

        “Rugal b” it is well known ( to all those au courant with “the man who shoots the arrows”) that love “causes a livelier iris to gleam upon the burnished dove.”

        “rugal”, you’ll never burnish a dove, if you spend your time waxing roth.

      • Brewer
        January 23, 2016, 2:54 am

        Where, in the name of all that is burnished, did you get that Mooser? I got Heller:
        “In April a livelier iris gleamed upon the burnished dove” ….who probably got it from Henry van Dyke:
        “The burnished dove puts a livelier iris around his neck, and
        practises fantastic bows and amourous quicksteps along the verandah of the pigeon-house and on every convenient roof. The young male of the human species, less gifted in the matter of rainbows, does his best with a gay cravat, and turns the thoughts which circulate above it towards the securing or propitiating of a best girl.”

        How much wonderful romantic writing (and living) have these bastard neo-cons robbed us of?

  7. MHughes976
    January 19, 2016, 6:24 pm

    It’s a truism that there are risks in inaction, of course there are. I think that Cheney is famous for an absurd extension of this truth into ‘the 1% doctrine’, which called for a violent response to a risk even as low as 1%, whose immoral nature as a cloak for any exercise of power that takes your fancy and whose start-at-shadows paranoia ought to be obvious. I don’t think that Cameron and his cohorts want to be reminded of this. If I’m maligning Cheney please correct me. It’s late at night in the UK.

  8. rugal_b
    January 23, 2016, 1:19 am

    Mooser, I believe being “in love” is an altered state of mind no different from being high on cocaine or piss drunk. I don’t buy this romantic BS about Cupid, meeting your other half etc.

    Brewers line is offensive because it frames Rice’s actions and ideas, as the State Sec of the USA, as some sort of psychological reaction to not having a guy to sleep with. It is the same line of reasoning used by idiots who downplay assertive confident women as having their periods constantly, or if the woman is black, she is angry.

    If you don’t get it, then I feel bad for your wife and your children, especially your daughters.

    • Mooser
      January 23, 2016, 12:22 pm

      “Rugal b” I can see very clearly what your problem is. When lonely feelings chill the meadows of your mind, just think, if winter’s here, can spring be far behind? The frozen mountain dreams, of April’s melting streams, how crystal clear it seems; You must believe in spring, and love.

    • Brewer
      January 23, 2016, 2:27 pm

      I believe there is a World of difference between the emotional state induced by love and “being high on cocaine or piss drunk” but I think you are missing the point.
      Earle’s song would make little sense taken literally, it is a metaphor, a scathing indictment of an American people to whom power is an aphrodisiac. To mistakenly interpret it as literal, one would have to ignore Earle’s entire catalogue and particularly the album on which the song appears, The Revolution Starts Now, a collection of songs influenced by the Iraq war and the policies of the George W. Bush administration (that, incidentally won a Grammy for best contemporary folk album). Within this context, Earle’s comment is simply an expression of the sentiment “make love not War”, not a comment on “some sort of psychological reaction to not having a guy to sleep with”.
      Your last line is decidedly offensive and a prime example of the viciousness inherent in the politically correct dogma you seem to espouse for you have aimed a disgusting smear at someone with whom you disagree on a matter of interpretation. You’ve jumped the gun. If Mooser’s interpretation is genuinely held, your smear could not attach. So the applicability of the smear depends on your assessment of what Mooser believes. This is something you cannot know – the “correct” interpretation is irrelevant. This is the case in all ad hominem slurs (which is what these PC memes consist of) and precisely why I do not consider them a valid or useful contribution to debate.
      I’d like to amend my thought above to:
      How much wonderful romantic writing (and living) have these bastard neo-cons and their unwitting supporters, the Word Police, robbed us of?

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2016, 6:31 pm

        Don’t mind me, I’ve always a had a bad case of GAS.

      • Brewer
        January 24, 2016, 6:01 pm

        GAS.
        Jeez, you got me again.
        Possibles:
        Guitar Acquisition Syndrome
        Give A Shit
        General Adaptation Syndrome
        Guilty As Sin
        Good Academic Standing
        Growth Arrest-Specific
        Great American Smokeout

        ….but none really work. I know I’m gonna regret this but ……help me.

      • Mooser
        January 24, 2016, 6:13 pm

        I’m sorry, stands for Great American Songbook.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 24, 2016, 9:06 pm

        Earle’s comment is simply an expression of the sentiment “make love not War”

        this reminds me, i have a big framed (and signed!)poster from code pink in my living room w/an andy warhol-ish type graphic of a woman’s face with her bright lipsticked puckered lips like she’s kissing and she’s wearing big sunglasses and the whole thing is pinked out. above her face it says:

        make out
        NOT WAR

        i totally believe in love. why not?

  9. Mooser
    January 25, 2016, 12:29 am

    “i totally believe in love. why not?”

    Love, it has been said, “is all you need”.

  10. rugal_b
    January 25, 2016, 1:03 am

    @Brewer, most of the time, it is words that hurt people more than stick or stones, because a word has infinitely greater potential for hostility and trauma derived from a societal scale of hatred. Words have consequences Brewer, you should be mindful of the fact.

    It is one thing for you to share that problematic line, but for you to expend so much effort and mental energy to defend your actions even after being told how they can be offensive to other people, show how entitled you are.

    Also, being a progressive doesn’t excuse you or anyone from being racist, sexist etc. Charlie Hebdo was also a supposedly a progressive, socialist, anti racist magazine, but their cartoons often project raw hatred and bigotry that genuinely hurts many people, especially those who are already marginalised such as French Muslims. The hurt they cause through their funny hipster racist cartoons is psychological, i.e. straight to the core of a person. Way worse than being hit by a stick or stone.

    @Annie, being “in love” is a Hollywood construct not based on reality. Plus, people can make out and make war, simultaneously. In fact, most violent people are prolific lovers. Genghis Khan for example, had over a thousand close companions in his lifetime. So the “make love not war” line is a meaningless platitude befitting a group such as CodePink.

    • RoHa
      January 25, 2016, 5:38 am

      “@Annie, being “in love” is a Hollywood construct not based on reality.”

      When I was an undergraduate I came across a claim that falling in love, etc., was a construct invented by the late Mediaeval troubadours. I decided it was nonsense because I knew that the concept could be found in Ancient Greek and Chinese literature that preceded even Layla and Majnun, let alone the troubadours or Hollywood.

      • Mooser
        January 25, 2016, 12:21 pm

        “When I was an undergraduate I came across a claim that falling in love…”

        …with love, is falling for make-believe? Falling in love with love
        is playing the fool? Caring too much is such a juvenile fancy and learning to trust is just for children in school?

        Nope, I thought of quitting, but my heart won’t buy it!
        Me, I’ll take romance. While my heart is young and eager and gay (well, apart from the arterial plaque and burnt valves, and thank God love doesn’t involve the liver! Mine’s shot.), I’ll give my heart away, I’ll take romance.
        And in my condition, immediate access to a defibrillator.

      • rugal_b
        January 26, 2016, 3:41 am

        “Ancient Greek and Chinese literature that preceded even Layla and Majnun, let alone the troubadours or Hollywood. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/british-parliamentarians-cheney#comments

        These literature you cite were fiction written by the elite, for the enjoyments of the elite be that in ancient Greece or China, medieval Baghdad or England. They were simply a means to invoke a pleasurable emotional state, for the people who had everything and more. Nothing wrong with enjoying and losing yourself in these grand tales of love and courtship from time to time, but please do not lose grip on reality in doing so.

        As for Hollywood, well they are doing the same thing the elite poets and writers were doing back in ancient Greece or China but on a larger scale, reflecting the great shift in privilege among the common populace since the Industrial Revolution. After all, they say the common Westerner now is living a life as good, or even better than the royalty of the past. Naturally this calls for them to be entertained in the same manner as well.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 26, 2016, 8:07 am

        so rugal, do you think love was invented by the elite to pacify or oppress the masses?

      • rugal_b
        January 26, 2016, 10:04 am

        “so rugal, do you think love was invented by the elite to pacify or oppress the masses? – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/british-parliamentarians-cheney#comments

        There is obviously no one reason for their invention. Almost every human invention material, intellectual or spiritual can be used for good or bad.

        However, the extravagant stories of love and romance between individuals, like those in countless literary works in past and present, are there as a form of entertainment first and foremost. Nothing based on real human conditions, but based on human desires and wants, which is what being ïn love”is basically. It is an altered state of mind, that provides a short term bliss while carrying real, long-term risks to your mental and physical health. It is no different than being high on drugs and drink, but that is only my opinion.

        So to answer you question, I think it can be used for both simultaneously. It is easier to oppress a docile populace that is intoxicated with love, than a sober population cognizant of the real human needs they are entitled to as creatures of God.

      • RoHa
        January 26, 2016, 11:34 am

        And the ancient literature shows that love was not a Hollywood construct. It was widely recognized in much of the world long before Hollywood existed.

        Why are you churning out all this pointless, half-baked, sociological twaddle? Are you taking a course in “fashionable junk studies”, or something, and practicing for your exams?

      • rugal_b
        January 26, 2016, 2:27 pm

        “pointless, half-baked, sociological twaddle? Are you taking a course in “fashionable junk studies”, o – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/british-parliamentarians-cheney#comments” – Roha

        Let me guess, you’re one of those who think being politically correct is an assault on free speech, there is no such thing as white privilege, black people should get over slavery, heterocispatriarchy is a meaningless commie buzzword and the likes, amirite?

      • diasp0ra
        January 26, 2016, 2:52 pm

        @Roha

        Exactly what I was going to post, regarding Majnun and the dozens of “Ishq” and “hob” poets who lived thousands of years before Hollywood, so I’m not exactly sure what Rugal is on about.

      • Mooser
        January 26, 2016, 3:57 pm

        Let me guess, you’re one of those who think being politically correct is an assault on free speech…”

        Excuse me, but weren’t you the one who started out by urging some absolutely ridiculous (and mean spirited) parody of feminist politically-correct speech on us?

      • gamal
        January 26, 2016, 4:07 pm

        forget leila and majnun what of Leila al-Akhyaliyya, her poor husband (not her famous paramour) got into a poetical invective thing with al-Jadi and was overmatched Leila stepped up and invented lewd satirical sexting under the Ummayyads,

        she actually was an Amirite of the Banu Uqayl bit of the Banu Amir, make a great hollywood movie, transposed to Maine, to avoid confusion, Araxploitation isnt here yet.

      • Mooser
        January 26, 2016, 4:36 pm

        ” most of the time, it is words that hurt people more than stick or stones, because a word has infinitely greater potential for hostility and trauma derived from a societal scale of hatred.” “rugal b” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/british-parliamentarians-cheney#comment-160194

        “Let me guess, you’re one of those who think being politically correct is an assault on free speech”“rugal b” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/british-parliamentarians-cheney#comment-160194

        How many g’s do you think you can pull, “rugal b”? Are you trying to set a record?

      • rugal_b
        January 26, 2016, 10:58 pm

        @Mooser – ”Excuse me, but weren’t you the one who started out by urging some absolutely ridiculous (and mean spirited) parody of feminist politically-correct speech on us? – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/british-parliamentarians-cheney#comment-160194

        I was for embracing political correctness, which essentially involve having some respect for the other party, and a sense of humility in your words and actions. My comment was a dig towards those with privilege who opposes PC culture as being oppressive and against free speech, but when it really is about checking your privilege and reigning in your words as to not cause undue offense to marginalized folks who are fundamentally less privileged than yourself.

        “‘How many g’s do you think you can pull, “rugal b”? Are you trying to set a record? – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/british-parliamentarians-cheney#comment-160194”’

        I’m being perfectly straight, as far as I am aware. Words can hurt a person just as much as any smack on the nose. As a society we are highly conditioned to avoid the latter, but not the former which is not right. This is why I am suspicious of those who are hell-bent against being political correct, as it suggests that they cherish their ability to hurt others and not having to face the consequences. Just like the Zionists in Israel.

      • RoHa
        January 28, 2016, 9:17 am

        When political correctness is good manners, in not calling people insulting names, I have no objection to it. When it demands that ideas not be expressed because some people find them offensive, then it is an attempt at suppression of free speech.

        I have a great deal of formal education, a great deal of informal education, and a great deal of life experience from rattling around the world. I have seen lots of mumbo-jumbo in popular culture, in politics, and in the academic sphere I worked in. Especially, though by no means exclusively, in the humanities we see one dollop of trendy tosh replace another. Freudian-Marxist analysis goes out of fashion, and Postmodernism and Critical Theory comes in. Undergraduates struggle with ill-defined jargon and vague concepts joined by tendentious links. The stuff clogs up their minds and does nothing to nourish their souls. Then the poor things emerge into the world with no real knowledge and inadequate reasoning skills, and are thus susceptible to the mumbo-jumbo that pervades the wider world.

    • Sibiriak
      January 25, 2016, 5:55 am

      rugal_b: It is one thing for you to share that problematic line, but for you to expend so much effort and mental energy to defend your actions even after being told how they can be offensive to other people, show how entitled you are.
      —————-

      Speaking of entitlement, what entitles you [the satiric character] to be the arbiter of what is offensive and what isn’t?

      Besides, free speech as a concept is meaningless unless it elucidates the right to– and value of– offensive speech.

      To round out your silly parody, you [ rugal_b] might have said Brewer had committed some micro-agressions and that his post should have carried a trigger warning.

      In short, your parody of progressivism is offensive. You’ve been told.

      • Mooser
        January 25, 2016, 11:56 am

        In short, your parody of progressivism is offensive.”

        Exactly. “Rugal b” is a perfect example of (wait for it…) “The Broken Overton’s Window Fallacy!”

      • rugal_b
        January 25, 2016, 1:46 pm

        Mooser – “Broken Overtone Windows Fallacy”

        Does anyone apart from you know what the above statement even mean? What are you saying here??

      • Annie Robbins
        January 25, 2016, 1:54 pm

        yes, i get it. it’s a good joke. google ‘broken windows fallacy’ and then google ‘overtone window’.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 25, 2016, 2:04 pm

        here’s the key…the man’s son has reduced his father’s disposable income, meaning his father will not be able purchase new……. Read more: What is the broken window fallacy? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp#ixzz3yHgbw6NJ

        now, rather than the parable being about a father and son, imagine it’s just one person breaking their own window thereby reducing their own disposable income. and then imagine the window is an overtone window (“also known as the window of discourse, is the range of ideas the public will accept”).

        and then imagine a person (such as yourself) could break the window (of discourse), hence ruducing ones ability to purchase more credit (to be taken seriously).

      • rugal_b
        January 25, 2016, 2:21 pm

        Thanks for the clarification Annie, I honestly didn’t even know it was joke. It is far too high brow for the likes of me.

        However I disagree with the point of the joke. If I went to the Likud party meeting and started to speak for Palestinian rights and against the occupation, I would also be “breaking the overtone window” and possibly thrown out of the room in no time but as a progressive I believe it is my responsibility to do so regardless.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 25, 2016, 2:46 pm

        but you’re not at a Likud party meeting and starting to speak for Palestinian rights. you’re here using rhetoric like:

        It is one thing for you to ….. but for you to …. defend your actions even after being told …

        anyway, it’s not “highbrow” just because it’s over your head (requires a level of comprehension skills not readily available to ..). either way, instead of trying to figure out mooser’s humor why not just try answering Sibiriak’s question. or is that over your head too?

        what entitles you [the satiric character] to be the arbiter of what is offensive and what isn’t?

      • rugal_b
        January 26, 2016, 1:32 am

        “Speaking of entitlement, what entitles you [the satiric character] to be the arbiter of what is offensive and what isn’t? – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/british-parliamentarians-cheney#comment-160194

        Calling out instances of offensive behavior is not an entitlement but a social responsibility of every one of us in the social justice movement. You don’t need to be black to be pro-black, or Palestinian to be pro-Palestinian. All you need is the love of justice.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 26, 2016, 8:34 am

        All you need is the love of justice.

        but when i stated “i totally believe in love” (in the context of; vs war) you started lecturing on how being “in love” was a hollywood construct — did you not? what’s not to say your so called “love of justice” is nothing more than a hollywood construct or invented fiction written by the elite, for the enjoyments of the elite in ancient Greece?

      • Sibiriak
        January 26, 2016, 3:40 am

        rugal_b: […] but as a progressive I believe it is my responsibility…
        ——————

        But you’re not a progressive. You’re just pretending to be one, like a4tech with his “white supremacy” shtick.

        You’re pretending to be some kind of holier-than-thou ultra-progressive, trying to 1) make a mockery of progressivism, 2)attack anti-Zionists from a pseudo-left position, and 3)divert and distract.

        At least that’s the impression I get. If that isn’t your intention, you need to up your game.

      • Sibiriak
        January 26, 2016, 9:00 am

        rugal_b:: “Speaking of entitlement, what entitles you [the satiric character] to be the arbiter of what is offensive and what isn’t?”

        Calling out instances of offensive behavior is not an entitlement but a social responsibility

        —————-
        Read the question again. You didn’t answer it.

      • rugal_b
        January 26, 2016, 9:09 am

        @Sibiriak – “But you’re not a progressive.”

        *My earlier reply disappeared to somewhere, so if the site admin stumble upon it please delete it as you see fit.

        But Sibiriak, what is your definition of progressive that I can refer to when I label myself as one? You can’t just claim I am not something without providing any material to back it up.

        In my defense, I only stated my displeasure to a certain comment on the Ex. State Sec, Ms. Rice; for which I was ganged up upon by other readers. This certainly does not reflect any progressive ideals in my opinion.

      • Mooser
        January 26, 2016, 12:08 pm

        “But you’re not a progressive. You’re just pretending to be one, like a4tech with his “white supremacy” shtick.”

        Maybe somebody told “rugal b” that Overton’s window is actually a one-way mirror and it doesn’t matter if he sits behind it buck naked?

        Cut it out “rugal b”! everybody can see you, and it’s very embarrassing.

      • Mooser
        January 26, 2016, 5:54 pm

        “In my defense, I only stated my displeasure to a certain comment on the Ex. State Sec, Ms. Rice;”

        That’s right, “rugal b” you tell ’em. You’re fighting for Ms. Rice’s honor! Which , come to think of it, is more than she ever did.

      • gamal
        January 26, 2016, 6:32 pm

        “You’re fighting for Ms. Rice’s honor!”

        Mooser I don’t you think you know who you are dealing with here, aboard the BlackNoah and the arms dealing, rich white male, the Jewish sounding surname, after all the inquisiting rugal b what are you like. its the perfect platform to be correct from.

        add to that the dead thread necrophilia what a case ( i dont know why i am here its weakness isnt it)

        Mr. Rugal Bernstein

        “Born in Germany, Rugal is a wealthy arms dealer who operates aboard his aircraft carrier called the BlackNoah. He’s an influential figure and is feared throughout the political and fighting world. After defeating those who oppose him, Rugal preserves their bodies in liquid metal to add to his trophy room. When Rugal was 25 years old, he battled an 18 year old Goenitz, who managed to take out his eye with one strike. Impressed that he survived the attack, Goenitz gave him a small portion of Orochi’s power. Since then, Rugal has used a bionic eye. ”

        http://www.fightersgeneration.com/characters3/rugal.html

      • eljay
        January 26, 2016, 9:18 pm

        I think I liked rugal_b better when he was a4tech yammering on about the “disease of white supremacy”.

      • rugal_b
        January 26, 2016, 11:00 pm

        Way to be a creepy stalker Gamal, digging up my personal background info like that. LOL

      • Sibiriak
        January 26, 2016, 11:32 pm

        @Mooser:

        Rugal b is a Zionist posing as an ultra-progressive. The game being played is a subtle variant of a new Hasbara strategy described here:

        Jewish organizations look to co-opt ‘intersectionality’ in the fight against BDS

        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/jewish-organizations-look-to-co-opt-intersectionality-in-the-fight-against-bds#comment-160668

        The intersectionality framework itself identifies the separate but interrelated logics of oppression.

        Compare rugal_b’s ideological manifesto:

        Geopolitics are rarely contained within a set border or political ideology. It is often part of a global system of statecraft and power play. Also, all systems of oppression are interlinked, whether it is against blacks, gays, Jews, Muslims etc.

        Therefore it is unwise, IMO, to confine yourself to a specific part of a conflict, or a particular form of oppression without looking into the bigger picture and understanding the root causes, rather than just analyzing the symptoms.

        For example, we are all familiar with historical oppression of women in the USA which gave rise to various forms of gender equality movement. However, such oppression is just one out of many forms that existed and still existing side by side, such as oppression against blacks, gays, Natives, both men and women.

        [blah, blah, blah]

        How do you solve one, without taking into account the others as they are all interlinked wrt to their victims and oppressors? [emphasis added]

        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/response-norton-silence

        With rugal_b/ a4tech, their faux-progressive “intersectionality framework” tactic avoids a direct attack on anti-Zionism/BDS– the MW environment would be to hostile for that–favoring instead indirect forms of discrediting and diversion.

      • Sibiriak
        January 27, 2016, 12:44 am

        gamal: [quoting] “[Rugal’s] an influential figure and is feared throughout the political and fighting world”

        ————————-

        I picture him an Ashkenazi knight riding a gamal.

      • rugal_b
        January 27, 2016, 6:18 am

        ”Rugal b is a Zionist posing as an ultra-progressive. The game being played is a subtle variant of a new Hasbara strategy described here:

        “Jewish organizations look to co-opt ‘intersectionality’ in the fight against BDS ”

        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/british-parliamentarians-cheney#comments” – Sibiriak

        Alrite, I am a Zionist then, since you said so. If you don’t mind, could you say Rihanna is my girlfriend too? Thank you.

        On a more serious note, I am not unique in holding views that connect Zionism to other forms of oppression globally. A majority of progressives also possess the same view, because that is what naturally happens once you decide to research on the topic earnestly and with an open mind. I included some supporting articles below.

        Chomsky’s view on Zionism and USA

        http://www.alternet.org/story/147865/noam_chomsky%3A_the_real_reasons_the_u.s._enables_israeli_crimes_and_atrocities

        ” Well, the truth of the matter is that Israel and the United States, which act in tandem, are a tremendous threat mainly to the Palestinians. ” – Noam Chomsky

        https://chomsky.info/197703__/

        http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/2/noam_chomsky_despite_iran_spat_us

        Jewish Voice for Peace (an affiliate of Mondoweiss) view on the close connection of Zionism with other settler-colonial ideologies such as White Supremacy.

        If you have to just choose one article, PLEASE READ THIS as it is one of the most comprehensive and well-researched article presently on the web :

        https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/settler-colonialism-white-supremacy-and-the-special-relationship-between-the-u-s-and-israel/

        JVP’s statement on intersectionality :

        “We are committed to support of the Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation, apartheid, and racism, which is bound up with our analysis of its intersection with the struggles of students of color, student survivors of sexual assault, and all others who on campus fight against oppression, whether imperialism, racism, patriarchy, police violence, or other systemic inequities”

        You don’t have to actively fight against all of these systems of oppression, but you should at least acknowledge they exist and understand how they interact with each other.

        https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/jvp-student-network-statement-on-intersectionality/

        A peer-reviewed paper on the close relationship between Zionism and general colonialism and imperialism practiced by Western Powers

        http://www.academia.edu/1804723/Colonialism_and_Imperialism_Zionism_EWIC_6_9-15_

        ”Zionism is a European ideology of Jewish nation-alism whose main goal was to colonize Palestine in order to establish a Jewish state. It can be seen as an ethnic by-product of the rise of modernist national-ism in Europe in the mid-nineteenth century.”

        Zionism is an European issue, not a Jewish or Judaic issue as the above quote demonstrates. Hence their allies are all Europeans or European descent and act in close-cooperation, thus enabling the effective implementation of oppressive policies in Palestine and else where.

  11. Brewer
    January 25, 2016, 4:06 am

    Sorry rugal, not buyin’ it

    “most of the time, it is words that hurt people”
    Words can possibly hurt, if you are yet to make the transition from adolescence to adult. Bombs, on the other hand can really ruin your day.
    That is why Mooser is unphased by your scurrilous words: ” I feel bad for your wife and your children, especially your daughters.”

    Charlie Hebdo is a disgrace and an apt example of the double standards that prevail among some who share your philosophy. It is a disgrace, mostly because it is not what it purports to be – funny.
    People get very confused when they try to hold contradictory ideals in their heads. Free speech and “words hurt people” are not congenial bedmates. In the Hebdo case, they wind up justifying the attackers and that opens up a huge can of worms.

    • rugal_b
      January 25, 2016, 6:47 am

      @Brewer, alright we are obviously going over each other’s head in this conversation, so I suggest we go back to where we started and reassess to root of our conflict.

      The statement you shared said Ms. Rice would have been in some fashion a better State Sec. if only she was lucky enough to possess a male or female romantic companionship. Is this correct?

      Now, for me this implies that Ms. Rice capabilities is dependant on having a man, and the fact she is a single woman may have contributed to unsatisfactory performance as a State Sec in the eyes of the person who made the statement you shared. This assumption is false and thus offensive IMO.

      A woman do not need a man to be at the top of her game, especially one with Ms. Rice’s calibre and credentials. Having a man could be a surplus source of motivation and strength, but this is a pretty rare occurrence that is far more common in works of fiction. In reality, having a man often leads to the woman making harsh compromises, to accommodate the needs of the man i.e. she would be better off alone. Don’t believe me? Just ask any women here or those in your real life circles.

      • Mooser
        January 25, 2016, 12:05 pm

        “In reality, having a man often leads to the woman making harsh compromises, to accommodate the needs of the man i.e. she would be better off alone.”

        So that’s why my wife of (quick arithmetic…) 26 years suddenly decided to re-take up the baritone horn two weeks ago!
        She rented a horn, (she played a little in HS Band long ago) and we have already played a duet or two! (I play the Hammond organ)
        Nothing in the world could make me happier than playing music with my wife, a long cherished dream. (We’re looking for a good horn to buy)
        And man, I tell ya, “if that isn’t love, it’ll have to do, until the real thing comes along” (That’s why I’ve been a bit above myself lately, sorry.)

      • Mooser
        January 25, 2016, 12:34 pm

        “A woman do not need a man to be at the top of her game, especially one with Ms. Rice’s calibre and credentials.”

        You just think the world of Ms. Rice, don’t you? I mean, just look at her accomplishments!
        Maybe we could arrange a little introduction for you two?

      • Brewer
        January 25, 2016, 6:10 pm

        rugal_b.
        It doesn’t appear you have bought my argument that Earle is playing with symbols for the implication you draw from it depends on a literal interpretation. I can only re-iterate that the song would make no sense if it was meant literally, as is the case with the great majority of great political/protest songs. Pete Seeger didn’t actually work in the Winnsboro Cotton Mill, I don’t think Dylan’s “I hope that you die and your death will come soon” was aimed at any individual. Song-writers deal in symbols. I shudder to think what great and inspirational works would have to be proscribed if your word/crime regime were to be followed to its logical conclusion.
        If, for the sake of of argument however we put all that aside and follow your drift, we run into some phantom support for your argument.
        “In reality, having a man often leads to the woman making harsh compromises, to accommodate the needs of the man i.e. she would be better off alone. Don’t believe me? Just ask any women here or those in your real life circles. ”
        This is pure supposition on your part and it is not supported by my friends and associates. Consider, the number one factor in rehabilitation and reform, way ahead of religious conversion, was the entry of a “significant other” into a career criminal’s life, according to a Corrections symposium broadcast on my National Radio just the other day.

        No. I do not think words should be given the injury status of physical acts. That mode of thinking is meat and drink to propagandists and promoters of War. The appropriate response to verbal “injury” is verbal.

      • Mooser
        January 25, 2016, 6:59 pm

        “Just ask any women here or those in your real life circles.”

        I did, my wife was just home for lunch. And she said: “Look, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, I gotta love one man til I die. Can’t help lovin’ that man o’ mine.”
        I should disagree with a noble, homespun sentiment like that? Not on your tintype, Margery!

Leave a Reply