Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 1544 (since 2011-07-12 18:22:10)

Showing comments 1544 - 1501
Page:

  • Israel denies West Bank entry to 100-plus internationals invited by Palestinian Authority
    • Of course they deny entry to Richard Falk. He is as anti-Israel as they come. You don't spend a career bashing a country then expect them to welcome you with open arms.

      Also what part of: "had issued a statement that it would bar my entry if I came to Israel in my capacity as a UN representative." made him think they hadn't said they would keep him out?

    • 1945: Allies deny entry to Occupied German territory to internationals invited by the Nazis.

  • Verdict in Corrie trial another test of Israeli impunity
    • A ridiculous comparison since Israel is not killing even a significant fraction of the Arabs in Israel or in Gaza and the West Bank.

    • Sat in, no, seen video of, yes.

    • Well, the "witnesses", other than the driver, who testified he couldn't see her, weren't in the cab of the bulldozer and have no knowledge of what he could and couldn't see. I've seen video from the inside of the cab of one of those bulldozers, visibility is very limited. Which isn't usually a problem because they move so slowly that it is easy to get out of the way of one.

    • Of the death? There is video, but it is poor quality, taken from a distance and rather unedifying. There is a still picture of her in front of a bulldozer with both in front of a house. That was an admitted photoshop job. There is also a picture of her in front of a much smaller bulldozer. She has a megaphone in that one, but that was earlier in the day.

    • What it comes down to is that this is a wrongful death tort case, and like any wrongful death tort case one of the defenses that the defense will use is that it was partly or entirely the decedents fault that they are dead. In this case, the decedent stood in front of a bulldozer with limited visibility, the driver couldn't see her and she was killed. Since the driver couldn't see her, the person with the last clear chance to avoid this death was Rachel Corrie herself. Of course it was her fault. This is the case regardless of whether she was right or wrong to try to stop the bulldozer, that at the time of her death was clearing debris, not threatening a house.

    • Yeah, except the ICC has no jurisdiction. And it was an accident, not murder.

  • Breaking the Silence report details soldiers humiliating and torturing Palestinian children and using them as human shields
    • There are about 6 million of us in America, not hard to find one sixth of one percent of one percent willing to sell out their people to their enemies.

    • @Mooser
      Nope, if the Israelis wanted them dead, they'd be dead in a month of conventional warfare.

  • US envoy has 'good relationship' with pro-'annihilation' Israeli rabbi
    • No, it's actual terrorism. Examples provided, but censored.

    • @marc b.

      As I said, Christian ministers already say "Jews and other non-Christians are all going to burn in a lake of eternal fire for rejecting Jesus". And few people object to that description. Somehow I don't think Woody Tanaka or Marc B among them.

    • @tree and thankgodimatheist
      Oddly enough, now that you are being explicit in your citation, I remember this quote coming up here before. I researched it, he was saying that the biblical view of the purpose of gentiles _in the time of the Messiah_ is yada yada yada. And even in the citation in the JPost he didn't say gentiles were any sort of animal, just that you make an investment in people who work for you.

      So after the end of the world, not now. Considering that the official Christian view is that after the end of the world the Jews (and all other non-Christians) are going to burn forever in a lake of eternal fire, I wouldn't complain about being hypothetical servants. It's a much nicer "after the end of the world" fate. I'm not sure what the Muslim view of what happens to non-Muslims after the end of the world (or even after death) is.

      P.S. is thankgodimatheist an ungramatical "Thank God I'm an atheist". Or "thank God I'm a theist"?

    • @ColinWright
      Don't know what you are talking about. But the quote about snakes referred to terrorists, not to Arabs. I can see why you would want to change the subject.

    • Funny how whenever you track down the actual quotes, it turns out that whatever Israeli is accused of calling the Palestinians some uncomplimentary type of animal was talking about _terrorists_, not Palestinians in general. For that reason, I always get a "yeah, right" moment when I see "them" followed by "Arabs" or "Palestinians" in square brackets.

      "In the interview Rabbi Yosef explains that in his words [snakes] he meant [referred to] only Arab terrorists, and not to the entire Arab population. His words were falsified."
      link to freerepublic.com

      For those who read Hebrew (I don't but I had google translate)

      link to ynet.co.il

  • Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb is latest target in anti-Obama campaign
    • Thank you for demonstrating my point Mooser. That the destruction and subjugation of Israel is what you people call "peace".

    • @ColinWright
      I do not agree with you. Please don't try to pretend agreement where there is none. They are for an Israel that is "nice" in the same sense that Gandhi wanted Great Britain to be "nice" to the Nazis, to not use violence to oppose even their own destruction and subjugation as a people.

    • It's not a non-sequitur, it's just that they have an Orwellian name. They are for the end of Israel, not for peace.

  • Mother and daughter killed while waving white flags-- Israel finds no crime
  • Metro-North must distance itself from anti-Islamic ad campaign that fosters violence against Muslims and South Asians
  • Timeline: Attempts to censor students and faculty who stand up for human rights on UC campuses
    • @Hostage
      No, they were accused of and convicted of the crimes of disrupting a lawful meeting and conspiracy to disrupt a lawful meeting. Laws put in place to protect the Constitutional rights of the people from the "heckler's veto".

    • @Citizen.
      Thank you, that is an interesting link. I think this quote put it very well:

      Thomas I. Emerson wrote:
      "Up to a point heckling or other interruption of the speaker may
      be part of the dialogue. But conduct that obstructs or seriously
      impedes the utterance of another, even though verbal in form,
      cannot be classified as expression. Rather it is the equivalent of
      pure noise. It has the same effect, in preventing or disrupting
      communication, as acts of physical force. Consequently it must
      be deemed action and is not covered by the First Amendment.
      The speaker is entitled to protection from this form of interference as from any other physical obstruction."

    • @Hostage
      Grandstanding Magistrates doing that for the publicity, not because they had committed any actual crimes.

      And Michael Oren, or anyone else invited to speak by the University of California has a Constitutional right to conduct a meeting open to the public at University of California and a legal right to not have that meeting disrupted. Hence the convictions.

    • @Hostage
      Time, place, and manner restrictions are both approved by the U.S. Supreme Court (you know, the people who decide what the Constitution means) and absolutely necessary. They are what keeps pro Israel people from parking a speaker equipped van on your doorstep and blasting pro-Israel slogans at your house at 180 decibels at 3AM. There is a difference between freedom and anarchy.

    • @Hostage
      As for the budget cuts, complain to the voters of California, they are the ones who refuse to raise taxes under any circumstances. In a state where the legislature can't raise taxes without a 2/3 majority, and more than a third of the legislators are Republicans with a blood oath to never raise taxes no matter how bad the situation gets.

    • @Hostage
      And this conviction does not abridge freedom of speech. It upholds the right of people to speak freely, but has time, place, and manner restrictions on when, where, and how, they can speak. Content neutral, constitutionally valid restrictions. This would have been just as much a crime if they had been shouting gibberish at the top of their lungs instead of whatever slogans they were shouting. You are committing a crime (disturbing the peace) by blasting any message at 3 AM over loudspeakers in a residential neighborhood. Similarly, you are committing a crime by disrupting a lawful meeting of someone else, regardless of what you are yelling.

    • How unfortunate for them that their offense of disrupting the meeting was complete when they disrupted the meeting, rather than requiring that they succeed in preventing the man from speaking altogether. Also how unfortunate for them that the crime of conspiring to disrupt the meeting was complete as soon as one of them took a substantial step toward implementing the acts they conspired to do.

      Oh, and it wasn't that the e-mails were private, it was that they were privileged communications between attorney and client. First I'm hearing about withholding exculpatory e-mails. Cite?

    • @Hostage. The counts against the Irvine 10, the ones they were tried _and convicted of_ included one count each of disrupting a meeting, and one count each of _conspiring_ to disrupt a meeting.

      link to nbclosangeles.com

      The leaders of the MSU (other than the one who actually participated in the disruption), weren't charged with it, but the e-mails made it clear that they were part of the planning process.

    • @Hostage
      They used an investigator who didn't recognize some communications as privileged communications among a large number of papers relevant to the case. Screw ups happen. The charges were dropped because he agreed to do 40 hours of community service. If the charges had been dropped because of the misconduct alone, he wouldn't have had to do 40 hours of community service. That suggests that they could have kept prosecuting him on other evidence had he not made a deal.

    • @ColinWright
      Maybe the level went beyond the usual level of heckling. Maybe they were unusually obvious in their organization. From what I heard of the event they didn't all shout at once, they timed it so that as soon as the disruption from one of them ended the next would start their disruption. I suspect that the main reason was that this got a lot of publicity because it was such a prominent person whose free speech rights were being infringed. Prosecutors are more likely to prosecute a high profile case than a low profile one, even if the crime is the same.

    • They were being asked about it because the people who deliberately and premeditatedly disrupted the school event included members of the MSU. And because the faculty suspected (with good reason, apparently) that they were behind the attempt to suppress the free speech rights of the people at the event. These students were singled out because they had committed two misdemeanors each. They were prosecuted for the same reason.

    • Organizing a protest is not a crime, and if they had merely held a protest outside the event, they would not have been prosecuted. Conspiring to disrupt someone else's event is a crime. For which 10 of the 11 who actually did it were convicted and sentenced, the other did community service in return for the charges being dropped.

    • The MSU at Irvine was suspended because its leaders organized the protest and then lied to the school officials about having organized it. They got caught when their e-mails organizing it were discovered.

  • The viral skinnydipping scandal, and the real story
    • The standard is that those who take orders from a foreign country must register as agents. Because that is what being an agent means. Americans who just happen to think that the U.S. should be good friends with a foreign country aren't agents of that country and so they don't have to register as such.

    • Weird, I edited a comment and it vanished. Oh, well. The FBI says they have no interest in this story.

  • A Lynching in Jerusalem: Anatomy of Jewish racism
    • Nothing in there about those on the sidelines being the ones doing the shouting about "death to Arabs", or the thing about "a Jew is a soul", or anything else for that matter. Sounds to me from the eyewitness account like that's what the attackers were yelling. I'm not nitpicking semantics, I'm disagreeing with you about who was doing the shouting.

    • Would that be this link?

      link to mondoweiss.net

      Followed it, read it, did a word search on it. Nothing about a cheering crowd. Stuff about the attackers shouting, but nothing about a "cheering crowd" of hundreds of witnesses.

    • @Woodrow
      A hundred individuals, not an army of 100 people. The unfortunate fact is that with 100 individuals, each individual could be afraid that they would be attacked if they intervened first. And with no guarantee that the rest of the people would defend them physically. It's unfortunately quite a common human response to group violence when a large crowd is there. Each person hopes someone else will step in and no one wants to be the one who does and gets his brains splattered on the pavement.

    • @yishai
      If it comes from the police report as covered in Ha'Aretz then Mr. Benjamin should have said so. What he cited from Ha'Aretz is that there was a large crowd, not that anyone was cheering. As far as his post here is concerned, it looks like he made up that detail himself. He's saying it, not saying that Ha'Aretz said it. If you have a link the a Ha'aretz story that the crowd was cheering, post it.

    • We aren't talking about the people involved, who will be arrested if the police are able to identify them. We are talking about the witnesses. And in fact, the fact that it was a large group of attackers makes it more likely that the bystanders were afraid to intervene. Any individual or small group could have been afraid of the large group of attackers. It speaks very well of the courage of the people who did intervene to revive the victim.

    • In the Karp case they were friends of the attackers who knew what they were doing, and did nothing to stop them (except the woman who told them to stop) and left with them. They could easily have stepped in without risk to themselves from their friends. They were all part of one group. Here, there is no evidence that that is the case. The witnesses could have been in fear that they would be attacked if they tried to intervene.

    • Witnesses doing nothing is hardly unique to Israel. Look at the Kitty Genovese case in New York. Furthermore, in the brief time that an attack takes, people may not even know what is going on.

    • Under the circumstances, I don't believe that hundreds of people cheered if they could even clearly see what was happening. I consider that part of the story to be hyperbole. On par with Barbara Lubin's "Sophie's choice" blood libel. I read the original eye witness account posted here, nothing about anyone cheering. Now all of a sudden retroactively hundreds of people were cheering. The tale grows in the telling. Especially since I saw it grow in the text here, from Ha'Aretz account of hundreds witnessing and the criminals escaping into the crowd to active cheering and helping them escape, made up right here on this website.

    • Page: 15
    • I cite it as an example of anti-Semitism. Not to demonstrate that all of France is bad. Unlike you guys here. This is an example of racism against Arabs, but does not demonstrate that Israel is bad. The police have apparently already arrested one suspect.

    • Let's not make more of this than it was. The attackers were thugs, but they don't represent the entire country. Things like this happen everywhere in the world. Should we condemn all of France because one guy shot some Jews there?

  • State Dept defines settler violence as terrorism
    • Disease mutation happens everywhere. It's a natural part of evolution. In the U.S. we have a nasty strain of drug resistant TB going on. In fact, antibiotic resistant strains only evolve where there are antibiotics.

    • Not at all. Like all MRSA strains this is a natural result of evolution of the staph germs in the presence of methicillin, an antibiotic.

    • Seems like an accurate description for arson of a mosque.

    • What's the point of the MRSA? Is that supposed to be Israel's fault as well? I don't think the staph infections are Jewish.

  • 'Guardian' sparks uproar by hiring writer who urged murder of flotilla participants
  • Israel's lone soldiers: Come for the perks, stay for the war crimes
    • I love how you guys believe two contradictory ideas at once. Something is only an occupation, when it is the territory and people of a sovereign state being occupied by a force from some other country. Meanwhile something is only Apartheid if it is your own citizens being kept separate on the basis of race. So if the Palestinians are Israeli citizens, and what is going on is Apartheid, then they aren't Occupied and if the Palestinians are a sovereign people and Occupied, then it isn't Apartheid.

      Pick one.

  • Rabbis for Human Rights says Israeli mob's attack on Palestinians violates Jewish values
  • NY state senator David Storobin's office: 'Visitors [to the Israeli/Syrian border] are required to don a uniform and carry a gun'
    • Simple. It is a military post. Anyone dressed differently is probably a VIP of some kind come to visit the military post. Killing a VIP would get them more credit than killing a mere soldier.

    • As I said, you think he should have worn a suit and tie so the Syrians would know who to shoot?

  • 'Today I saw a lynch with my own eyes, in Zion Square, in the center of Jerusalem'
  • Message to Pamela Geller: Free speech, not hate speech
    • Sorry, vandalizing someone else's ad doesn't fall into the category of "free speech". It falls into the category of "criminal act". Paying for your own ad which consists of their ad with the depicted vandalism on it would be free speech.

      Do you think it is legitimate to vandalize your Palestine map ads? Or does your idea of free speech means you get to say what you want and prevent other people from saying what they want in the same circumstances?

    • Of course you would. And thus demonstrate that you are against the American value "free speech".

    • First Amendment: freedom of religion, freedom from religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government.

      In America, hate speech is protected by the first amendment. Calling something hate speech is just engaging in more speech. Unless you do it in a way that actually prevents the other person from exercising their right to free speech.

      The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms.

    • The vandalism is not political art, and not a legitimate exercise of free speech. Rather it is a violation of someone else's right to free speech. It is wrong and uncivilized. If you object to the content, pay for your own ad.

  • Even in majority-minority congressional district, Dem runs way right of Obama on Israel
    • Sorry, the people who don't like Israel are on the fringes of both left and right. You just think the leftists generally don't like Israel because this is a blog of the left fringe, not the right one. In San Francisco most of the Israel haters were on the left. Couldn't be because San Francisco is about the left most city in the country. Except maybe Berkley. You probably couldn't find as many people on the right in the whole city as were at that rally. But the rally was probably still a very small percentage of the whole city.

    • Supporting Israel isn't a left-right issue.

    • Don't be a thor lother.

  • Chicago Muslims blame GOP official for 'creating hate' that led to attacks on Islamic centers
    • I've got nothing against Muslims. Except the ones supporting terrorism. I have that against anyone who supports terrorism, regardless of religion.

    • No, hundreds of thousands who _approve of_ suicide bombings. Not hundreds of thousands who would commit them. I did see a news report about a Muslim school in America where one of the girls said (while being interviewed on camera) that she wanted to do a suicide bombing of a military base, but she later insisted that she meant an _Israeli_ military base, not a U.S. one. And of course there have been Muslims in America who have committed terrorist attacks against us. I don't know whether any of them were citizens though. Notably the World Trade Center bombing, not 9/11, the first attack on the WTC. There have been plans of attack by American citizen Muslims though.

      The number who support terrorism however, suggests we need more outreach and maybe some morality teaching in the schools. "Now, children, remember it is wrong to murder innocent people".

    • 1% of Muslims in America is 10s of thousands of people. Add in another 7% who think it is sometimes justified and you are at 100s of thousands. Frankly that 15% number wasn't far off if you include the 6% that "don't know" whether suicide bombings are OK. 14% who at most "don't know whether they support" reported as 15% who "could support" isn't much of an exaggeration. And that is just suicide bombing. What are the numbers on just "bombing civilians" without adding suicide to the mix?

  • NY state senator puts on Israeli uniform to play soldier on Syrian border
    • @demize
      And I'd have you arrested for battery. Get over yourself as well. From the point of view of someone being fired upon, friendly fire looks exactly the same as deliberate fire. How could they possibly tell the difference between someone firing at what they thought were Egyptians and someone firing at what they thought were Americans?

    • Lavon affair no deaths, no injuries, light damages and about 60 years ago. Liberty a friendly fire incident 45 years ago, get over it. Sorry, if you want to make Israel out to be an unfriendly country, you're going to have to do a whole lot better than that. As for the Saudi uniform, the Saudis are "allies" who fund the madrases that support terrorism, including against the U.S. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. American oil corporations like the Saudis, the rest of us, not so much.

    • Sorry, that should have read "who were merely in the German army. I don't know if they had the same rules then about serving as an officer. Or whether they had an intent to relinquish clause back then.

    • You don't have to have a mutual defense treaty to be friendly. Do you make your personal friends sign treaties? In this case however, the definition is pretty narrow. It is more about not entering or serving the armed forces of a foreign state that is engaged in hostilities against the U.S. rather than serving in a friendly one.

      "Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;"

      Even that one has to be done with intention to give up your citizenship, except as follows:

      "The premise that a person intends to retain U.S. citizenship is not applicable when the individual:
      1) Formally renounces U.S. citizenship before a consular officer;
      2) Takes a policy level position in a foreign state;
      3) Is convicted of treason; or
      4) Performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship. (Such cases are very rare.)
      *Cases in categories 2, 3, and 4 will be developed carefully by U.S. consular officers to ascertain the individual's intent toward U.S. citizenship.

      link to hamilton.usconsulate.gov

      Merely serving in a foreign army even as an officer isn't going to be construed as intent to give up citizenship, otherwise they wouldn't bother including "with intent to give up citizenship" in that rule.

      Come to think of it, even the foreign hostile army doesn't generally do it, look at John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban". And he apparently denied, though didn't renounce, his U.S. citizenship when he was being interrogated.

    • To people who were in the German army before we were at war with them, nothing affecting their citizenship. After we were at war with them, I assume there was some penalty, possibly including loss of citizenship though I am unaware of any specific cases.

    • LOL. Yeah, instead of dressing like everyone else on the border, he should have worn a suit and tie so the Syrians would know who to shoot.

    • State senator from New York, not a U.S. Senator.

    • No, dressing in the uniform of a friendly army doesn't bring your citizenship into question. For that matter, serving in the army of a friendly country doesn't bring your citizenship into question. A fair number of Americans joined the Canadian army to get into WWII early.

  • Follow the money, stupid
    • Enough Jewish voters in Florida accidentally voted for Buchanan to throw the election to Bush. After all the talk about chaos theory and butterfly wings, it is funny that the fate of the world was so different because of a butterfly ballot.

      Don't discount the effects of a small percentage of votes in our (mostly) winner takes all electoral votes system.

  • Geller's 'savage' bus ad meets strong resistance from the Bay Area
    • A bit long winded there. I think "defeat Jihad" has a better ring to it. And you did have a nice anti-banking message, until you spoiled it with that bit about "more loyal to a foreign state". A common anti-Semitic stereotype. About what I'd expect from you.

    • Lavigne because "Levine" means "a member of the Jewish tribe of Levi", and there are lots of alternate spellings. Yankovic because some of his songs relate to Judaism, and because I know some Jews named Yankelovic.

    • I don't see anything in the ad calling Muslims or even Palestinians in general "savage". But the people who are terrorist attacking Israel certainly are.

    • I didn't know she was from Queens until you told me either. I stopped making assumptions on the basis of last names when I found out Avril Lavigne isn't Jewish and neither is Weird Al Yankovic. The wisdom of that was confirmed with Scarlet Johanson, who is Jewish. The first I heard of Pamela Geller was a report that some evangelicals were protesting the ground zero mosque, then the report cut to "Pam Geller". I assumed she was one of them. I don't read her blog and the ground zero mosque protest was the only thing I knew about her until this article.

    • Sorry, to disappoint you Colin, but I've never posted a lie here. I don't see Israel at war with _all_ Arabs, there are plenty of Arabs in America that Israel isn't at war with. Along with whole countries of them in the Middle East that aren't actively warring on Israel. I see Israel at war with terrorists and countries that routinely commit savagery in their attacks on Israel. I see the Palestinians who murdered that settler family including the children as savages. That is who and what Israel is at war with.

    • And your tired 21st century accusation of racism are filled with lies.

Showing comments 1544 - 1501
Page: