I'm in no mood for much prevarication these days. As can be evidenced in my more recent comments:
On Hitchens' latest bellicose burp, explaining Hanukkah, down at the Alcohol-saturated Trots pub:
This is a fine example of Hitchens’ periodical anti-Jewish belch. He has to keep re-establishing his credentials as a Saidian so he occasionally finds these little niches of opportunity to mock Jews for their “tribal backwardness”, which is of course an established truth universally acknowledged.
The Great Intelligence Scam, at Michael Ledeen's blog: About the latest CIA big story that "Iran unilaterally and secretly suspended its covert nuclear weapons program back in 2003, and hasn’t resumed it to date."
I had the same sceptical reaction. I also do not like the coincidence of this revelation coming so soon upon the heels of the Annapolis fiasco in which it was made clear by Condoleeza Rice that the administration had more or less decided to throw Israel to the dogs. How else can we interpret her snivelling appeasement of Arab sensibilities by claiming her sympathy for poor segregated Palestinians and forcing the Israeli delegation to use a side entrance in order not of offend the racist Saudis?
This looks like a concerted effort to minimize the Iranian nuclear threat even as the Bush administration gears up to force Israel into further humiliations and razor edge dangerous compromises.
As Optimus prime famously says: There is more to this than meets the eye...
Where are Mearsheimer and Walt when we need them to uncover nefarious plots by dark underground Lobbies?
Manolo the Shoeblogger: About Donatella Versace's wonderful business acumen
Comment 1: I have a question for dear Manolo. Why is he so tough on “the giant plastic coconuts” but Donatella, whose face seems as plasticated as a China doll’s minus the cuteness, is deemed “magnificent and odd and wonderful”?
Comment 2: Dear Manolo: I can see now that I was precipitous in my impression and I apologize. Still I do not understand why a woman who practically dwells in the land of beauty and grace, where elegance reigns supreme, would do this to herself. She speaks of her preference for blond because it symbolizes, for her, freshness and innocence. Yet here she is, looking so totally articifical, old and practically over-burnt, the very opposite of her beauty ideal. Beautiful women, when they grow older, they grieve for their beauty for a while but then they make peace with the demands that age makes. These are the women who continue to be beautiful (Shirley Maclaine comes to mind). They manage to stare down age by keeping a version of older age freshness and innocence. But Donatella, she gave up on her two ideals when she tried to impose them on herself.
Where the tenor and entrenched antisemitic memes by certain posters alerted me to a certain possible inter-connection there, reminiscent of the Sci-Fi Borg who are "a cybernetically enhanced humanoid drones... organised as an inter-connected collective with a hive mind, inhabiting a vast region of space with many planets and ships, and sophisticated technology. They operate towards one single minded purpose: to add the biological and technological distinctiveness of other species to their own, in pursuit of perfection. This is achieved through forced assimilation, a process which transforms individuals and technology into Borg.."
Comment 1: Arabian19's Ashkenazi-Zionist meme should alert readers here that he is working for Martillo's propaganda machine. They are like the Borg, on Star Trek
Comment 2: Arabian17: Let's just say the fluctuations in your command of the English language and your choice of well-known antisemitic tropes highly favoured by Martillo do not sustain your credibility as an authentic voice
Comment 3: It is clear from your opinions that details are hardly something you concern yourself with, Arabian 19. AS, for example, that 80% of Israel's Jews are ashkenazi. This is Martillo's land of make belief. Your disdain for the details of recorded truth as well as repetition of his favourite meme (Ashkenazi, Zionist bla bla bla) indicate that you two are feeding from the same great central mind.
You can have a different point of view, but you can't advance lies and myths and expect to be taken as a reliable interlocutor. There are some standards to observe in a discussion. Lies do not make that standard.
"while they want to be able to utter any calumny against the Jewish state and suffer no recriminations for their speech, they view any speech from those challenging their views to be oppressive, stifling, unreasonable, and, in the popular term used by those who frequently utter second-rate ideas, “chilling.”
This tactic can never be repeated enough, or overstated. Its logic, based on populist appeal to martyrological pathos, is best lampooned in Monty Python's greatest work: Life of Brian:
"JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry."
Bob From Brockley: The ABC of "anti-imperialism"?
"the defeat of the Israeli Army (IDF) by Hezbollah"
Was there a defeat? According to whom, Che Nassralah?
This is such a load of BS. It demonstrates yet again, how the indecent Left has internalized the notion of Arab triumphalist humiliation to the point where they are indistinguishable from Hezbollah or Hamas, with their declarative of agenda of genocide and destruction. Thus, Jewish life, Jewish children, Jewish history, the Holocaust, are all erased from the matrix of the noble fight against "anti imperialism". Such inconvenient truths must be ignored, reversed, violently-gutted, if one is to sustain one's fragile edifice of redemptive radicalism in the service of some unfathomable mega-narcissism. If it takes wiping out the remnants of the Jews, what of it? Some eggs must be broken in order to make omelette, right? So what if the proposed omelette tastes like shit, if we judge from its historical precedents?
"...the naive, the falsely naive, and the downright evil blur categories in support of their ideological prejudices and christen the killer of innocents a “resistance fighter,[-]
The business of terrorists, after all, is to terrorize—so said Lenin, an uncontested master in the field. The ultimate refinement lies in the inversion of responsibility. Operating instructions: I take hostages, I cut off their heads, I show them on video; those who beg for mercy must address themselves to their governments, who alone are to blame for my crimes: my hubris is their problem. The less the terrorist’s restraint, the more he causes fear and the sooner you will yield in tears, or so he believes.""A better definition of terrorism is a deliberate attack by armed men on unarmed civilians. Terrorism is aggression against civilians as civilians, inevitably taken by surprise and defenceless. Whether the hostage-takers and killers of innocents are in uniform or not, or what kind of weapons they use—whether bombs or blades—does not change anything; neither does the fact that they may appeal to sublime ideals. The only thing that counts is the intention to wipe out random victims. The systematic resort to the car bomb, to suicide attacks, randomly killing as many passers-by as possible, defines a specific style of engagement."
(Andre Glucksmann) http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_modern_terrorism.html