Pajamas Media

199 Comments

1. The Obama-Netanyahu Meeting: Ominous for Israel | Secolul 21 ~ 21st Century:

[...] the original post: The Obama-Netanyahu Meeting: Ominous for Israel This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Pajamas Media. You can follow any responses to this [...]

May 19, 2009 - 2:16 am 2. dmgold:

No Arab Muslim leader can ever recognise the modern state known as Israel as a “Jewish State”. The geographic area known as Israel has previously been conquered by Muslims some 1400 years ago. Under Muslim jurisprudence it is considered Dar Al Islam or land conquered by Islam and belonging to the Muslim Ummah(people) for perpetuity. To recognise Israel as a Jewish state would invite an immediate death sentence (poor old sadat).

So either Obama is completely ignoring history and Islamic Jurisprudence or is so egocentric and myopic that he cannot see that the only deal that can be struck between Jews and Muslims or Muslims and Christians is one that entails Jewish/Christian retreat and submission to the needs of the Ummah and Islam.

I believe that Obama and the EU recognise this and to this end are constantly requesting new sacrifices from the Jewish state while never pressing the Palestinians nor arab states to live up to their end of the peace agreements or accords signed with Israel.

While the peace between Egypt, Jordan and Israel are constantly touted as a shining example of coexistence by western politicians. Israelis do not travel to these countries due to threats and previous terror attacks nor does trade flourish as parlimentary, professional bodies in both Egypt and Jordan are constantly working against normalisation. Israelis do not share Obamas mindless faith in the “Peace Process”.

When Israelis look at the withdrawal from southern Lebanon 2000 and Gaza 2005 they can see no peace dividends. All we see is an emboldened Muslim adversary and a declining/appeasing secular post christian west eager to offer the Jewish neck up to the alter of the “Peace Process”.

Obama and Blair and EU must convince us the Israeli people. Clinton convinced us to give it a go, it didnt work and cost the lives of thousands.
Israelis learn from their mistakes which is why the peace camp in Israel has been reduced to less than 10 % of the seats in the Israeli Kenneset. Obama has to convince 5.5 million Jews in Israel otherwise anything he invests his credibility in is doomed. I can tell you that everyone I knew who eagerly voted for peace in the 90s voted for Netanyahu or Leiberman in 2009.

May 19, 2009 - 2:24 am 3. Fernando:

What I don’t get was that I saw this coming from a mile away. The Jewish population here in the US voted for Obama at a 80 – 20 clip, knowing full well what kind of lame leadership was coming from this Obama. How long will the Jewish people take to realize that they voted for a buffoon for president and they had a say in it but did not care.

Like I tell everyone, “…it’s going to get worse before it gets better.” And , of course, “… I told you so!!”

May 19, 2009 - 3:55 am 4. Terry:

I remember thinking that Israel would be represented in the White House when POTUS appointed Rahm Emmanuel as CoS in light of his Israeli service. It seems now that either I was mistaken or Emmanuel has sold out the nation he served. I’d bet on the latter.

May 19, 2009 - 4:32 am 5. Vaughn:

The world and especially Israel will never again be safe, until the last Muslim sucks air. This is an evil cult and political movement, NOT a religion.

Ban the Quran, now. This is ‘hate speech’ beyond belief.

May 19, 2009 - 4:45 am 6. Mike2:

Obama’s statements were very predictable but not as anti-Israeli as I thought they would be. But he, like other presidents, is going to have to learn that Israel is not going to commit suicide to please anyone. But maybe the whole purpose is to make demands that he knows Israel can’t accept so as to have an excuse to cut off their foreign aid and further isolate them. I still believe that Obama is an anti-Semite at heart.

May 19, 2009 - 4:56 am 7. MiamaMan:

3. Fernando:

Fernando, you are correct, this has been discussed in this forum (Pajamas.com) several times. These Jews that voted for Obama knew he was not pro-Israeli. Many of these liberal Jews are themselves secular and anti-Zionist. It is not a coincidence, perhaps, that the worst anti-Israel academic is himself a Jew: linguist and MIT professor Noam Chomsky, verily a “fellow traveler”.

It is not coincidence either that one of the greatest Holocaust revisionists and negationists, and pro-Palestinian and anti-Isreali, in the USA is another Jew: Norman Finkelstein.

You can check Eric Hoffer’s masterpiece on mass movements “The True Believer”, it is extensively quoted by Jamie Glazov in his recently-published book “United in Hate”. Page 44 of “The True Believer” expands upon the nature of Western Jews in recent history, and how they were uprooted from their history, and according to Hoffer, the most frustrated group, ready to flock to any mass movement. Thus you get the high percentage of Jews around Lenin (Trotsky, Litvinov, Kaganovish, and many other). It is also not well known that at first Jews flocked to Mussolini and fascism in great numbers and only were left out when the dictator started aligning himself with anti-Semite Nazi Germany. If Hitler would have not shunned the Jews, they would have also flocked to Nazism.

In Obama’s “mass movement” that uses the 2 most politically-charged words in the history of demagoguery; namely: HOPE and CHANGE, you find behind the throne a secular Jew: Davis Axelrod, in front another similar one: Rahm Emanuel.

There is no coincidence either if Steven Speilberg visits and befriends murderer and tyrant Fidel Castro.

May 19, 2009 - 5:03 am 8. Terry Gain:

The Jewish population here in the US voted for Obama at a 80 – 20 clip

Death wish. And it ain’t over. Jews like David Frum are now attacking Rush Limbaugh for attacking Obama.
And saying stupid things lke no prominent Democrat ever attacked Bush the way Limbaugh attacks Obama.

As if saying he manipulated the intelligence and lied America into an unnecessary war is not a scurrilous attack.

May 19, 2009 - 5:22 am 9. Manya Shochet:

Fernando–You got that right, we Jews tend to be woefully deficient in effective attitudes of self-preservation. It’s a flaw we need to correct. I’m going off to watch some Clint Eastwood films.

May 19, 2009 - 5:23 am 10. eon:

The problem is that, simply put, The One believes that his beliefs both shape and create reality. Previous leaders have made similar errors, notably Jimmy Carter and, before him, Neville Chamberlain. Both were wrong, and so is The One.

He will very likely find out how wrong he is, at tremendous cost to both Israel in particular and the West in general. The problem is, he may simply not care. If events go in a direction other than that which he desires (and who knows what that is?- including The One himself), he may simply deny that reality as well.

Rather like Douglas Adams’ “Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”, in case of a major discrepancy between The One’s worldview and reality, it’s apparently always reality that’s gotten it wrong.

clear ether

eon

May 19, 2009 - 5:24 am 11. rocketeer:

I’m really not an overly religious human being, but when we abandon Israel to the Arabs, God will abandon us, and our country will be forsaken. We’re on a dangerous path.

May 19, 2009 - 5:45 am 12. Meryl:

“Worrying signs of a serious disconnect between Obama’s attitudes and reality.” Gee. Who’da thunk it? (Sarcasm)

American Jews not seeming to grasp the threat to Israel presented by softonterrorist leftists has been around a long time, but it’s incredibly frustrating to watch the Jewish leaders walk into yet another spinning propeller and then (later)stand there puzzled about the source of all the blood.

They seem to lack the political instinct for national self-preservation, even as they represent the centuries-long-ultimate in survival and are almost flawless when it comes to military confrontations.

I have marveled for decades at Israel’s willingness to even participate in these conversations which are always designed to weaken their borders and their internal security.

I hold to a Biblical view of Israel so I understand the dynamics of what’s happening in the big picture, but am still amazed at their leaders’ willingness to play poker with a stacked deck against known card sharks when they get ripped off–every single time.

It occurs to me as well that now I begin to see the United States of America as being afflicted with the same lack of self preservation instinct as evidenced by the 2008 election.

May 19, 2009 - 5:55 am 13. RandyChandler:

“…what we’re going to do is try something new, which is actually engaging and reaching out to the Iranians.” –President Obama

Translation: I AM THE CHOSE ONE. IRAN CANNOT RESIST MY SPECIAL POWERS OF PERSUASION. YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ENGAGED UNTIL YOU HAVE BEEN ENGAGED BY THE ONE.

And if somehow it doesn’t work, The One will kiss off Israel in a heartbeat, light up a smoke and intone: “Ah Salem I like em.”

May 19, 2009 - 5:57 am 14. Cybergeezer:

2. dmgold:
According to BAT YE’OR, Islam has fought and conquered everything from Portugal through half of Central Asia. Good thing for Israel, Europeans, Asians, and We the People, Obama is so ignorant of history, or he would be wanting to consider reparations for all muslims. But, he’s not out of power yet. I only hope he and his incompetent bunch can manufacture enough “crises” to distract themselves for the duration.

May 19, 2009 - 6:19 am 15. sheesh:

I wasn’t aware that there was a meeting between Obama and that Jew.

May 19, 2009 - 6:34 am 16. Marina:

Just a couple of thoughts:

1. NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION. Remember how warm and friendly and smiling and bowing Obama was meeting with muslim or communist / socialist leaders? And how cold and distanced and preachy he was yesterday. One can directly say who his friends are and where his enemies live.

2. PALIWOOD. When Obama start to talk about poor Gazans without fresh water I was like: omg, I’m gonna puke. This type of misinformation / propaganda would be appropriate on CNN or other MSM, but from the HEAD OF A WESTERN STATE???? Is he really so misinformed? Or he KNOWS it’s a lie and WANTS to use it, in front of Bibi (!!!), when Bibi has no chance to say: that’s not true? Imagine the headlines: “Israeli PM: POTUS doesn’t get the right information” or “Netanyahu says Obama is lying”. That would be pretty scandalous and Obama knows it, making Bibi to swallow Paliwood propaganda in front of the cameras. mfsoab!

3. PALIWOOD AGAIN. By quoting this BS Obama legitimizes it on every level of the Western political discourse. What was o.k. for the MSM now is appropriate to USE AS AN ARGUMENT in serious political talks, with the German Chancellor or French President e.g.

4. IRAN. Obama wants to think that Iran is an exclusively Israeli problem. That’s why he blackmails Israel with Iranian threat: do as I say or get a-bombed. This idiot still doesn’t want to realize that the Arabs and even the Euros are afraid of Iran much more than Israel is. Israel already has a missile shield, so Iran will get all the radioactive sand itself, but what’s with the rest of the Middle East with all this Sunni-Shia BS? And why did Ahmadinejad buy Russian rockets able to reach Germany? He doesn’t need it to bomb Israel. If I were Bibi, I would just smile politely and say: o.k., don’t help us with Iran, we can help ourselves, let Iran be the problem of the rest of the ME and the EU (Avi Lieberman said something like this – I think a year ago – and the European press was totally horrified, it was schadenfreudelicious indeed).

5. IRAN AGAIN. Maybe Obama is not such an idiot after all. Linking Iran to a Palestinian state Obama gives a REASON TO DESTROY ISRAEL. If he’ll manage to convince the Arabs and Euros that this link exists any Iranian attack on them will directly justify the “punishment” of Israel. Not bad for an affirmative action (although maybe it’s just his puppet master, whoever he / she is).

6. So, my main question about Obama stays the same: IS HE STUPID, EVIL OR BOTH?

7. And now, when Bibi wasn’t very cooperative, the next question comes up: what will Obama do, when he realizes Israel won’t obey? How far will he go? Boycott? Blockade? WAR? OCCUPATION, like his dear friend Samantha Powers wants? ANNIHILATION? (A very marxist approach btw: everyone that doesn’t want to obey must be exterminated – not a single marxist regime could exist without it, and Obama IS a marxist according to what he does to the US economy.)

May 19, 2009 - 6:38 am 17. Old Soldier:

sheesh: Sure Obama and Rahm meet all the time.

Thanks for knocking down the misconception that liberals are terrorists loving, anti-Semitic fools.

May 19, 2009 - 6:46 am 18. SAL:

obama– please make it a 4 year term– or maybe he will have messed up so many errors that he will be kicked out of congress for ever—

May 19, 2009 - 6:49 am 19. LynnS:

This is the new King Solomon telling Israel to divide itself in half for the sake of the ‘other’ woman.

May 19, 2009 - 6:56 am 20. sheesh:

17 Old Soldier . . . Sorry, but I couldn’t resist. Here’s the context you need, from a good Republican conservative.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/05/14/2009-05-14_oy_vey_arkansas_state_senator_kim_hendren.html

I’m sneaky that way. And you’re easy that way. Don’t take it personally. Consider yourself a representative of the knee-jerk right wing projection and chili cook-off consortium.

Like shooting bears in a cage – Montgomery Gentry style!

May 19, 2009 - 7:03 am 21. Angry White Dude:

I look for Russia to make a move on Georgia. Our enemies…as well as our allies..now know they are on their own. There will be little or no repercussions for moving against American interests. Obama loves the world..he hates America!

Angry White Dude

May 19, 2009 - 7:28 am 22. Will:

Barak Hussein Obama has an adgenda friends,and it’s not in any Christian or Jew’s interest. Untill that is understood you’ll be led in his direction.

May 19, 2009 - 7:36 am 23. LBC:

Gee, has the TOTUS taken over the Auto industry to build a HUGE bus to throw the Israelis and the jewish people (in our country) under?
Sure wish the jewish people in our great country would wake up and figure out that TOTUS could care less about them. Anymore than he cares about ANY segment of the population in our country. Yeah, that includes all of us. We are all useful idiots to him.

May 19, 2009 - 7:48 am 24. dadling:

Bibi is no fool…he knows now that Obama is truly an enemy of Israel…he will take care of his country, as he should…an attack on Iran is necessary and will come from Israel…Obama is a coward and will not stand up to Israel….

And maybe, just maybe, American Jews will begin to come out from under their own self induced coma and see what they are doing to their own people…

Those that voted for Obama are fools of the worst sort….they would rather live under Pharaoh…..

May 19, 2009 - 7:55 am 25. Markus:

Any peace settlement with Arabs west of the Jordan River will necessarily to include the creation of a new state. Insisting otherwise is as unrealistic as Palestinians being in denial about Israel someday agreeing to the right of return for the 1948 refugees. The Palestinians are not leaving the West Bank and Gaza, they’re not going to become Jordanians or Egyptians, and they’re not going to accept living under Rhodesian or South African style minority rule in Israel. There is no sense in Netanyahu or any of his sane supporters pretending otherwise.

May 19, 2009 - 8:01 am 26. Delia:

“PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: President Obama, thank you. Thank you for your friendship to Israel and your friendship to me. You’re a great leader – a great leader of the United States, a great leader of the world, a great friend of Israel, and someone who is acutely cognizant of our security concerns. And the entire people of Israel appreciate it, and I speak on their behalf.”

Aye, yaye, yaye!

May 19, 2009 - 8:22 am 27. Whitehall:

Markus,

I think there is general agreement that a two state solution is appropriate but only if it brings peace.

Right now, creating a Paletinian state does not ensure peace given the position and attitudes of the Paletinians

May 19, 2009 - 8:38 am 28. Joel:

A two-state solution is appropriate–Israel and Jordan. A second sovereign state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean entails unacceptable security threats to Israel. Look at in on a map. Is your country located in the most volatile region of the world, surrounded by people and countries susceptible to jihadist ideology and passions–and eight miles wide?

May 19, 2009 - 8:47 am 29. Professor Guvinoff:

The ascent of a demagogue like BHO to the white house is a spectacular triumph of ignorance over knowledge of history. This can only mean more peril for Israel, and nobody understands this better than B. Netanyahu. He has lost a brother to the cause!

So, the prime minister will emit the conventional noises about the “shared destiny of the twin nations”, and take care of business. He will make every effort to get the support of big brother, but if that does not come early enough, he will attend to the most pressing prioritiy.

If the jews of Israel have to carry the opprobrium of the sheepish in order to survive, they will, because the preservation of life comes first. The supposedly christian leader of a christian nation would know this, if image polishing was not “Job One”.

May 19, 2009 - 8:49 am 30. dick:

I’ve been unable to find the video of obama bowing to netanyahu. Can anyone give me the link?

May 19, 2009 - 8:52 am 31. seven:

There are no solutions that bring peace. Muslims do not honor treaties. Every time Israel gives in, they reinforce demands. Israel needs to send them to Jordan. The Palestinians can live there.

May 19, 2009 - 8:53 am 32. jw:

President Obama was for twenty years a parishioner at the church of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Black Liberation Church, a communist organization, as are all “Liberation Fronts,” and antisemitic and antiIsrael, as Soviet communism.

May 19, 2009 - 9:05 am 33. Markus:

Joel,

Jordan is not taking back the West Bank, and the Palestinians are not going to crossover to the east bank of the Jordan River. Your ideas are nonstarters.

Whitehall,

I agree that right now is not the time for a new state. But there has to be a roadmap — things that need to be done before such a state may emerge. Most of those things involve the Palestinians, but for one of them ball is in Israel’s court: a halt on settlement expansion and removal of certain settlements that impede Palestinian travel.

May 19, 2009 - 9:26 am 34. WhyamInotsurprised?:

Whenever I hear about a “Two State” solution to the problems in the middle east, I don’t think about Israel giving up it’s land. I don’t care what the Palestinians think or want. Possession is nine tenths of the law. They’ve tried to take it back since Israel was created, and they have failed. Get over it. Get a life. Make a life and a civilization for your own children and people.

Little Israel is flanked on all sides by Arab/Muslim countries. Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. Why don’t the “Palestinian” brothers give up some of their large land holdings to provide a home for these people? Because that would recognize Israel’s right to exist. And that cannot be allowed. Which is why the current peace process, like all the rest have failed.

Israel should protect it’s people, language, culture and borders. The West bank and Gaza continue to be a pain in the ass even after all the promised made by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the other jerks who are lackeys for the Iranians.

So many proclaim the conquering of these lands by Islam. Read some history people! This land has been conquered by many different people over time and it does not belong to Islam. The Iranians have a different game plan, global domination. As thugs, they won’t worry about using nuclear weapons or follow any agreements for disarmament. They are fomenting the Israeli-Palestinian issue for their own purposes. Otherwise, they could give a rats ass.

I know what to expect when BHO speaks to the Muslim world next month in Cairo and it ain’t gonna be pretty. More bowing before the enemy and apologizing for American greatness and arrogance. I can’t wait!

May 19, 2009 - 9:38 am 35. Tonya:

When you have a leader that rewards terrorism you may have an implant. When you have a leader that turns on the only true democracy in the middle east than you may have an implant.
When you have a leader of the free world that shows his weakness than you may have an implant.
I do not know the future, but it’s looking pretty bleak, because I think the chosen one is praying to Allah and reading from the quran .

That’s just what I think, and I’ve been wrong before, but nothing scares me more, nothing scares me more than the drastic way our country is turning. We are taking the wrong path.

http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/May15/1512.html

May 19, 2009 - 9:41 am 36. Anonymous:

Markus,

Jordan is not willing at present to reassert partial control of the West Bank and grant the Arabs living on it Jordanian citizenship; but that could change in the future. The fact that this solution is not currently available doesn’t mean Israel should commit suicide. If you’re in the U.S., then create Al Qaeda enclaves overlooking New York City and Washington and then come back to me and tell me to set up a sovereign Arab state west of the Jordan. A demilitarized, less-than-state entity–we could talk about. But that too is a nonstarter since the Palestinians and other Arabs won’t accept it. My, it looks like solutions aren’t always readily available in this world; perhaps one has to make the best of a difficult reality; exactly as Israel as now doing re. the West Bank.

May 19, 2009 - 9:50 am 37. Marina:

@ FERNANDO

You’ve got some great answers already. I want to add something new: AMERICAN JEWS START TO REACT, with “buyer’s remorse”, BUT…

And here we go. I was reading the talk backs to the correspondent articles in the Jewish press. And some of the commentators were exactly those people you are talking about: American Jews that had voted for Obama.

Of course, those of them who are self-hating Jews had no remorse at all: “Get this, Netanyahu! Shut up and do what our Obama says!”. But, to my surprise, there are not so many of them (although maybe it’s too early for THOSE people).

But the not-so-self-hating (=voting Democrat) ones start to be sorry. Oh, who can blame them? The majority of them has friends AND RELATIVES in Israel. Who wants them to be nuked?

And here the interesting part begins: “WHY DID WE VOTE FOR HIM?”. You won’t believe what did those self-bamboozlers come up with. IT’S ALL THE FAULT OF THE REPUBLICANS! Their candidate was UNELECTABLE!

Knowing that McCain was openly a friend of Israel and that this argument doesn’t suit somehow, some of them give further explanation: IT’S ALL SARAH PALIN’S FAULT! How do you like THIS?

Now we have it: American Jews voted for Obama because Sarah Palin is “an idiot” or “a Christian”. Great, and Obama is “an intellectual” and “a … WHAT?”. They “DIDN’T WANT TO VOTE FOR OBAMA” but couldn’t vote for McCain because Sarah Palin is “stupid” or/and “religious”. And we all know, of course, that
- Sarah Palin KNEW how many states are there in the US, Obama didn’t
- Sarah Palin would never say asthma patients need A BREATHALYZER, Obama did
- Sarah Palin would NEVER mix AUSCHWITZ with BUCHENWALD, especially if her great uncle had liberated one of them, OBAMA DID
- Sarah Palin would never mix her great uncle with her uncle, Obama did
- etc. etc. etc.

- Sarah Palin didn’t want to burn books, Obama wants to reinstall the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE in any form possible (LOCALISM???)
- Sarah Palin doesn’t want to ban the evolution, just to DISCUSS it, like Ben Stein wants, Obama wants to kill the scientific discussion
- Sarah Palin wants to DISCUSS the climate change, Obama says that science makes no mistake and will tax America in order to “save the Earth”
- etc. etc. etc.

- and it wasn’t the REPUBLICAN Sarah Palin who didn’t want to participate in that anti-Ahmadinejad ralley in NYC, it were DEMOCRATS, Obama, Hil-Clinton and the party who made the organizers to disinvite her.

And yet these people have the nerves to blame THEIR VOTE on Sarah Palin. They voted for the RETARDED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION UNABLE TO EXPRESS HIMSELF WITHOUT A TELEPROMPTER and now blame it on a normal girl who hasn’t said even half of the sh—t this nobody had said? I couldn’t believe my eyes, but they really DO IT right now.

It’s disgusting, but that’s exactly what “HITLER-GENERATION” GERMANS do: We voted for him, but not because we wanted, it’s because (gosh, I’ve heard so many versions here; the most disgusting one: “We were deceived by a small group of pagans” – BENEDICT XVI, POPE, ex-HITLER JUGEND member – there are pictures, no matter what the Vatican says now).

And it’s exactly as mysterious as why the AFRICAN-AMERICANS vote DEMOCRAT when the DEMOCRATS were their worst opressors all the time:
- slave owners (and the REPUBLICANS with LINCOLN on the other side)
- Dixicrats and KKK founders (and RUPUBLICAN Martin Luther King on the other side)
- FDR that said he’ll never have a picture with a black person
- etc.
WHAT “SMALL GROUP” deceived them?

Or Catholics? The most infanticidal candidate and they vote for him? WHAT “SMALL GROUP” was it this time? The “small group” that promised: “You don’t have to pay for your child if your girlfried gets preggers”?

Dear Fernando, I can find only one answer to all this crap: there are no “small groups of deceivers”, there are people who make choices and this time being a DEMOCRAT was more important than being a JEW, an AFRICAN AMERICAN, a CATHOLIC etc. “Party first”… Ueber-super-mega-giga-disgusting.

P.S. Sane American Jews either already moved to Israel or vote Republican or Libertarian.

May 19, 2009 - 9:57 am 38. Nate:

#33 Marcus:
The Arab revanchists will leave Isreal if they have no patron. All it takes is to implement a post-oil economy, which we’ll eventually need to do anyways, and to clamp down on terrorist-funding charities. With such a clamp down any funds for Arab revanchists will have to be laundered through newly destitute oil states and will be unlikely to arrive in significant quantities in the disputed territories. Without external funding they’ll have no choice but to take any deal Israel deigns to offer them.

May 19, 2009 - 10:49 am 39. Markus:

I fail to see how forcing Jordan — which has both a military and a Palestinian population of at least 70% — to absorb West Bank Palestinians would be preferable for Israel. The most likely outcome would be the overthrow of the Hashemite monarchy and its replacement with a Hamas-terror state in Jordan and much of the West Bank. A demilitarized Palestinian state in West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem would be GREATLY preferable to such a nightmare scenario.

May 19, 2009 - 10:51 am 40. ked5:

This is a “duh” moment. dear leader’s positions have been known (to those paying attention to what he does and who he hangs out with by choice) for more than a year. He claims to be a christian, but listen to his descriptions of his faith. he is muslim, and deep down, wants the destruction of Israel as much as he does the US whities.

May 19, 2009 - 11:14 am 41. ked5:

8. Terry Gain:

The Jewish population here in the US voted for Obama at a 80 – 20 clip

Death wish. And it ain’t over. Jews like David Frum are now attacking Rush Limbaugh for attacking Obama.
And saying stupid things lke no prominent Democrat ever attacked Bush the way Limbaugh attacks Obama.

As if saying he manipulated the intelligence and lied America into an unnecessary war is not a scurrilous attack.

~~~

Oh, and the calls on ultra-left blogs for his assasination.

May 19, 2009 - 11:18 am 42. whataloadacrap08:

#21 Angry White Dude: I agree with your assessment stating our friends should know they’re on their own for as long as Obama rules, but I don’t think it’s Russia we should be concerned about.
China, the nation underwriting Obamas ruinous spend yourself out of debt policies, has been building up its military for years now. I think a Red invasion of Taiwan is going to be the next major crisis in the world, and it’s going to happen pretty darn soon.
Remember Joe Bidens dire warning from last year, when he said six months into the Obama administration there will be a major world crisis? I think it’ll be a Chinese invasion of Taiwan that he was alluding to.

May 19, 2009 - 11:19 am 43. Ms. Attitude:

15. sheesh: LOL!! And I didn’t know there was a meeting between Netanyahu and that malato dude!

May 19, 2009 - 11:47 am 44. Willy:

When China acts, no matter what the action, we will be unable to do anything about it. They own us. Look at GM now being forced to import and re-brand Chinesse cars. The only thing we can do vis a vie China is to say “screw you” with debt repayment before they have the military power to defeat us.

Back on topic: Longterm (or short term given current events) Israel is screwed. Remember the Bible predicts a massive war centering on Israel that will involve the US, Europe, Russia (king of North), and China (armies of the East). Then the end will come. Jesus will return, destroy the earth, and remake it for his human friends to live forever in peace. Make sure you are one of his friends.

May 19, 2009 - 12:09 pm 45. The Wizard:

Why would the Obamanation support Israel? He signed an executive order for $20.3 million to bring Hamas from Palestine to the US! His first phone calls were to an islamic leader. The man is a liar, fraud, racist and truly pernicious.

He needs to be impeached for corruption and treason. He is selling out America, our constitution and our freedoms.

May 19, 2009 - 12:22 pm 46. Sebastian Shaw:

President Obama favors Hamas & the Palestinians over the Jews & Israel; Israel will not let Iran gain nukes, but Obama will….

May 19, 2009 - 12:42 pm 47. ricpic:

Obama’s words mean nothing, absolutely nothing. His whole being exudes alignment with what he would call the wretched of the earth and against Western Civilization, of which Israel is an integral part.
My assumption is that the Israelis, who understand the score, have been doing everything in their power to make themselves militarily self-sufficient. Israel will have to attack Iran and then endure the firestorm of worldwide vituperation, Obama at the head of the baying pack.
There is no other way for Israel to survive.

May 19, 2009 - 1:02 pm 48. David P:

Smoke and mirrors, Israel delivered same series of recycled demands by different messenger. Until peace pays better then terrorizing the “zionist entity” pretend dialogue is useless. Obama, Bush & Clinton policies all remind Israel they’re on their own to prevent genocidal nuclear Iran.

May 19, 2009 - 2:13 pm 49. johngaltrules:

poster # 5 on this blog has it exactly right. The ideology of Islam is filled with nothing but hate. Obama is plainly too ignorant and too stupid and plainly too arrogant, befitting the communist attitudes installed in him by Bill Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis and the fat pig Jeremiah Wright. Bebe Netanyahu understands the barbarians that Moslems are. Bebe is right and we need to stick by him. We are already seeing in Your up the effects of Islam(no such thing as “radical” Islam, the ideology IS the problem). Whats next, folks-SHARIA LAW IN OUR COURT SYSTEM???

May 19, 2009 - 2:14 pm 50. bobbcat:

sheesh, we may have a few in our ranks, but remember you have yours, the latest being the esteemed BO veep, Joe Biden.

May 19, 2009 - 2:36 pm 51. bobbcat:

26. Delia: ““PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: President Obama, thank you. Thank you for your friendship to Israel and your friendship to me. You’re a great leader – a great leader of the United States, a great leader of the world, a great friend of Israel, and someone who is acutely cognizant of our security concerns. And the entire people of Israel appreciate it, and I speak on their behalf.””

Aye, yaye, yaye!

Even Bibi is a politician, but certainly he does not trust BO as far as he can throw him. Time will tell, of course.

May 19, 2009 - 2:38 pm 52. RandyChandler:

Marina, wow. I think I’m in love.

May 19, 2009 - 3:23 pm 53. ReConUSMC:

Obama Through PM Bibi’s Eyes Of Israel

Interesting Poll Numbers coming out of Israeli Jews compared to American Jews on Obama .
Ironically these Poll numbers below are equal to radical Liberals and Socialist in America and Devout Conservatives poll numbers on Obama as well .
Only a scant 31 % of Israeli’ Jews Polled recently Like or “Trust” Obama where as 68.9 % % of all American Jews like and trust Obama completely ?
These Poll numbers are similar to President Bush’s Poll numbers as well but in totally reverse numbers with Israeli and American Jews .
So why the huge difference between Israeli and American Jews deep Beliefs on Obama and Bush ?
Simply put most Israeli’s Jews have suffered horrible long hardships and have fought in Three majors Wars in the last 37 years with 5 Countries on their borders .
Fighting night and day to stay alive and free and under constant suicide and Missile bombing attacks night and day by 6 Difference terrorist groups swore to destroy Israel and kill all Jews there they hear and see in the media daily .
Israeli Jews feel the Presence of a Middle East Hitler with this NUT in Iran saying the same thing 60 years later as did Hitler !
A Large percent of all Israeli Jews have seen a Suicide or many Missile Bombing or had a Loved One ,Family member , Military Friend or Neighbor. Co Worker or Acquaintance Murdered there by Moslem terrorist .
Remember Israel in the size of Maryland .
Where as the American Jews of those same 37 years has done “Nothing ” to stay free or “”Have “” to serve in our Military as do most of Israeli Jews both Male and Female between the ages of 18 -48 serving in the Israeli Military reserve and attend meeting and training at least once a month and three weeks in the summer .
They have to be ready to serve Israel with their lives on the line within 48 hours of being called to serve their Country .
There is No sane Comparison between American and Israeli Jews !
Frankly I wished they all changed Countries……. then American Jews would understand the real world and See Obama exactly the same way Israeli Jews do

May 19, 2009 - 3:34 pm 54. Psychobarb:

Sorry to say, the American Jews who voted for Obama are NOT all secular or self hating.

I know people who go to Israel regularly, send their children there for school and have kids in the Israeli Army who voted for Obama.

They are Zionists.

Delusional, yes, not anti-Zionist.

Though, generally, they are not observant but even here you can’t make generalizations. I know young Orthodox who voted for Obama.

Eighty percent is so large a margin that it takes in everyone.

May 19, 2009 - 4:18 pm 55. Brian:

Precisely ,ReConUSMC.It is Israel that dictates what happens not Obama.America didnt have to endure rocket fire for seven years.America didnt have to deal with the nutcase in Tehran or his speeches.Im trusting Bibi to play his hand shrewdly when dealing with this american president,and the treacherous Palestinians.

May 19, 2009 - 4:36 pm 56. TOhio:

#37 Marina – Excellent post! I don’t think I could have said it any better and with the same high level of passion.

May 19, 2009 - 5:01 pm 57. David P:

ReConUSMC, very clear points, a truth every American Jew should comprehend, well said, excellent!

May 19, 2009 - 5:34 pm 58. WhyamInotsurprised?:

Heh, but Brian/ReConUSMC, doncha know that everything that has happened to Israel since the ‘67 war was when BHO was ONLY 8 years old. Since that’s the case, never happened, doesn’t matter.

Besides, he doesn’t like Jews even though yesterday he converted from Islam to Catholicism. The Cardinal in Chicago saved his soul doncha know!

What is it that Muslims do when someone leaves their “faith?”

May 19, 2009 - 5:38 pm 59. bobbcat:

Whatever works, WhyamInotsurprised.

May 19, 2009 - 6:16 pm 60. sheesh:

43 Ms Attitude . . . I refer you to #20.

May 19, 2009 - 6:23 pm 61. scott:

I assure you that Israel has the name, address and telephone number of every West Bank Arab who believes in and desires the destruction of the Jews. I don’t know the actual percentage but I bet its less than half. A lot of Israeli Arabs would just like to have a job and make a decent living and live in peace with the Israelis. The other kind should all be loaded on garbage scows and set adrift in the Mediterranean Sea and missile batteries set up on all the beaches to incinerate them if they try and return.

May 19, 2009 - 6:40 pm 62. scott:

Merina,

Whenever the caca really hits the fan, half the Jews want to go back to Egypt or build a golden calf or both. But really its just human nature. We’re all the same. Personally I’ve gone back to Egypt several times in my life. EVEN after having read and comprehended the story/metaphor.

May 19, 2009 - 6:50 pm 63. Kaleokualoha:

Johngaltrules (#49) lives in a fantasyland. There is no evidence that Frank Marshall Davis “installed communist values” in Obama.

May 19, 2009 - 6:57 pm 64. ReConUSMC:

54. Psychobarb:
Sorry to say, the American Jews who voted for Obama are NOT all secular or self hating.

I know people who go to Israel regularly, send their children there for school and have kids in the Israeli Army who voted for Obama.

They are Zionists.

Delusional, yes, not anti-Zionist.

Though, generally, they are not observant but even here you can’t make generalizations. I know young Orthodox who voted for Obama.

Eighty percent is so large a margin that it takes in everyone.
__________________________
Sir in all Due respect if that is possible with your silly obvious Obama loving spin of a statement .
The Damn Gallop polls is Israel and Americans Jews Polls {Are Not generalizations at all } Yours are since you heard someone that new someone that though some people said they voted for Obama and in the “”Military “” there ? Very timely on your part ..yeah right . The Military in Israel voted 72.9 % against Obama !
74 % of my fellow Marines Voted against Obama but I bet you Know 20, 000 Marines that voted for Obama as well ……. Right ! Why those numbers are not higher Against Obama is because of Blacks and Hespanics is they think when they get out Obama with Suckle them !
You think like Bill Clinton that said I did not have Sex with that Women .
Just for The Record most Marines believe in Water boarding . I was WATER BOARDED as a ReCon Marine …..
I drank beer that night and laughed about it all ….. But I did tell them what they wanted to know on that table .
I also would water board some thug that even had a Liberals love one to get info .

May 19, 2009 - 6:59 pm 65. ReConUSMC:

3. Kaleokualoha:
Johngaltrules (#49) lives in a fantasyland. There is no evidence that Frank Marshall Davis “installed communist values” in Obama.
_________________________
OBAMA was a CLOSE friend of American hating Saul Alinky and Bill Ayers ! the left version of the KKK !
Facts -100 % Communist Franklin Marshall Davis was Obama childhood mentor . His far leftist grandparents introduced them when Obama was only 12 years old in Hawaii . OBAMA admitted to that in his own book and he went to Union and Community org. meeting with him all the time and hung out together as well plus was in Countles Union wild cat Strikes with Davis .
Davis was a bit of a Poet and a known Pedophile . Davis tried hard when he lived in Chicago before he moved to Hawaii to convert the NAACP into a Communist party movement and anti American Black Nationalist Movement but he failed and ran off to Hawaii . Davis moved back to Chicago when Obama left Hawaii.
Obama also liked James Cone Alabama ( founder of Black Liberation movement ). Any man that could sit for 22 in Rev Wright Church not only hates white peoplebut he hates America and that is why he is trying to destroy this counry and replace it with 1/3 Radical Socialism 1/3 Marxism and 1/3 a Govt, he run Dictatorship ….. Obama also hates Capitalism .
Go to ObamaNationBook for who when where on Obama’s life and four other great books on the Frauds life as well Bra .

May 19, 2009 - 7:25 pm 66. fred:

Our dumbshit political and policy elites in the West ignore the Islamic claim on the entirety of Eretz Israel, since it was conquered shortly after Muhammad’s death in A.D. 632. Qur’anic injunction and Sharia Law forbid ceding any inch of dar al Islam back to dar al Harb.

I continue to be in utter amazement that there is either widespread ignorance of this, the history of it, or deliberate bracketing of it.

Also, there is a long history of attempts by dar al Harb to appease the armies of Allah which have only ended in defeat. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

May 19, 2009 - 7:51 pm 67. Neocon Hippie:

65. ReConUSMC:

Obama never met Alinsky, who died in 1972 when Obama was 11 years old.

May 19, 2009 - 9:27 pm 68. Larsen E. Whipsnade:

“A lot of Israeli Arabs would just like to have a job”

Are these Christian Arabs or Muslim Arabs? Is there a difference in Israel? Does anyone in Israel notice? Do any Israelis care enough to figure this out?

May 19, 2009 - 10:09 pm 69. Gary Rosen:

sheesh, you phony leftist hypocrite, I refer you to THIS:

http://tinyurl.com/ce9bf2

Note which party is more likely to blame it on da Jooooos.

May 19, 2009 - 10:29 pm 70. ked5:

66. fred:

Our dumbshit political and policy elites in the West ignore the Islamic claim on the entirety of Eretz Israel, since it was conquered shortly after Muhammad’s death in A.D. 632. Qur’anic injunction and Sharia Law forbid ceding any inch of dar al Islam back to dar al Harb.

I continue to be in utter amazement that there is either widespread ignorance of this, the history of it, or deliberate bracketing of it.

Also, there is a long history of attempts by dar al Harb to appease the armies of Allah which have only ended in defeat. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

~~~~~~~~
I think it gets back to religion, or rather, religious attitudes. Current western civilization was founded on the Judeo-christian ethic (no matter what the statists claim.). those values and belief in the God of Abraham, have been left behind for “freedom” and “enlightenment”. There have been many who equate religion with childish things. Too foolish to realize they have no control over the consequences of their choices. Poor dears just can’t grasp the concept that not only can they *not* have their cake and eat it too, but they’re stuck with 10″ on their hips. In the west, among all but the most religious, there is an attitude that religious values are irrelevant – so who cares what commands any religon espouses – it’s not pertinent today.

However, for Islam, their beliefs are very much part of their everyday life. Forget their founder died nearly 1400 years ago, his commands are as important to them today, as they were then.

Westerner’s who have rejected religion as being surpuflous to their lives (or inhibiting of their lifestyle), cannot comprehend what they have never known themselves. Religion *is* pertinent to the islamists life, and the two shall not be seperated. And it had better be considered when trying to protect the west.

May 19, 2009 - 11:43 pm 71. Kaleokualoha:

ReConUSMC (#53) also lives in a fantasyland:

- Davis was not his mentor, He was a family friend who Obama visited occasionally as a young teenager. In fact, according to his book, he didn’t even visit Davis for three years as an older teen before going to college.

- Obama’s book did not say that “he went to Union and Community org. meeting with him all the time and hung out together as well plus was in Countles Union wild cat Strikes with Davis.” That’s all in your imagination.

Davis was not “a known pedophile.” He wrote a pornographic novel. A novel is fiction. Unfortunately, some people have problems distinguishing reality from fiction.

Your statement “Davis tried hard when he lived in Chicago before he moved to Hawaii to convert the NAACP into a Communist party movement and anti American Black Nationalist Movement but he failed and ran off to Hawaii” is all in your imagination. If you plan to cite the Congressional testimony by rookie NAACP board member Edward Berman in this regard, you may wish to first READ the testimony posted as Exhibit 4A at http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf

- Davis did not move back to Chicago when Obama left Hawaii. Davis died in Hawaii in 1987.

Perhaps a bit more reconnaissance would help your intel before you offer an assessment, Marine!

May 20, 2009 - 12:47 am 72. Camo:

Iran has a vast oil supply and a major exporter to Eastern Block counties — but insist they need nuclear energy for power

Iran uses rockets for scientific study — yes, getting ballistic missiles on target is scientific

May 20, 2009 - 6:52 am 73. scott:

Larsen,

It is difficult for Israeli Arabs now to work for a Jew. They face recrimination from their own. It is not up to israel to fix THIS problem. It is an historical fact that the Jews were willing to live in peace with the Arabs within their state. But the radical islamists and the freak Arafat took the upper hand and created the situation as it now exists.

May 20, 2009 - 9:58 am 74. naftali:

#68 Whipsnade–

Yes the Israelis know the difference. Just look at the care they took while terrorists holed up in one of the Christian Holy Sites in Bethlehem. I don’t believe the terrorists took such care while they were in there.

Regarding the general question, as a historical rule, the collective thoughts and behaviors of Jews, since the giving of the Torah, hasn’t been rational. But it’s worked. The Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Europeans, and now the Persians and Arabs again have all had a solution to their ‘Jewish Question’. In each instance we were incredibly irrational, which has somehow allowed us to survive these empires.

Not ironic enough? Unless the Iranians develop and nuclear Jew bomb, not only will Israel be destroyed, but so will all of the residents of the west bank, Gaza, and Lebanon. The effects of such a normal nuclear bomb, according to what I’ve read, will reach as far north as Cyprus. So all of the ‘concern’ that the world has for the Palestinians is in reality about as deep as it is for the residents of Sederot.

May 20, 2009 - 10:39 am 75. Ms. Attitude:

60. sheesh: I refer you to comments made by Biden, Pelosi and Obama.

May 20, 2009 - 10:58 am 76. Kaleokualoha:

ReConUSMC:

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, especially when the so-called “knowledge” is actually disinformation planted by master manipulators. For example, Americans “knew” that Iraqi WMD stockpiles and connections to Al Qaeda threatened the United States after 9/11. Iraqis “knew” that the American offensive would be an amphibious landing during the first Gulf War. The German High Command “knew” that the Allied D-Day invasion would be at Calais instead of Normandy. The German public “knew” that Jews were a threat based on the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Even the Trojans “knew” that the Trojan Horse was a gracious gift from the departing Greeks. They were all wrong – dead wrong.

In the same way that these targets were deceived by disinformation, so too have many Americans been fooled by a disinformation campaign that sought to discredit Barack Obama by demonizing family friend Frank Marshall Davis. This disinformation campaign, spearheaded by conservative firebrand Cliff Kincaid and his ironically named “Accuracy In Media” (AIM), deliberately misrepresented Frank Marshall Davis by using the same deceptive techniques used by the Bush administration to deliberately misrepresent the Iraqi threat.

People often do not actually “know” certain beliefs, especially when such false knowledge has been planted through disinformation. For a brief guide to “epistemology,” or the theory of knowledge, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology . For a brief guide to “disinformation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation . For a detailed analysis of the disinformation campaign regarding the Obama-Davis relationship, see http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGxdvX .

May 20, 2009 - 12:42 pm 77. Ms. Attitude:

76. Kaleokualoha: “People often do not actually “know” certain beliefs, especially when such false knowledge has been planted through disinformation.”

Such as the disinformation about the Bush family planted by Michael Moore in his movie. Such as the disinformation about Palin. etc, etc….

May 20, 2009 - 1:24 pm 78. Ms. Attitude:

And Kaleokualoha, a bit of advice for your blog, don’t cite Wikipedia, remember it’s “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”

And the Huffington Post as a citation…that made your entire blog a joke.

May 20, 2009 - 1:31 pm 79. Kaleokualoha:

For uncontroversial topics, Wikipedia is a neutral source. I challenge you to produce a superior reference for such neutral topic.

What Huffington Post citation in what blog?

May 20, 2009 - 1:41 pm 80. J. Rockford:

I’ve love to know what Netanyahu — an experienced executive dedicated to his nation’s self-interest — really thinks about Obama — the left-wing radical only interested in his own self-interest. My guess is Netanyahu walked out of the room thinking “Start warming up the F-16’s. We’re on our own.”

May 20, 2009 - 1:52 pm 81. Naftali:

#76 Kaleokualoha

You seem pretty certain regarding your information about the perils of being certain about your information.

May 20, 2009 - 2:33 pm 82. Kaleokualoha:

#81 Naftali: Absolutely true. As a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer with specific training in Deception Analysis, I learned years ago to examine the sources of controversial information, and the motives of people who spread disinformation. Professional journalists also learn the perils of unsubstantiated reported and speculation early in their careers. In contrast, professional advocates, such as Cliff Kincaid from the so-called “Accuracy In Media” (AIM), often misrepresent specious speculation as fact.

#78 Ms. Attitude: Wikipedia contains numerous references for those who seek more detailed information on subjects like epistemology. For example:

- Annis, David. 1978. “A Contextualist Theory of Epistemic Justification”, in American Philosophical Quarterly, 15: 213-219.

- BonJour, Laurence. 2002. Epistemology: Classic Problems and Contemporary Responses. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

- Boufoy-Bastick, Z. 2005. “Introducing ‘Applicable Knowledge’ as a Challenge to the Attainment of Absolute Knowledge”, Sophia Journal of Philosophy, 8: 39-51.

- Bovens, Luc & Hartmann, Stephan. 2003. Bayesian Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- Butchvarov, Panayot. 1970. The Concept of Knowledge. Evanston, Northwestern University Press.

I doubt, however, that you will find any significant error in the Wikipedia articles on such uncontroversial topics.

May 20, 2009 - 4:28 pm 83. Anna:

Obama is setting Israel up. Obama and his administration have the dangerously naive idea that you can have diplomatic relations with the Hitlers and Stalins of the world. Meanwhile, he has surrounded himself with anti-Semites from Jimmy Carter’s days.

For an ongoing and incredibly intelligent discussion of such issues, I highly recommend reading Caroline Glick:

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/

Meanwhile, as I type this, Iran has testing a missile they claim can reach Israel and Europe. Of course, Obama and most Americans could care little of Israel’s future. But, perhaps if European’s realize they could be toast as well, a few people might start to take off their rose-colored glasses and actually see there are very real and imminent threats in this world.

I hope everyone here bombards their elected officals and the media with letters.

May 20, 2009 - 5:20 pm 84. Naftali:

#82 Kaleokualoha

So what you’re really saying is that you personally can be certain of your information but the rest of us cannot be certain our information? And you’re certain of this?

May 20, 2009 - 5:52 pm 85. Kaleokualoha:

Naftali:

It depends. By using the Scientific Method (use Wikipedia or any other source for similar results, because the basic principles are not very controversial), it is easier to disprove something than to prove it. I can be certain that certain claims are false by examining them closely. Unless you have personally witnessed an event, however, certainty that something is true depends on evidence. As they say on CSI: Follow the evidence.

Some “journalists” ignore exculpatory evidence (the “Nifong Syndrome”) and stack other evidence in order to misrepresent reality in support of a particular point of view. Journalistic ethics may be the first victims of such disinformation campaigns. They may even falsify evidence, if they feel relatively secure from exposure.

For example, AIM published four different posts with four different accounts of Edward Berman’s Congressional testimony concerning the 1949 NAACP incident, even though Cliff Kincaid posted the actual transcript online (see above). Comparing the actual transcript to AIM’s falsehoods clearly reveals that AIM deliberately misrepresented Berman’s testimony. This is only the tip of the iceberg of AIM’s disinformation campaign against the Davis-Obama relationship.

A detailed analysis of AIM’s 1949 NAACP disinformation, along with links to AIM’s four false posts and Edward Berman’s original Congressional testimony, is posted at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gG5kN7 . I invite every person of integrity to examine Berman’s transcript, and compare them to AIM misrepresentation of the same testimony. The evidence of AIM’s deception is irrefutable. If you find any substantive error in the analysis, please advise. Thanks!

May 20, 2009 - 6:48 pm 86. naftali:

#85 Kaleokualoha

That’s very nice, but this comment thread is about the clearly empirical attempts by Arab nations to destroy Israel since Israel was declared a nation, a nation with basically no army. They have tried to destroy Israel with conventional weapons until 1973, and since then they have used terrorism and political power. I don’t think it’s a stretch to add long range missiles and development of weapons grade nuclear fuel to assume that Iran is looking to develop nuclear weapons with the intent of destroying Israel–since that is what the Iranians say they are trying to do.

May 20, 2009 - 7:28 pm 87. neverquit:

Kaleokualoha: #81 Naftali: Absolutely true. As a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer with specific training in Deception Analysis”

Based on this claim, if true, I have serious doubts about anything you say. And, it is very convenient of you to ignore the dozen or so (at minimum) other reasons, to remove Saddam Hussein. I don’t see anything in your posts that refute Saddam Hussein’s atrocities. Any claim that he was not a threat to the USA, and our Allies and interests in the region, are folly. His actions throughout the history of his regime, are not in dispute.

May 20, 2009 - 7:30 pm 88. Kaleokualoha:

If examining the 1949 NAACP falsehoods is too much information, another AIM deception is more immediately obvious: Cliff Kincaid’s claim that Frank Marshall Davis was a “Stalinist.”

Davis was not a Stalinist. Cliff Kincaid appears to have originated the “Stalinist” fraudulent meme sometime between February and June 2008. In Kincaid’s original (February 2008) attack against Davis (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor), he does NOT call Davis a “Stalinist.” Kincaid reports that Davis joined the CPUSA during WWII, citing Edgar Tidwell, “an expert on the life and writings of Davis.”

In June 2008, however, Kincaid starts the “Stalinist” falsehood (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_571431.html). This is where Kincaid explains that he calls Davis a “Stalinist” because “he stayed with the CPUSA after the Hitler-Stalin pact” (1939). This contradicts Kincaid’s February 2008 column, which states Davis did not even JOIN the CPUSA until later.

Obviously Davis could not have “stayed with” the CPUSA before he even joined the CPUSA. Obviously, Kincaid’s stated reason is invalid. Obviously, something else changed between February and June 2008, when Kincaid suddenly starts calling Davis a “Stalinist.” Davis suddenly became a “Stalinist” because Cliff Kincaid said so??

I doubt you will find any references to Davis being a “Stalinist” before Kincaid’s new label. Did the FBI or Congressional investigators consider him a “Stalinist”? I don’t think so! Kincaid’s expert on Davis, Edgar Tidwell, says Davis was NOT a Stalinist (see http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGx9n3). Kincaid’s “Stalinist” claim seems to be a classic straw man tactic: exaggeration to produce an easier target.

This is just one of numerous Kincaid falsehoods. All we need to do is follow the evidence.

“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to
discover them.” – Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642)

May 20, 2009 - 9:23 pm 89. naftali:

#88 K—Are you sure you have the right address here? We’re talking about this meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Netenyahu. I’m just not seeing the connection between this and Frank Marshall Davis, unless Davis is an Israeli looking for a little more space and wants to live a suburban life, which Americans call the “suburbs” in America, but they call the same subdivisions “settlements” in Israel.

May 21, 2009 - 2:27 am 90. Ms. Attitude:

79. Kaleokualoha: HP is referenced at the bottom of your blog.

I’m in Wikipedia as the princess of my home town…great reference.

May 21, 2009 - 5:59 am 91. Ms. Attitude:

88. Kaleokualoha: Frank, is this your ghost?

May 21, 2009 - 6:05 am 92. Ms. Attitude:

Did anyone see the press conference after the meeting of Obama and Netanyahu? How come Obama couldn’t look at him? Netanyahu was looking directly at Obama but he wouldn’t make eye contact even though he was talking about him. I think Israel is about to open up a can of whup butt on someone!

May 21, 2009 - 6:08 am 93. naftali:

I have a question that I don’t think anyone can answer, but I’ll ask anyway. If Iran develops nuclear weapons–and try to make sense of this, most folks think they’re going to develop only one bomb, hit Israel, and then stop–won’t they have to test one first? Or will they just go ahead and launch it? The scenario I described at #74 left out Israel’s response, and the US response (because there will be a US response after the fact). Nor did I mention a more likely scenario of Iran developing many bombs, very small bombs that would have to be placed in major cities of the world to discourage response. It doesn’t seem as if world leaders are at all concerned about this second, more intelligent, and more likely Iranian power play.

May 21, 2009 - 8:58 am 94. Ms. Attitude:

93. naftali:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128151

May 21, 2009 - 9:54 am 95. Naftali:

Uh oh. I guess that since they haven’t attacked they’ve decided to try to build an arsenal. It’s too bad, but it sounds like they’re playing it smart. That means Paris and London would be as much of a target as Tel Aviv. Do I even have to mention NY?

May 21, 2009 - 12:29 pm 96. Kaleokualoha:

Ms Attitude wrote “Kaleokualoha: HP is referenced at the bottom of your blog.”

RESPONSE: Gosh! You are right! I used an HP reference (reference #22) in my historical overview of disinformation campaigns, in support of this statement:

“Although the Intelligence Community discounted the Al Qaeda link and had reservations about the WMD reports, the Bush administration deliberately misrepresented the Iraqi threat before the invasion in order to convince the public to support their actions.”

My apologies! I hope you will accept this reference, which also supports my statement, but comes from the Senate Intelligence Committee itself: http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

Please advise if you need additional references. If you google “senate intelligence bush iraq misrepresent” yourself, however, you will find over 100,000 other references.

Are there any other deficiencies?

Ms. Attitude wrote: “Kaleokualoha: Frank, is this your ghost?”

RESPONSE: No. Frank Marshall Davis is my father, as stated on my blog home page at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/Kaleokualoha. Although he had his faults, he was nothing like the Stalinist portrayed by the right-wing disinformation campaign against the Davis-Obama relationship. A more accurate assessment of his character, taken from personal experience, is posted at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gG5nhJ

“I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.” – Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 – 1968)

May 21, 2009 - 12:34 pm 97. neverquit:

#96 Kaleokualoha:

Security Council Resolution 688
U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687
Security Council Resolution 1373

Perhaps you miss the heady days of the grafting and greed of the UN Oil/Food Program.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm

May 21, 2009 - 3:45 pm 98. Kent:

Ultimately, anyone who hates God wants the Jews dead. It’s not because the typical secular Jew loves God – most I know are pretty cruel to anyone loving God. It’s because God promised Abraham that he’d rather die than break his word to the Jews. The devil has tried to take God up on that ever since. Prophesies of the end times, both Jewish and Christian, show the forces of evil trying to exterminate the Jewish race right up to the end. Until the end of time, you will have this sick crap to deal with. Stop following the wishful thinking of those who do not understand what you really are – a promise of God that is absolutely hated by evil. There can be no peace with absolute evil. Laying down a sword invites a knife.

May 21, 2009 - 4:27 pm 99. Kaleokualoha:

#97: What do those have to do with Bush administration misrepresentation, as documented by the Senate Intelligence Committee? Saddam Hussein was all kinds of evil, but the Bush administration still made false accusations against Iraq. They created a straw man to make an easier target.

The point of these entire exercise is that people should be judged for their actual deeds, not imaginary ones.

May 21, 2009 - 6:22 pm 100. naftali:

#99 K–

Are you reading your own comments? How can Saddam be a straw man when you know he’s ‘all kinds of evil’? Unless there is certain kinds of evil that you’re okay with? Tell us what kinds of evil are okay.

May 21, 2009 - 10:22 pm 101. neverquit:

99. Kaleokualoha:

If I have to explain, there is not any use in further discussion. But, I will engage anyway, out of boredom.

There were a myriad of reasons to remove Saddam Hussein,, the issue of WMD was but one of dozens. That is indisputable. Regime Change was the official policy of the USA, set forth by the Clinton Admin., it was the Bush Admin that had the fortitude to actually do it.

NATO conducted over 10,000 combat sorties against the Serbians over atrocities being committed there. There was no UN Sanction of these events, and Serbia was never a threat to the USA. Yet, not a peep from the radical left, and I imagine from yourself. Perhaps it is just that you suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome, or you do not feel the brown people in Iraq deserve the same freedoms as the white people in Europe; or you’re just an inconsistent hack. Perhaps all three.

May 22, 2009 - 7:11 am 102. Thomas:

Most of you are probably too young to remember the Israel-Arab war of ‘67 – coupled by the fact that you lived in the free world – unlike me who was a citizen of a captive nation at that time (under Soviet occupation).
You can’t fathom the fervor with which diaspora Jews supported Brezhnev and the Soviet Union deathly assault on Israel by simple removing even the faintest reference to its ethno-political and humane content:

…”the lackey of the American imperialism, Israel must be liberated from the bourgeois oppressive exploitation and must unite with the freedom loving Arab proletariat…World Peace! Che! etc.

Please don’t take my words for an offense but conservative people in America are unable to comprehend the iron clad bond between a doctrinaire, dogmatic treatise of an ideology and their disciples.

These ideologue radicals are willing to go any length to achieve their goals…millions of death? – what do they mean to Chomsky, Soros, Finkelstein, Axelrod, Emanuel? A pittance, a small price to pay for the universal “New World”, the real salvation wrought by “The Messiah”.

It’s not by accident that Israel was built by Jews fresh from the Holocaust in E.Europe while the American diaspora Jewish money-men nurtured and supported Marxism-Leninism.
How many worked on draining the swamps by bare hands from Hollywood?

Internationalist Leftist Jews will support the dissolution of Israel just like they did it in 1917 – by the infamous “Yevsektsia” in Russia. (Google)
Nation States are directly contradicting the concept of “World Proletariat Unify” dogma – which is wholeheartedly endorsed by Leftist Jewish organizations like “JStreet” and countless others.

May 22, 2009 - 11:09 am 103. Kaleokualoha:

Naftali: A straw man is a MISREPRESENTATION of an opponent’s position in order to create an easier target. Threat inflation is a classic method of creating straw men. Every position, no matter how strong or weak, can be misrepresented. (Google “straw man” if this is unclear.)

Neverquit: Yes, there were a “myriad of reasons” for the invasion. Unfortunately (if I have to explain) the strongest ones were false (WMD stockpiles and collaberation with Al-Qaeda).

The Bush administration created a straw man by exaggerating the Iraqi threat in order to gain support for the invasion. Although the Bush administration may have had “myriad reasons” to attack Iraq before 9/11, they did not have enough American or international support. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, they misrepresented the Iraqi threat.

The American public was angry over the 9/11 attacks. Saddam, although he had no connection to the attacks, became a scapegoat through deliberate misrepresentation. Thus, by misrepresenting the Iraqi position, they created a higher degree of public support.

Do you believe the American public would have supported the invasion without the purported connection to Al Qaeda or WMD threat? Not likely, because America was properly focused on Osama Bin Laden. Without the exaggeration, the cost exceeded the benefit. Only by exaggerating the benefits would the costs appear acceptable.

But the actual justification for the invasion is not my primary issue. History will judge the justification. My issue is using disinformation to advance an agenda, whether it is military, political, or even commercial.

Do you remember the 2002 movie “Collateral Damage,” in which a firefighter’s family is slain by a terrorist bombing against another target? The terrorist didn’t care about hurting others because he considered such victims to be “collateral damage” in attacking his primary target.

In the same way, Cliff Kincaid apparently considered demonizing Frank Marshall Davis (through disinformation) to be acceptable “collateral damage” in his attacks against Barack Obama. Thus, he misrepresented Davis’s politics, character, and influence in order to defame Barack Obama. If not for Obama mentioning “Frank” in “Dreams From My Father,” Kincaid would have had no reason to fabricate such evidence.

May 22, 2009 - 11:31 am 104. Kaleokualoha:

You may be able to more dispassionately evaluate a current example of disinformation campaigns, because you probably have no vested interest in the parties to the conflict: The current battle between radio stations represented by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), and musicians represented by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), among others (see http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090513-719642.html and http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20090503/D97UT3M00.html).

The NAB is resisting a bill to have stations pay airplay performance royalties to recording artists, as is common in foreign countries. The RIAA and AFTRA support the bill, as it would provide more revenue to their artists.

Radio stations are telling listeners alternatively that the bill will impose a tax on radio and that it would send money to foreign countries, although a thinking person would doubt that radio tax revenues would be sent to foreign countries. Because of their listening audience, they are able to deliberately misrepresent the bill with impunity in their disinformation campaign.

Without a vested interest, it is easier to objectively evaluate the merits of each side and to recognize disinformation they may employ to buttress their arguments. But the principles of disinformation remain the same regardless of vested interests.

May 22, 2009 - 12:36 pm 105. neverquit:

103. Kaleokualoha: “Do you remember the 2002 movie “Collateral Damage,”

Using a movie to explain this is really weak, imho. Your lack of a response to the Serbian attack speaks loudly. You’re on your own little “disinformation quest”. Your inconsistency also speaks of your intentions as well. I for one, and very satisfied with our work in Iraq, and as you said, time will tell.

I firmly believe that Bush chose the wrong tact for invasion. Had he focused primarily on the humanitarian issues, and secondarily focused on the potential threat of Saddam Hussein’s documented support of Islamic Terrorism against the West, yes, there would have been support for it.

What get’s lost is the fact that Osama’s primary issue with the USA was the stationing of our Troops in Saudi Arabia during Gulf War I. Why were they there? Because of Saddam Hussein. Any claims that his continued leadership of Iraq would be more stable than the current situation is folly.

May 22, 2009 - 1:50 pm 106. Naftali:

I know what a straw man is. You misrepresent the opposing position into something that is either A) completely absurd and easily dismantled with your own reason or B) something basically benign that you inflate into something evil. Since Saddam was already an evil madman, where can you go to make him a straw man? The only question is whether you stop him or let him continue. Get it?

May 22, 2009 - 1:54 pm 107. Kaleokualoha:

Neverquit: I couldn’t care less about the Serbian situation. I am interested in the PROCESS of disinformation. My work as an Air Force Intelligence Officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency specialized in Deception Analysis. Get it?

Naftali: Sorry, but ANY misrepresentation to make your opponent an easier target is “creating a straw man.” Your misrepresentation creates a counterfeit position, which may nevertheless contain an element of truth. You exaggerate the truth through misrepresentation to create a straw man. See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html for more information.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. As the “straw man” metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent’s actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one.

May 22, 2009 - 4:38 pm 108. Kaleokualoha:

Neverquit: I used the movie as an example of collateral damage, not as an example of disinformation. I used the NAB-RIAA fight as an example of disinformation. I apologize for being unclear.

May 22, 2009 - 4:43 pm 109. neverquit:

107. Kaleokualoha:Neverquit: I couldn’t care less about the Serbian situation. I am interested in the PROCESS of disinformation. My work as an Air Force Intelligence Officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency specialized in Deception Analysis. Get it?”"

108. Kaleokualoha:Neverquit: I used the movie as an example of collateral damage, not as an example of disinformation. I used the NAB-RIAA fight as an example of disinformation. I apologize for being unclear.”"

Your response is as I expected. The “Collateral Damage” dealio was clear. Clearly poor.

May 22, 2009 - 6:03 pm 110. Kaleokualoha:

Neverquit: If you a minimum amount of research, you will see that “collateral damage” is defined as “Injury inflicted on something other than the intended target.” “Collateral damage is damage that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome. The term originated in the U.S. military, but it has since expanded into broader use.”

Both examples fit the definition. How is it “clearly poor”?

May 22, 2009 - 6:45 pm 111. Kaleokualoha:

Neverquit:

If you do a minimum amount of research, you will see that “collateral damage” is defined as “Injury inflicted on something other than the intended target.” “Collateral damage is damage that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome. The term originated in the U.S. military, but it has since expanded into broader use.”

Both examples fit the definition. How is it “clearly poor”?

May 22, 2009 - 9:22 pm 112. Naftali:

#107 K–

Now you’re just quibbling. The only relevant question regarding an evil madman like Saddam is whether you let him continue or whether you stop him. It’s that simple. Saddam’s trail of blood either existed or it didn’t. And you either care about it or you don’t.

May 22, 2009 - 11:46 pm 113. Kaleokualoha:

“The only relevant question regarding an evil madman like Saddam is whether you let him continue or whether you stop him.”

Untrue. Cost is another relevant question. A wise leader always balances the benefits against the costs of any action. You may “stop him” with the informed consent of people who believe that the benefits exceed the costs. Then they believe that “stopping him” is worth the effort.

Americans did not believe that the benefits exceeded the costs of unilaterally stopping genocide in Rwanda. Americans did not believe that “stopping them” was worth the cost in Cambodia. Hence, we did not “stop them.” Americans do not believe that “stopping them” is worth the cost in North Korea. Hence, we have not “stopped them.” Americans do not currently believe that the benefits exceed the costs of unilaterally stopping genocide in the Sudan. Hence, we do not stop them. We seek multilateral solutions, which are often ineffective.

By using disinformation, you change the equation. You no longer have informed consent. You have cheated your constituents, and you have cheated your allies. When you invade under false pretenses, you have lost your moral authority, and your legacy is doomed.

Germany invaded its neighbors under false pretenses. North Korea invaded South Korea under false pretenses. Iraq invaded Kuwait under false pretenses. The United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses. Bush is in rather poor company.

Do you sincerely believe most Americans would have supported the invasion without the threat of Iraqi WMD or collusion with Al Qaeda, when most Americans were more concerned with the hunt for Osama Bin Laden? If so, there would have been no need to deliberately misrepresent the Iraqi threat.

May 23, 2009 - 1:37 am 114. Kaleokualoha:

Unless a country has unlimited resources and authority, it must choose its battles and select only those that are perceived as worth the cost. The United States did not enter either World War for two years until we experienced intolerable attacks upon American ships. We cannot afford to be the world’s policeman, yet we refuse that authority to anyone else. We fight when it is in our national interest, and participate willy-nilly in international police actions.

While an admirable cause, the protection of human rights has never been America’s top international priority. The internal affairs of foreign countries, no matter how despicable, have never justified an American invasion.

Saddam Hussein’s human rights abuses were strangely tolerated by American conservatives during the 1980’s, especially when Iraq was fighting Iran. It was only after Iraq attacked Kuwait that Iraqi atrocities became so intolerable to American conservatives. Such fair-weather standards belie their sincerity. As a matter of fact, human rights abuses were NOT the main reason for invading Iraq. According to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, in a 2003 interview published in Vanity Fair:

“. . . for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but — hold on one second –
(Pause)

Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to –

Wolfowitz: — there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there’s a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. ”

- http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2594

Unfortunately, the WMD and Al Qaeda concerns were largely bogus straw men. In a masterful disinformation campaign, the Bush administration made a mountain out of a molehill after first fabricating the molehill. In Phase I, evidence against Iraq was secretly fabricated (see http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/07/yellowcake200607) to create a tentative National Intelligence Assessment (NIE) of Iraqi WMD. In Phase II the Bush administration exaggerated the tentative NIE to absolute certainty, and fabricated the Al Qaeda link, to sell their invasion plans through deliberate misrepresentation.

The Iraqi threat was counterfeit, fabricated through disinformation. It was a straw man, which portrayed the Iraqi threat as worth the cost of invasion. Exaggerating the threat enabled the Bush administration to secure enough support for the invasion.

May 23, 2009 - 11:47 am 115. Naftali:

#113 & 114 K–

That’s a perfect example of you creating a straw man argument. I was speaking strictly on moral grounds, you turned it into an economic argument, and then you used your logic to counter an argument I never made. I would think that if a person wasn’t a screaming hypocrite, and if they don’t like the idea of straw man arguments, then they wouldn’t make any themselves.

May 23, 2009 - 12:11 pm 116. Naftali:

If you were honest you would have simply asked me, “Do you feel that cost is a relevant criteria in such a situation?” My answer would have been “no”.

May 23, 2009 - 12:13 pm 117. Kaleokualoha:

Naftali: You posted “I was speaking strictly on moral grounds, you turned it into an economic argument, and then you used your logic to counter an argument I never made.

RESPONSE: Untrue. You originally posted “The only relevant question regarding an evil madman like Saddam is whether you let him continue or whether you stop him.” Although it may have been your intention, you did NOT restrict relevant questions to moral grounds. You said it was the ONLY relevant question, not the only relevant moral question.

If you believe that I created a straw man by misrepresenting your actual position, rather than your intended position, please quote my specific statements that misrepresented your position. False accusations are a tricky business.

“Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.”
– Abraham Lincoln

May 23, 2009 - 1:31 pm 118. Kaleokualoha:

Naftali: If you believe that cost is NOT relevant in situations such as Iraq, then is cost relevant in countries with even greater human rights abuses, such as Rwanda and Cambodia? How about in countries with less egregious human rights violations but stronger military forces, such as China, where the cost could be even higher? Or in countries with less egregious human rights violations but currently our allies, such as Saudi Arabia?

If cost is no object, then where do you draw the line between intervention and non-intervention? Or is cost irrelevant only when it comes to Iraq? What are YOUR standards for intervention?

“The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat
falsehoods is with truth.” – William O. Douglas

May 23, 2009 - 6:24 pm 119. naftali:

#117 & 118: K–

So you read my response and with great certainty assumed that I was also referring to cost? The question didn’t even enter your mind that I was referring to morality only? Really? You didn’t even think by disagreeing with my premise and saying that cost is a factor that you were changing my argument to fit your straw man needs? Are you actually reading your remarks?

No, cost shouldn’t be a factor, anywhere. And yet there is a certain segment of the population that would be offended if the US unilaterally went into a country as a moral actor. Do you know anyone like that, who would get upset, for instance, if the US went into Iraq and stop Saddam’s blood lust?

May 23, 2009 - 8:21 pm 120. Kaleokualoha:

Naftali: I assumed nothing. You did not limit the scope of relevant questions by restricting it to moral grounds. With an unlimited scope, I posited an alternative member of the set of relevant questions. There may still be others.

More people would be upset if the US went into any country unlawfully than lawfully. For those who respect international law, it makes a difference. For this reason, the United States prefers multilateral actions to unilateral actions. That’s why President Truman supported the United Nations.

The U.S. trying to be the world’s policeman would be an exercise in futility. We have neither the manpower nor the capital to undertake such a grand venture. We cannot even control our own cities.

May 24, 2009 - 1:49 am 121. naftali:

#120 K—

Fine. You want to play word games? I’ll just copy and paste. Here is you distorting my argument to create a straw man argument for yourself:

““The only relevant question regarding an evil madman like Saddam is whether you let him continue or whether you stop him.”

Untrue. Cost is another relevant question. A wise leader always balances the benefits against the costs of any action. You may “stop him” with the informed consent of people who believe that the benefits exceed the costs. Then they believe that “stopping him” is worth the effort.”

See that? You added the variable of cost because you knew I didn’t use it.

Here’s you doing the moral twist:

“Naftali: If you believe that cost is NOT relevant in situations such as Iraq, then is cost relevant in countries with even greater human rights abuses, such as Rwanda and Cambodia? How about in countries with less egregious human rights violations but stronger military forces, such as China, where the cost could be even higher? Or in countries with less egregious human rights violations but currently our allies, such as Saudi Arabia?”

And then when I said that cost is not a factor, you did this:

“More people would be upset if the US went into any country unlawfully than lawfully. For those who respect international law, it makes a difference. For this reason, the United States prefers multilateral actions to unilateral actions. That’s why President Truman supported the United Nations.

The U.S. trying to be the world’s policeman would be an exercise in futility. We have neither the manpower nor the capital to undertake such a grand venture. We cannot even control our own cities.”

That was you justifying the continuation of all of those human right violations you pretended to be against. You hypocrite.

May 24, 2009 - 5:30 am 122. Kaleokualoha:

Naftali wrote “See that? You added the variable of cost because you knew I didn’t use it.”

RESPONSE: Of course! I added it because it is a relevant question that belies your claim of the ONLY relevant question. Other questions are also relevant!

Naftali wrote: “That was you justifying the continuation of all of those human right violations you pretended to be against. You hypocrite.”

RESPONSE: Untrue. Failing to fight human rights violations does not “justify” their continuation. You can be “for human rights” without becoming an extremist who would pay any cost to support them, just as you can be “for democracy” without being willing to invade other countries to impose democracy.

That is another logical fallacy: the false dilemma. People with binary thinking can only consider two positions: for or against, black or white, communist or capitalist, etc. Such binary thinking does not consider the range of positions in the spectrum of possibilities between the two extremes, as in a mixed economy.

The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix “di” in “dilemma” means “two”. When a list of more than two choices are offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

When a person really does have only two choices, as in the classic short story The Lady, or the Tiger?, then they are often said to be “on the horns of a dilemma”.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (”If you are not with us, you are against us.”) But the fallacy can arise simply by accidental omission—possibly through a form of wishful thinking or ignorance—rather than by deliberate deception (”I thought we were friends, but all my friends were at my apartment last night and you weren’t there.”)

When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.

Besides cost and morality, a THIRD “relevant question” would involve time. Even with Defense Department as large as it was during WWII, we could not engage them all simultaneously. Even with an unlimited budget, we would need to expand our armed forces by millions – which would take quite a while.

If a conflict as small as Vietnam required over 500,000 soldiers, China (which had extensive human rights violations through the 1980’s when Saddam was gassing Kurds) would require many more. This would require a lot of time to train and equip even without cost constraints. And since China has many more potential soldiers than we do, they could easily expand to an overwhelming size in the same period of time.

Your proposal is unattainable because the United States could not unilaterally invade and defeat China in a conventional war. In a nuclear war, we all lose. It is foolish to enter a war you cannot win.

BTW: “Hypocrisy” is pretending to hold some principles. What principle do you contend that I pretend to support? “Human rights” itself, or unilateral invasions to protect human rights?

While I support human rights, I do NOT support the unilateral invasion of countries to protect human rights. Please do not jump to that false conclusion, then attack that counterfeit position, because it would misrepresent my principles. My position is that no country has the moral authority to make such a unilateral decision. Such invasions would undoubtedly violate the most basic human right: life itself. The cure may be worse than the disease.

Thus, by definition, no hypocrisy exists because I never pretended to support the principle of unilateral invasion to protect human rights. (Unless, of course, it is a different principle that you accuse me of pretending to support. If so, please advise. Thanks!)

May 24, 2009 - 1:50 pm 123. Kaleokualoha:

BTW: You will probably find little absolute support for principles. Most support is limited and conditional. Few support unrestricted free speech, which would permit libel and incitement to riot. Few support the absolute right to bear arms, because society does not want civilians walking around with automatic weapons. Life is conditional.

Richard N. Haass, who is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, and who served both Bush administrations, recently wrote a book entitled “War of Necessity, War of Choice – A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars.” It exemplifies the issue of going to war over principle. The first Gulf War was a “war of necessity,” while the invasion of Iraq was just a war of choice promoted using false pretenses. The actual conditions justified the first war but not the second, so actual conditions were misrepresented to gain support for the second war.

And thus, we have closed the loop returning to misrepresentation.

May 24, 2009 - 7:08 pm 124. naftali:

#122 & 123 K—

You can fill up ten web pages with your words, but it’s not going to change the fact that you really don’t support human rights. You fail to understand that there is a reality that exists outside of your logical blackboard. For every moment of your moral hesitation people are killed and maimed.

So this human rights problem isn’t quite so abstract.

It is exactly the kind of equivocation that you do so well that has historically led to some of the greatest tragedies in human history. You might want to take some time off from your favorite blackboard and go to one that is completely blank and figure out some kind morality.

Or else just back out of any kind of discussions about human rights, because you are not helping.

And just so we’re clear, we never were talking about an issue of misrepresentation. We are talking about preventing genocides. That is what the article and the comments have been about. You’ve completely missed the point.

May 24, 2009 - 11:29 pm 125. Kaleokualoha:

Naftali: You fail to understand that there are degrees of support for most things; they are not an “either/or” situation for any logical person. Once a child’s brain develops, it evolves beyond binary thinking.

My entry into this discussion (#63) responded to misrepresentation regarding Frank Marshall Davis by Johngaltrules (#49) and continued addressing such misrepresentation by ReConUSMC (#65).

May 25, 2009 - 11:19 am 126. naftali:

#125 K–

Well when matters of life and death become a matter of degrees I guess on that issue I’ll do what I usually do. But I see that you’re still attached to the blackboard and not fully attached to real life.

Did you really need for me to point out that when someone is trying to kill someone else, that victim will be either alive or dead? That is ultimately what human rights are about, murder. Seriously, that didn’t occur to you? Do you really think it’s about free speech only?

May 25, 2009 - 12:33 pm 127. Kaleokualoha:

No. It’s about the lengths you would go to protect them. I believe you would go to greater lengths to protect a member of your family than you would to protect a stranger, right?

May 25, 2009 - 2:01 pm 128. Kaleokualoha:

You will probably find that even the most notable human rights champions, from Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. King to Nelson Mandela and others, devoted more energy to local victims than to foreign victims. This affinity effect usually compels people to care more about their own group than about other groups when setting priorities.

Although they may profess equal concern for everyone’s human rights in the abstract, in practical terms it is unrealistic. Thus, the murder of a neighbor or the massacre of ten people in a neighboring state may be more horrifying than the massacre of ten thousand people in Africa. People respond on an emotional rather than a rational level.

May 25, 2009 - 3:11 pm 129. Kaleokualoha:

North Korea’s (DPRK) recent nuclear test provides another opportunity to test your principles. Because the starvation and various other atrocities of the DPRK may exceed Saddam’s violations since the Gulf War, and because the DPRK actually has WMDs in contrast to Saddam’s imaginary ones, would you support a unilateral U.S. invasion of North Korea today?

May 25, 2009 - 4:08 pm 130. Kaleokualoha:

Another consideration in “protecting the human rights” of North Koreans: As an example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, any attack against the DPRK would likely result in the immediate barrage of Seoul, South Korea, from 500 heavy artillery pieces within range just across the Demilitarized Zone (see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027-1.htm).

Even if the North limited its attack to conventional munitions, hundreds of thousands of Seoul residents may be killed. How about THEIR human rights?

May 25, 2009 - 9:02 pm 131. naftali:

#129 K–

Yes.

May 25, 2009 - 11:03 pm 132. Naftali:

#130 K–

They posted 130 after I wrote 131.

What’s your point? That’s why North Korea is evil. They put the rest of us in a situation where no matter what, lots of people will be getting killed or tortured. So the best strategy is to stop the people who are putting all of these other people at risk. That’s what WWII was about. If we didn’t fight it, do really think Hitler would have run out of people to kill and torture, would have just retired to a spa in the alps to play gin rummy all day? Really?

Now if you want to start discussing different ways to stop Kim tomorrow, assassination, whatever, at least you are in the ballpark. But you’re wrong to think you leave him alone. That means you really don’t care about what he is actually doing now, but you are pretending to care about what he might do.

I suspect you think you are making a logical argument to do nothing. Instead you are describing the double bind in which Kim puts the rest of humanity.

May 26, 2009 - 1:11 am 133. Kaleokualoha:

“I suspect you think you are making a logical argument to do nothing. Instead you are describing the double bind in which Kim puts the rest of humanity.”

The United States does not have the right or power to be the world’s policeman. My point is that the best way to deal with such characters is the way we ARE dealing with North Korea: a multilateral diplomatic approach, with the threat of multilateral military force. It worked with Libya and the Soviet sphere of influence, where human rights violations are now only a fraction of previous levels (it will never be zero).

Killing Kim may not help. It is only when the ruling regime is exhausted, like it was in East Germany and the rest of the Soviet Bloc, that they will relinquish their dictatorial hold. Even Asian “communist” countries have loosened their police state tactics.

Only a couple of holdouts left – Cuba and the DPRK – and Cuba is folding. These holdouts endured beyond the Soviet demise because of their cult of personality. Invading the DPRK would probably kill thousands of times more people than waiting them out. You cannot destroy a village or a country to save it. Time is on our side, said the tortoise to the hare.

BTW: WWII was about foreign aggression of the Axis powers. If they had stuck to killing their own citizens, the Allies would probably not have fought them.

May 26, 2009 - 9:24 am 134. Kaleokualoha:

North Korean human rights abuses pale in comparison to those in Africa. There is no multilateral mechanism for dealing with genocide on the scale of Hutu genocide in Rwanda, where 500,000 Tutsis were massacred, much less the possibility of effective unilateral American action.

Although you may reject their approach as ineffective, I strongly support the work of Amnesty International as an objective leader in human rights initiatives.

May 26, 2009 - 1:20 pm 135. naftali:

#133 & 134 K–

Okay, so what you’re saying is that the problem is so bad that you can’t think of an effective way to deal with it. Dude, that’s why it’s evil. There isn’t a good option, a clean option, an option that is morally optimal. That’s the point. You are saying that if Germany just killed its own citizens no one would have fought them. Is that a point for you or for me?

What side are you even on right now? I can’t tell anymore. Who are you supporting, Kim, the Hutus? You seem to support ineffective means that let them continue. Are you a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Because to me, AI is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

These are folks who prefer their logical blackboard and don’t want to get their minds dirtied up with the very real mud of the very real world. In the meantime, so many lives are lost and ruined. Buy you can’t be bothered by that. Your rationale, no one else seems to be bothered by that.

A blackboard is not a backbone.

May 26, 2009 - 2:07 pm 136. Kaleokualoha:

NAFTALI WROTE: Is that a point for you or for me?

RESPONSE: Points? Sorry, I didn’t think we were keeping score.

NAFTALI WROTE: What side are you even on right now?

RESPONSE: I am “on the side” of VIABLE strategies when dealing with human right violations. Some approaches work; some do not. Some, such as unilateral invasions under false pretenses, are a waste of time, resources, and moral authority.

BTW: I “dirtied my hands” during 24 years in the Air Force. Any you?

May 26, 2009 - 4:04 pm 137. Kaleokualoha:

CORRECTED COPY:
BTW: I “dirtied my hands” during 24 years in the Air Force. And you?

May 26, 2009 - 6:38 pm 138. naftali:

#136 K–

I’m willing to take a stand instead of playing language games. All of a sudden you don’t know what a point is in an argument? We obviously disagree, so does your important fact buttress your side or mine? How convenient that you forgot that.

So I’m asking what viable strategy is there to stop these killing and maimings? If you say that there aren’t any, that’s an honest answer.

They didn’t give you a watch in the Air Force? They didn’t teach you that time is important, that wasting time can cost lives? You know, you’re making it really difficult for me to believe you were actually in the Air Force. Because if a certain Commander-in Chief asked the top General of the Air Force for a plan to stop Kim, and he wanted that plan in one week–there would be a plan on the President’s desk in one week.

What do you think that General’s plan would be?

May 26, 2009 - 8:44 pm 139. Kaleokualoha:

The plan would be to go EXACTLY as we are now. Diplomacy is the ONLY viable (i.e. workable) strategy. Anything else would be a fool’s mission: tilting at windmills.

May 27, 2009 - 12:08 am 140. naftali:

#139 K–

So you’re saying that there is no way to stop it, and to rely on Amnesty International? And you’re comfortable with this?

May 27, 2009 - 2:24 am 141. Kaleokualoha:

I’m not saying that we should rely on Amnesty International to deal with the DPRK military threat, only the DPRK human right situation. Don’t get it twisted.

The primary function of the Department of Defense (DoD) is to protect America from foreign military threats, which are any foreign entities with the capability and intent of taking hostile military action against the United States. A secondary DoD function is to protect our allies from military threats, in accordance with treaty obligations. Although humanitarian missions are NOT routine DoD missions, they may be assigned as resources permit.

Other United States Government (USG) agencies seek to reduce foreign military threats. The State Department and Central Intelligence Agency may seek to reduce foreign hostile intent. The CIA, supported by the DoD, may seek to reduce foreign hostile capability. The State Department also seeks to reduce foreign human rights violations, but this is not the primary mission of any USG agency.

Foreign military threats against the United States are normally considered “strategic threats,” while military threats against our allies are normally considered “regional threats.” A DPRK threat will be no more than a regional threat until the DPRK attains the capability of attacking the United States. As a regional threat, South Korea and Japan are the probably targets of the DPRK. Thus, any American response to the DPRK threat will be in consultation with our regional allies and other interested parties. As such, our current response to the DPRK is multilateral coordination with South Korea, Japan, China and Russia.

We must NEVER take unilateral action against the DPRK unless the DPRK becomes a strategic threat to the United States. Although the DPRK may now have the world’s most abysmal human rights record, we cannot conflate humanitarian missions with military missions.

An accurate assessment of military threats is essential to planning appropriate responses. Iraq was never a strategic threat to the United States, so the Bush administration worked hard to misrepresent it as a strategic threat. The DPRK is not a strategic threat to the U.S., so we must be ever vigilant against attempts to misrepresent it as well.

May 27, 2009 - 11:55 am 142. Naftali:

#141 K–

So you’re either saying that there is nothing we can do or you’re saying there is nothing we should do, because the fact that people are being starved and killed and tortured just isn’t enough reason for you to spring into action? And you’re comfortable with this position?

May 27, 2009 - 2:33 pm 143. Kaleokualoha:

My, my, my! You sure jump to conclusions easily. I never posted that there’s “nothing” we could or should do about North Korea. We could and should continue to seek diplomatic solutions.

There is no lawful MILITARY action that we “should” take about the DPRK’s human rights situation. Any military action that we “could” do would only worsen the Korean human rights situation.

Although I am uncomfortable with the human rights situation in many countries, I am comfortable with the position that diplomatic approaches are best. Our military forces are not chartered or funded to solve human rights abuses. We can hardly afford the cost of domestic priorities, much less conducting a unilateral human rights crusade.

May 27, 2009 - 6:01 pm 144. Naftali:

#143 K–

Is the language getting complicated. How do you get from me asking you questions to me jumping to conclusions?

And you clarified your position. Good. Now, can you give me any instance in human history where a country committing the worst kind of human rights abuses changed their policies because of negotiations and diplomacy?

May 27, 2009 - 6:22 pm 145. Kaleokualoha:

YOU WROTE “How do you get from me asking you questions to me jumping to conclusions?”

RESPONSE: This is jumping to conclusions: “So you’re either saying that there is nothing we can do or you’re saying there is nothing we should do, because the fact that people are being starved and killed and tortured just isn’t enough reason for you to spring into action?”

In reality, I was NEITHER saying that “there is nothing we can do” NOR was I saying that “there is nothing we should do” because of anything. I was not saying either of those options. To assume I was saying either of those is jumping to conclusions.

Both the Soviet Union and the PRC are instances “in human history where a country committing the worst kind of human rights abuses changed their policies because of negotiations and diplomacy.” They reformed from ruthlessly communist police states into comparatively benign market economies. I believe it’s called “moral suasion.”

May 27, 2009 - 10:44 pm 146. Naftali:

You’re kidding right? They haven’t changed their human rights policies in the least. They’ve changed to more of a market economy–and they only did that because their administered economies didn’t work, or because the leaders love of money overcame their socialist sentiments.

I suppose your idea of me jumping to conclusions is the same as my idea of getting to the essence of what you’re saying. You see, right now, during our little exchange, thousands of people have died at the hands of Kim, and I don’t know if the Hutus have anyone left to kill. No one did a thing or is doing anything to stop this. You included.

The problem now is that you’ve figured out another way to prolong the conclusions that anyone reading this exchange has drawn, that you don’t care a whip about the people you claim to care about.

And now you’ve got another 35 pages of nonsense to go on about, whether the Soviet Union and China are different, whether these two countries are now leaders in benevolence to their own people.

And if it weren’t for this conjured argument the answer to my question would have been–diplomacy has never changed the human rights policies of abusive regimes, never in the history of mankind. The only thing that has worked has been violence–someone killed the leaders, some other country conquered the evil madmen, or those evil leaders killed themselves. That’s it. That’s the real world. Deal with it.

May 28, 2009 - 2:26 am 147. Kaleokualoha:

If you believe the human rights policies of Russia and the PRC have not improved, obviously you do not know the history of Stalinist Russia and Maoist China, including the “Cultural Revolution.” Recommend you read your history books.

May 28, 2009 - 11:35 am 148. naftali:

#147 K–

Oh, now we want to parse the definitions of change, improve, and qualitative change? How wonderfully rhetorical of you. 100 more people have died–at the hands of the ex-KGB and whatever the police in China are called. As if I really need to know their name. Your record of speaking out against human rights abuses builds every time you make an entry. Caring soul that you are.

May 28, 2009 - 4:01 pm 149. Kaleokualoha:

Millions died because of Stalin and Mao.

May 28, 2009 - 8:59 pm 150. Naftali:

#149 K–

That figure is closer to 100 million, or more if you follow the historical thread through the Russian colonies (that they called allies) and Vietnam and Cambodia and N Korea. Now I could be wrong, but I think that after WWII Patton wanted to take out Stalin(ism), and I am also pretty certain that nearabouts 1950 MacArthur wanted to take out Mao. Do you think that if history went with these Generals maybe 50 million lives could have been saved? Or, perhaps we use the same kind of thinking that lead to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, how many lives were saved, not how many died? I will grant you that this isn’t in any way pleasant and to a certain extent it’s gruesome, but that would have been the only way to save so many people. Again, that’s why evil is evil. It’s a double bind, no way out, there will be death if you fight it, there will be more death if you leave it alone. I am truly sorry that this is the way of the world.

May 29, 2009 - 12:04 am 151. Kaleokualoha:

In Hiroshima & Nagasaki, we had the legal right and moral authority to bomb Japan. We did not have the right to “take out” the Soviet or PRC governments, no matter how evil we believed them to be. Unlike Dirty Harry, civilized nations do not ignore the Rule of Law regardless of the anticipated benefits.

The only way to have “taken out” Stalin would have been by continuing the march east into the Soviet Union, which would have been betraying an ally. Do you think OUR allies would have supported such a move?

The only way to have “taken out” Mao would have been through nuclear bombardment, because we cannot defeat the Chinese through conventional forces. Of all human rights issues, mass murder is the most egregious violation.

May 29, 2009 - 4:44 pm 152. Naftali:

Once again, you are using logic to allow mass murder to continue unabated. Mass murder is what was already happening in the Soviet Union and China, and those following in their footsteps.

Once again you ignore that reality.

You seem to understand all kinds of rhetorical concepts, to an extent. But the human concepts, you seem clueless. Do you know what a double-bind is? Can you see how this is evil? Do you know what evil is, outside of a legalistic definition?

If you had a gun, make this a hypothetical gun that can shoot at a target half-way around the world and not miss, and you could pull the trigger and kill Mao or Stalin, do you pull the trigger? You have no legal authority to do so. But would you pull the trigger?

Do you have the moral authority, and if so, what gives you the moral authority?

May 29, 2009 - 9:24 pm 153. Kaleokualoha:

What is YOUR definition of “evil”?

May 30, 2009 - 8:25 pm 154. Naftali:

First, you didn’t answer my question.

Second, my definition–well, let’s start with the first layer of description, which should fit this particular situation precisely. Evil is a double-bind where all outcomes lead to the death of many. The person who creates that double-bind is evil. Genocidal madmen usually create such double-binds. Since they are mad, reason cannot reach them. If reason could reach them, then it wouldn’t be a double-bind.

Your turn, do you pull the trigger? Or do you avoid the question again? Stay tuned.

May 31, 2009 - 11:51 am 155. Kaleokualoha:

No. Without legal authority, thou shalt not kill.

May 31, 2009 - 8:25 pm 156. Naftali:

#155 K–

You’re giving me Biblical passages? You’re out of your league here. First of all, you misunderstood, mistranslated the passage. Second, you’ve have the wrong meaning of the passage. The phrase to which you are referring is more accurately, or I should say, accurately translated as Thou (You) shall not murder. There is lengthy discussion about the differences in meanings between killing and murdering. Murdering is an unprovoked taking of a life, killing can be done to defend or save lives. Since there is no doubt that by pulling the trigger you would be saving lives, under Biblical law, you are obligated to pull the trigger. That is the actual concept, definitions, and procedures. If someone is coming to kill you, you are obligated to find them first and kill them. There is also lengthy definitions and discussions that allows us to delineate between accidentally causing a death and deliberately doing so, along with different punishments.

Now, I’m not sure whether you truly wish to use a Biblical concept, but if you do, the concept is as I have just summarized, and would in no way stop you from pulling the trigger. If you are truly interested in doing what is rights in heaven’s eyes, heaven is looking at things in a very complex way. And personally, were I to use a Biblical justification (and I might), I’d try to make sure I was accurate. You know how crazy people can get when it comes to religion.

It sounds as if you don’t really care about the 100 million-200 million victims of Mao, Stalin, Kim, Pol Pot, but you’re concerned about saving your petard in some type of twisted moral logic. Personally, I’d save the people.

If you don’t want to reconsider your actions, at least get the concept correct–after all, you entered this thread on the ethical concept of accuracy.

Jun 1, 2009 - 8:50 am 157. Kaleokualoha:

No single person has the right to be the judge, jury and executioner of anyone. Sorry. That’s basic rule of civilization.

Jun 1, 2009 - 4:00 pm 158. Kaleokualoha:

Private party assassination is always illegal. Extrajudicial killing to defend or protect lives is lawful only as a last resort under imminent danger.

Jun 1, 2009 - 7:55 pm 159. Naftali:

Like I said, you’re perfectly fine letting 100 million people die. Talk about inflexible ethics, dude.

You don’t have an ethical principle that covers 100 million people dying? And I’m supposed to take your ethics seriously? Since we are talking about past events, I think it’s safe to say that those 100 million murdered people were in imminent danger.

It’s kind of ridiculous to talk about imminent danger in the past tense, don’t you think? You probably need a concept to cover the situation before the people are murdered. You work on that and get back to me.

Jun 1, 2009 - 8:42 pm 160. Naftali:

I think my last response to you was deleted, and I’m not sure why. But I’ll try again. Your idea of seeing imminent danger is by using hindsight. Unfortunately with hindsight, the people still die and you save no one.

It’s safe to say that the 100 million and more victims of Stalin, Mao, Kim, Saddam, Pol Pot were in imminent danger. I give you a hypothetical way to stop those murders, and you don’t even take that option.

I suggest you find a way to save people rather than finding ways to lament their passing. That is actually the basic rule of civilization.

Jun 2, 2009 - 2:52 am 161. Kaleokualoha:

Unfortunately, we have no time machine that enables us to know the outcome of specific conditions in advance. Even with a time machine, however, the Law of Unintended Consequences has a way of biting us in the butts. The result of assassination may be worse than inaction. At any given point, you cannot really know the outcome of the current timeline, which is why the “imminent danger” standard is reasonable.

BTW: “Imminent danger” means an obvious danger right now, not a risk weeks or years in the future. The Captain of the hijacked ship off Somalia was in imminent danger, because armed pirates were holding him.

Jun 2, 2009 - 1:51 pm 162. Kaleokualoha:

Any desire to revise history through assassination has some interesting implications. Would you also kill Alexander the Great, the Caesars, or Christopher Columbus, each of whom was responsible for mass murder? Many historical leaders were guilty of such crimes. How about the Pope who authorized torture of heretics? Where do you draw the line?

Jun 2, 2009 - 6:04 pm 163. naftali:

#161 & 162 K–

You have a point. No way to draw the line. I guess you just have to let all those victims of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, Kim, and Mugabe all die. What’s it to me? Right, guy? Who cares?

Jun 2, 2009 - 11:14 pm 164. naftali:

One other thing. Since you’ve shown yourself to be a master theologian, and now you’ve revealed your mastery of statistics with the scientific law of unintended consequences–you’re willing to allow the certain death of over 100 million people who were not only killed but brutalized before their death on the possibility, however small, that there would be more damage.

Do you actually know the odds, or are you just blowing some more smoke?

I think I was asking all along, what are your intended consequences and how would you go about bringing that about. You see, the question was about your intentions, not the consequences. You’ve completely missed the point once more.

I’ll just add that the longer you choose to conceal your intentions the more you reveal your intentions. Got that old Stalin blood flowing through your veins, eh? Okay with mass murder are you?

Jun 3, 2009 - 12:58 am 165. Kaleokualoha:

Once you “take out” the low hanging fruit (Hitler, Stalin, etc.), logic dictates that you continue with your campaign through Napoleon and the European colonizers of Africa, Asia, and the New World. Indigenous people would retain control of their territory. There could be no United States of America without murdering Native Americans.

A rational personal always bases his actions on an assessment of potential outcomes. My intention is not to try to change history, because once you start there is no end. History is written in blood. My intent is to help the future. Capiche?

Jun 3, 2009 - 10:58 am 166. Naftali:

Capiche. What about the present? What about in 2003 all of those Iraqis that were presently being killed and tortured and starved by Saddam, or all of those North Koreans presently being starved and tortured and killed by Kim? Or all of those presently being killed by the Hutus? Do they matter? Got any good ideas on saving them, good being defined as what will work. Unless you have a time machine, there’s nothing you can do about the future either. Life is lived in the present and you do your best.

Since we’ve established that diplomacy has never changed the behavior of genocidal madmen, ever in the history of the world, then it’s your turn to come up with another idea, or at least another intention on how to help those being killed, massacred, today. If you actually care.

Jun 3, 2009 - 3:04 pm 167. Kaleokualoha:

You have not been paying attention. “We have established” no such thing, unless “we” consists of you and the mouse in your pockiet.

Economic and political pressure from the free world changed Soviet Russia and China into market economies with much freer human rights policies. This is the ONLY legitimate unilateral action against foreign human rights abusers. Military force is only legitimate in multilateral actions against abusers, such as Kosovo. Shall I say it a third time for you to get my point?

Jun 3, 2009 - 5:18 pm 168. Naftali:

Then we’re done, because I still think that Russia and China are oppressive from a human rights perspective. And the actions against Kosovo was unilateral, not even a corrupt UN resolution backing the action. And how, pray tell, do you distinguish Kosovo from N. Korea?

Jun 3, 2009 - 7:40 pm 169. Kaleokualoha:

Yes, we are done because you need to go back to school. Kosovo was a multilateral action of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), not a unilateral action. See http://www.nato.int/kosovo/history.htm for more information. Even the US participation in the Korean War was a multilateral action under the United Nations.

Virtually every country has some human rights violations, including the United States of America. See http://www.amnesty.org/ for more information.

Jun 3, 2009 - 10:01 pm 170. naftali:

Yep, you’re right about Kosovo. Violence was used to stop Milosovic. I was talking about N. Korea today, I know the that the Korean War was multilateral.

But since you can’t seem to distinguish between countries whose standard MO is to violate human rights and countries where some things are wrong, then it all boils down your solipsistic ethics–where wrong is whatever you say it is, not history, not others, not philosophers or theologians, it’s all about you and whether you’re in the mood to care about certain people on any given day, which is also arbitrary.

I mean if you can justify modern Russia and China as paragons of human rights–or flip aside their abuses as ‘everyone does it’, then why get involved at all. You need a hobby like knitting. Ethics and international relations aren’t your strong suit. The idea is to learn to make moral and ethical distinctions, not continue to mix paints together to get this dull shade of gray.

Jun 4, 2009 - 10:19 am 171. Kaleokualoha:

Who justified “modern Russia and China as paragons of human rights”? That would be an exaggeration of my position. If you check the record, I posted they have “much freer human rights policies”; I never claimed they were paragons of human rights. Such misrepresentation is dishonest.

The countries with the least human rights violations, as reflected by Amnesty International, may qualify as “paragons of human rights.” I stand by the objective standards of Amnesty International in evaluating human rights performance. Do you use superior standards? Do you use any standards?

Why get involved at all? Because an objective analysis is like triage of trauma victims: it allows the most efficient allocation of resources. The same amount of effort can help some victims more than others. Some countries, like North Korea, are basket cases. Others are more receptive to traditional carrot-and-stick approaches. You will find that such approaches have been effective in raising human rights behavior around the world.

Jun 4, 2009 - 11:51 am 172. Naftali:

Try to remember, I asked you to name one time where negotiations and diplomacy has reversed human rights violations. You answered Russia and China. And that’s the best you can do?

My point was that reason will not work with genocidal madmen.

And regarding Russia, negotiations had nothing to do with Glasnost. The Afghans use of RPGs was effective in expelling the Russian army. If I recall, this caused a cascade of Soviet satellites to declare independence. In the old days, the Soviet Premier would have sent in the troops, but Gorbachev realized that wasn’t going to work in this instance, and he allowed the satellites to become free. In other words, empires have been historically held together by force, and when the threat of force was removed, the empire usually fell.

I don’t know exactly what happened with China, other than an internal revolution opened the society to the workings of capitalism. If this is the case, then the society was transformed through bloodshed, not negotiations. But you may have a better notion of what happened in that very secretive country.

And I also don’t accept that Amnesty International is at all objective.

Jun 4, 2009 - 7:59 pm 173. Kaleokualoha:

“Diplomacy” is “the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations.” The United States, through negotiations and other relations, demonstrated to Russia and China that loosening the totalitarian grip was in their best interest. They finally got the message. Case closed.

If you feel Amnesty International is not objective, then please answer two questions:

- What bias do you believe Amnesty International has?
- What organization is a more objective critic of human rights than Amnesty International?

Jun 4, 2009 - 8:35 pm 174. naftali:

I believe that if I do a little research on my own I can do a better job than Amnesty International. If I answer your question directly then we’ll never quit this.

I’m sorry, but we can’t proceed until we agree on the facts about Russia and China. Not only did the change in Russia occur because of their in ability to subdue Afghanistan, but also because of the emergence of technology that made it impossible for the government to completely control the flow of information. If you read a certain radical magazine, the back issues from the early 80s, you would discover that Russian society was nearing collapse back then. I don’t know enough about China, but I suspect that they change when their leaders pass away, and a new regime takes over–and some of those leaders felt an influx of capitalism would be a good thing. Simply living in proximity to Japan, S. Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan is more than enough argument to make folks see the prosperity that capitalism generates.

These changes did not occur because of diplomacy, and these changes were not significant enough to qualitatively change the human rights policies of the respective governments.

If we can’t agree on this then there isn’t any point in continuing the discussion. So it’s up to you to prove that Russia and China are human rights examples for the Kim’s and Mugabe’s of the world to follow, and that diplomacy was the major cause of these changes. And even if you can actually prove this, it doesn’t necessarily generalize that diplomacy is effective in every situation. Diplomacy can never work with an insane genocidal madman, they are impervious to reason.

Jun 5, 2009 - 10:53 am 175. Kaleokualoha:

Russia, China, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and other communist societies could have taken the path of North Korea. Instead, they took the path to more freedom. The direction they took is proof of the direction NK could take.

It is the communist system that breeds “genocidal madmen.” If you kill one dictator, the system will produce another. You need to convince the nomenklatura (elite) communist regimes that change is in THEIR best interest. There are, of course, also genocidal madmen in non-communist systems, but they are not as dependent on self-serving ideology. The Hutu-Tutsi atrocities came about from long simmering tribal animosities.

Do I understand you correctly? Is there, or is there not, any current organization that is superior in human rights analysis? Are you saying that you, alone, could do a better job than the entire AI organization? Would that be just you, or would you include the mouse in your pocket?

Jun 5, 2009 - 12:38 pm 176. naftali:

I get that Russia and China took another direction. The question is what prompted this. You say diplomacy, I say that the normal ebb and flow of historical forces caused this and diplomacy played a very minor if not completely inconsequential role. That’s the question on the table.

I’m not even going to discuss Amnesty International until the above discussion is resolved one way or another.

Jun 5, 2009 - 2:30 pm 177. Kaleokualoha:

Obviously there were a number of external forces that prompted China & Russia to open up, ALL of which may be classified as “the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations.” This is the definition of “diplomacy.” How many times do I have to repeat this immutable fact?

Jun 5, 2009 - 3:18 pm 178. Naftali:

If your entire argument is you repeating an ‘immutable fact’ rather than give any details, maybe the fact isn’t so immutable. The war in Afghanistan wasn’t an act of diplomacy, the use of RPGs wasn’t an act of diplomacy, the declaration of independence by Russian satellite wasn’t diplomacy since that is something the Russians consider and act of war, the invention of new information technology, like VCRs and hand held cameras wasn’t an act of diplomacy. And you still haven’t mentioned a single bit of diplomacy that changed China, nor have you mentioned anything about the fact that these are still repressive regimes from a humanitarian standpoint.

So if you don’t have anything to say that is factual or historical regarding any act of diplomacy that mostly didn’t work regarding these countries, then don’t repeat yourself. Stop writing.

Jun 5, 2009 - 7:44 pm 179. Kaleokualoha:

There are numerous books written on the fall of the Soviet empire. I will not do your homework for you. There is no SINGLE act of diplomacy that caused the effect. Diplomacy consists of a SERIES of acts that comprise a diplomatic campaign.

Suffice to say the the 1980’s interaction between Reagan and Gorby (”Tear down this wall,” etc.) were the final chapter in the DIPLOMATIC campaign to reform Russia. That is factual and historical.

The war in Afghanistan followed the Taliban’s refusal to turn over Osama Bin Laden. It had nothing to do with Afghan human rights.

Tell us about your superiority to Amnesty International in human rights analysis, if you maintain this is so.

Jun 5, 2009 - 10:46 pm 180. Naftali:

So now having a discussion is you doing homework for me?

The Reagan speech is given far more weight than it deserves. The war in Afghanistan that I referred to was Russia’s war, which showed Russia’s satellites that the Russian Army was ineffective and spent. That silly speech had no power compared to these powerful historical forces.

My neighbor teaches Russian history at a prestigious university–Russia is Russia is his line, meaning it stays the same no matter what it looks like to the outside world.

The truth is, you can’t even name any piece of diplomacy that was effective regarding Russia and China–and that would certainly shoot down your notion that such tools can be effective presently if they were never effective in the past. Also shot down is your pretension that you care about human rights.

So, if you can’t man up and have this discussion then that’s it. I guess we’ll meet again next Pajamas has an article about the bias of Amnesty International.

Jun 6, 2009 - 10:16 am 181. Kaleokualoha:

Any organization can be said to have a bias, even if it’s less than 1%? If you believe AI is biased, the issues are WHAT bias does AI have? What organization is SUPERIOR to Amnesty International in monitoring and reporting human rights? Are you saying that you, alone, can do a better job than AI?

Remember there are DEGREES of everything, because analysis is not a binary function. People care about human rights and other issues to various degrees. It’s not a “yes/no” issue unless you have a binary brain. Most animals above amoeba are more advanced. This seems difficult for you to comprehend.

Jun 6, 2009 - 12:14 pm 182. Kaleokualoha:

BTW: Reasonable people can agree to disagree on substantive issues WITHOUT misrepresenting other positions. There are no “pieces” of diplomacy. Diplomacy is a process.

Jun 6, 2009 - 12:34 pm 183. Naftali:

1. I’m not talking about Amnesty International.

2. What diplomatic process? And if such a process existed, it didn’t work. Russia and China are still repressive regimes. Care to move the discussion beyond this? That would mean providing proof of some sort, either providing proof that you are correct or proof that I am incorrect.

Jun 6, 2009 - 2:57 pm 184. Kaleokualoha:

“Gorbachev’s attempts at reform as well as summit conferences with United States President Ronald Reagan contributed to the end of the Cold War, ended the political supremacy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.”

- Wikipedia

Jun 6, 2009 - 3:35 pm 185. naftali:

Knitting. Really. Take up knitting. The way to get past myths is by taking a good close look at history. So, if you’re so in love with Wikipedia and it’s easier for you to use than an actual Google search, let’s use Wiki, and we’ll do history properly.

That is, we won’t just look for a quote from Wiki, but we’ll construct a real time line.

Go to Soviet War in Afghanistan, you’ll see that it lasted from 1978 to 1989. The result of this war was that the belief in Soviet military might was shattered. Then look at the History of the Soviet Union. You’ll see a society in social decay, unable to control information, and facing growing rebellion in satellite countries coinciding with the Afghan war. By the time Reagan made his famous speech in 1987, the decay and discontent were well underway. Less than a year after Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, not a year after Reagan’s speech, Russia decided that it could not send troops into every country declaring its independence from the Soviet Union, and the Central Committee found itself checkmated out of existence. Because of this, in the immediate weeks following, 15 regions held democratic elections and separated from the Soviet Union.

Diplomacy had nothing to do with this.

You will find that Wiki has many contradictions, and good old-fashioned history book will be of more help.

I’m not kidding. Knitting seems to be a good starting point to discover where your talents lie.

Jun 6, 2009 - 8:14 pm 186. Kaleokualoha:

You wrote “And I also don’t accept that Amnesty International is at all objective.” Then you wrote “I’m not talking about Amnesty International.” Please reconcile.

Every country could be considered a “repressive regime” by someone or another. Everything is relative. Both Russia and China are LESS repressive than they were during the Cold War. If you agree, that constitutes proof. If you disagree, you are schizophrenic, totally out of touch with reality.

Jun 6, 2009 - 8:27 pm 187. naftali:

I don’t want to argue about Amnesty International until this discussion about diplomacy is ironed out.

So, this discussion is about the effectiveness of diplomacy. My assertion is that it is not effective, and I asked you to give one or two examples of diplomacy’s shining successes. You mentioned Russia and China, and in support of Russia you provided some non-specific quote from Wiki.

I provided detailed summaries, also from Wiki that the changes in Russia did not occur from diplomacy but rather from the forces of history–in Russia’s case, the showing that the Soviet Army, previously a tool of humanitarian repression, was no longer such a force, and thus the collapse of the Soviet Union occurred. The Central Committee decided without diplomacy to allow its satellites to declare independence.

The fact that both Russia and China are more capitalist does not constitute proof of anything regarding the effectiveness of diplomacy, but it does show that capitalism fosters improvement in human rights. We didn’t discuss China, but I would suggest contract talks with Walmart are more effective than any discussion with the US about policy. I would think Walmart would have a better chance of freeing Tibet than any discussions with the US State Department.

Diplomats are like all politicians, they show up for the photo op, and write snipets in Wiki to pretend that they’ve been effective.

Therefore, if diplomacy is by and large a political scam, ineffective, then it is most definitely not a tool that should be used concerning human rights violations in the world, and your belief that it is the only tool is a sham, and your concern for others is also a sham.

That’s where we are. You seem to be losing focus.

Jun 7, 2009 - 5:16 am 188. Kaleokualoha:

Once again you have falsified my position through misrepresentation. I previously pointed out this dishonest behavior on your part, yet you persists. How can anyone hold a rational discussion with you when you lie in this manner?

I never stated that diplomacy is “the only tool.” Multilateral force is another viable tool. The Kosovo action by NATO is a prime example. It is conceivable that your misrepresentation is unintentional, due to problems with reading comprehension. Or it could be intentional, due to intellectual dishonesty, which is more likely.

Once again, you also fail to comprehend that our different positions on the effectiveness of diplomacy cannot be reconciled, especially when you dismiss evidence regarding Reagan’s summit conferences with Gorby. It is akin to arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Your behavior also seems to demonstrate the Nifong Syndrome, in which you ignore conflicting evidence (e.g., summits) to support an untenable position. This is a another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Since this issue cannot be reconciled, I understand your using it to shield your untenable position regarding Amnesty International. Hiding behind that issue is still another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Three strikes, you’re out!

Jun 7, 2009 - 11:55 am 189. Naftali:

Okay, look. You go back and read some of your posts. The fact is that we’ve been writing back and forth for some time, and I’m in no mood to go back over your own drivel every time I post. I have taken no detailed position on Amnesty International, and I’m not going to and I’ve said so over and over. So stop bring up the point, Mr. I’m-So-Freaking-Honest.

Fine, now you like multilateral–what talking? Or multilateral force, wars, killing? I certainly don’t want to misrepresent your incredibly cogent position. Nor do I have to accept all of your evidence as accurate or factual–that’s what we’re debating about.

So if I go to Wiki, to Gorbachev, there is one line in the opening paragraph about Reagan, but the rest of the article is about social deterioration, crime, revolt, Chernobyl, economic stagnation and failure, defeated army–all forces much stronger than diplomacy.

Do you even remember how this discussion start oh paragon of honesty? It started with talking about madmen like Saddam. Now, I have news for you. Our invasion of Iraq was a multilateral action with troops from quite a few countries backed by a UN resolution. But you didn’t like that invasion–so because of that, is it really so wrong of me to assume that it’s the war you don’t like, because the multilateral aspect of Iraq doesn’t seem to phase you. And even if all of those countries were working together based on faulty assumptions, they all agreed on those assumptions.

This whole issue started with the question of how do you deal with genocidal dictators–and you’ve yet to come up with one single effective idea on how to save the lives of 100s of millions of people, or how those people could have been saved.

As far as I can tell there are really only two options, force or talking, and each time, even in hypothetical situations, you’ve chosen talking even though there is no clear evidence that talking has any weight compared with the actual forces that move history.

So I’ll put it to you once more, because you evidently don’t have the attention span to remember your own words, and unless you have a neurological disorder, it’s not my job to remember for both of us.

Here it is once more: name two effective ways to deal with genocidal madmen dictators. Make sure that you use history, because if you idea has never worked before, then it probably won’t work now.

Go ahead.

Jun 7, 2009 - 1:14 pm 190. Naftali:

Oh, just a little bit more. I’m not ignoring the fact that there was a summit. I’m saying that it was comparably ineffective in bringing about the changes in the Soviet Union. You are the one who has ignored the decades of decay and repression held together by the fear of the Soviet Army, and that once that fear vanished, so did the Soviet Union.

And isn’t it funny, but I view your insistence on talking about Amnesty International as your attempts to avoid the issue of the vacuity of your own thoughts. How about that, Genius?

Jun 7, 2009 - 1:20 pm 191. Naftali:

I had two replies written, again I’m not sure if they’ve been deleted, but if so, it’s probably because they sense that the conversation is becoming less and less diplomatic. So if you and I can’t work things through, imagine how entire nations will act.

Practice what you preach.

Jun 7, 2009 - 3:14 pm 192. Kaleokualoha:

The key to settling even the most extreme disputes is identifying any areas of commonality between opponents. Can we agree that diplomacy has had SOME effect on improving Russia’s human rights record, with the point of contention be HOW MUCH effect?

If we can agree to this point, then HOW MUCH may never be reconciled because there are no existing metrics to measure such an effect on an infinitely divisible spectrum. The only alternative is crude descriptors such as “a lot” or “not very much,” etc., which are as useless as trying to measure the degree of socialism in an economy.

Jun 7, 2009 - 3:48 pm 193. Naftali:

Believe it or not, I used to specialize in this type of thing for families. So I understand the process, and I’ve done it successfully in the real world, in very tense situations. That said, here is my analysis of the effect of diplomacy on Russia.

None, no effect. I believe that capitalism is the enzyme that has improved the life of the average Russian. This is now being reversed. The same with China, the more capitalism the more human rights. China’s present internal conflict is reconciling capitalism and Confucianism. They don’t need anyone’s help, nor do they want it. It’s odd, but China is telling the US to adopt a more conservative capitalistic approach to our own economy, not the Republicans. This is weird, but that’s the way it is.

Diplomacy is well and good when you are not dealing with psychopaths. But there is a remarkably high correlation between mass murder and psychopathology. Saddam was a psychopath, as is Kim, as are so many world leaders. Castro, Che, Chavez, all psychopaths. Ahmedinijad, psychopath. Hitler, you know, Stalin, yep. And therein lies the real problem with diplomacy.

The great age of diplomacy was the 19th century–the diplomacy mostly consisted of secret treaties and secret clauses in treaties that basically lined up which armies were going to fight whom, when. So even in this great age, the diplomacy was ultimately about who is going to use military force under what circumstances, not establishing common ground. They just frightened everyone into peace. Ironic, or is this the way of the world? I think it’s the way of the world.

Now, for many years, the world has been trying your approach, and for the most part, failing miserably. The 20th century has been the bloodiest century in the history of mankind, and it got that way through the relentless belief in the power of diplomacy.

So that’s where I’m coming from.

Jun 7, 2009 - 4:54 pm 194. Kaleokualoha:

Do you believe that Reagan’s summits with Gorby were entirely worthless in reforming Russia?

Jun 7, 2009 - 5:50 pm 195. Kaleokualoha:

Another thought: We may be talking about apples and oranges here. Do you consider Gorby, and other Soviet and Chinese leaders since Mao and Stalin to be “genocidal madmen”? Diplomacy was generally more productive with these successors.

Jun 7, 2009 - 8:15 pm 196. Naftali:

Okay, good, you’re asking me questions, so this is dialogue.

To 194, Gorby already decided in 1985 that Russia had to reform. And he knew how it had to reform. That’s the good news. That means that it was possible to talk to the West, to forge economic, cultural, and scientific agreements. The bad news is that you didn’t quite know which new enemies he made by making that decision, nor did you really know how much longer he would live. Russia, to this day, is not kind in political wars. The other bad news is that Russia became completely unstable–so the country itself was in a kind of pathology. They’ve wanted to join the western economy since Gorbachev, and it still hasn’t happened. That is, in the West the Ruble is no different than toilet paper.

Let me check one thing–okay, I was thinking that the Soviets allowing emigration was something, but the Reagan meeting was about nuclear arms, and didn’t go anywhere. Since Gorby, the political civil war has been intense, and Putin is busy restoring the old politburo.

To sum up, I suppose nothing was accomplished with diplomacy unless you’re aware of something. The emigration evidently was part of a general plan to restore population control with a severely weakened central government. That dynamic is a natural force of history.

Regarding 195–No doubt that you can talk to the successors, but you’ll accomplish very little. China wants Obama to be more economically conservative. What are the chances? Do you think Obama will get China to relinquish Tibet? Will it even come up? Hillary went to China and literally said that the US is going to overlook human rights issues because economic issues were so important. So once again, diplomacy fails in the area of human rights.

Diplomats have the personalities of movie stars, but are just so darned unattractive that they tend to crave power for power’s sake. Sad really.

Jun 7, 2009 - 9:49 pm 197. Naftali:

I actually wrote replies to 194 and 195, but they’re not getting posted. I think we’re pretty far down the ladder, so maybe it’s best we stop the conversation. Let me end it like this. Diplomacy is done by diplomats. I don’t have a very high opinion of diplomats. Historically, they tend to be quite corrupt.

Jun 8, 2009 - 3:03 am 198. Naftali:

I don’t want to leave you hanging. If not diplomacy, then what? I keep mentioning the forces of history. I suggest you pay attention to some of these forces, and put your effort with them, sail with the wind at your back, so to speak.

I understand that you prefer peaceful means to violent ones. I see both as necessary and have no trouble with the latter. But the most peaceful way to bring change is through scientific discovery, and like it or not, a free form of capitalism.

Now, what are the good things about capitalism that is worth getting behind. After all, we know the downside. The very high upside is that solutions to society’s ills can come from so many more directions, there is greater freedom to solve problems with the wisdom we have.

You can argue that capitalism has also caused a lot of problems. True, because of a lack of wisdom. You might say greed. True. And from this we learn that greed destroys wisdom. But those who are wise have room to help, much more so than in any other system.

I suggest you look at the work of James Burke, who shows that the real power to change society comes in the form of one person, not the organized group, through science, literature and philosophy, and this weird kind of fortuity that moves us towards enlightenment. There are plenty of Burke video clips on Youtube.

Jun 8, 2009 - 10:14 am 199. Kaleokualoha:

I shall defer to thy wisdom in such matters, O’ Mighty Naftali!

Jun 8, 2009 - 5:23 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: