Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » I Support President Obama’s Peaceful Outreach in the Middle East

I Support President Obama’s Peaceful Outreach in the Middle East

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

President Obama's peaceful outreach in the Middle East has been received poorly by some bigoted and hate-filled Americans who selectively quote passages from the Quran in an attempt to demonstrate that violence is demanded by the tenets of Islam. Is some of the Quran less than peaceful? Of course.  This is a book written more than a millennium ago. For comparison, let's look at another ancient book.

While the Bible certainly contains passages, especially in the New Testament, that promote compassion and love toward fellow humans, there are a number of quotations from the Old Testament that are fully as dangerous-sounding as anything in the Quran.

Here's a little from Exodus 21, including the "eye for an eye" passage:

“If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Here are a few of the many unfortunate passages that show up in just a quick search for the word "vengeance."

Isaiah 34:8
For the LORD has a day of vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion's cause.

Jeremiah 46:10

But that day belongs to the LORD, the Lord Almighty— a day of vengeance, for vengeance on his foes. The sword will devour till it is satisfied, till it has quenched its thirst with blood. For the Lord, the LORD Almighty, will offer sacrifice in the land of the north by the River Euphrates.

Jeremiah 51:11
"Sharpen the arrows, take up the shields! The LORD has stirred up the kings of the Medes, because his purpose is to destroy Babylon. The LORD will take vengeance, vengeance for his temple."

Ezekiel 25:17
I will carry out great vengeance on them and punish them in my wrath. Then they will know that I am the LORD, when I take vengeance on them.

Nahum 1:2
The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies.

What does this all mean? Certainly not that all Christians and Jews are dangerous and to be shunned. The point is that all ancient books are filled with conflicting messages.

Let us seek peace with all.

Powered by

About Jonathan Lockwood Huie

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    You know, the fact that there are crazy, evil things in the Bible doesn’t actually excuse the fact that there are crazy, evil things in the Quran. The key question is whether people are willing to act on the evil of these books, and in the case of Islam we see the violent, evil message which the Quran contains played out in reality time and time again.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Good point, Dave. The Christians certainly had their share of violent behavior whether towards non-Christians of their own flock. One thinks here, e.g., of the Crusades or the Inquisition. Alas, even “The War of Terror,” it’s arguable, has been sold to us (by some) on analogy with the Crusades (at least some interpret it that way, though I know you’ll disagree). But the point still remains that for the most part, Christianity had gotten over its violent and bloody period, whereas much of militant Islam is still moved by the violent passages of the Koran.

  • Baronius

    Why bother writing an article when you can simply label your opponents hate-filled bigots and be done with it? I can’t argue with anything Huie says, because that’d make me a bigot, so I guess he’s right.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Baronius,

    If I remember correctly, you called it “poisoning the well.” In all fairness, though, the author refers only to SOME as bigots.

    Care to qualify your remark?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Jonathan,

    1. Do me the favor of not quoting my books of wisdom to me.

    2. If you wish to support the Blessed of Hussein in his quest for peace with the Moslems that is fine with me. But let himn offer them his land – and yours.

    3. So, if you wish to donate your land in St. Petersburg FL, or Seattle to an Arab terror state, that is fine with me. But tell your president to keep his damned hands off of MY home. It is not his to give away – and it is not yours either – something I suggest you remain mindful of…. The Land of ISRAEL was gifted to the Children of Israel – and this Child of Israel will stop imperialist thieves like your president – and all of his damned flunkies and all of the soldiers he or his puppets might send. If I have to die defending my home I will.

    Our enemies – aside from the Jewish traitors who worship at the feet of Mammon and kiss your government’s ass – are not the Arabs who plow their fields or who tend their flocks a mile or two from where I live. Our biggest enemies are “well-meaning” meddlers like you. Unless you are willing to grant the Arabs territory where you live, stay out of what is not your business.

  • Baronius

    No, Roger, he doesn’t say that some of those who oppose Obama’s outreach are bigots. He says that Obama’s outreach is opposed by some bigots. Personally, I support Obama’s general Mideast approach, but I refuse to be indirectly complimented by the author’s mean stance.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, either way, you’re not included, it seems. You’ve got some wiggle room, no?

  • http://www.dreamthisday.com Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Obviously there are Islamists who commit despicable acts. My point is that tarring everyone of the Islamic faith is unreasonable and prejudiced. There are criminals within all religious groups and all societies. Unfortunately, we will always require police action internationally, as well as within countries to control crime. That said, generalized intolerance helps nothing.

  • http:// Cindy

    Unfortunately, we will always require police action internationally, as well as within countries to control crime.

    But then who will we get to protect us from the police?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    This statement should stand.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    I Support President Obama’s Peaceful Outreach in the Middle East

    Hey, good for you. Sounds like an interesting article. I wonder what your reasoning is!

    Um.

    Do you have a reason?

    What the fuck did I just read?

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    Wait, I’m not done.

    You didn’t even explain what his “peaceful outreach” is. You said “peaceful outreach” twice and just dropped the subject.

    If your argument was “I’m just talking about people who use holy scripture quotes to make their argument,” then not only were you misleading in your headline and opening paragraph, you didn’t even include any examples.

    This was the thinnest, emptiest article I’ve seen on this site in months.

  • http://www.dreamthisday.com Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    1. The President’s recent speeches in the Middle East have been thoroughly reported, and I assumed, perhaps inappropriately, that readers would have read them.

    2. There was a flurry of hateful response to the President’s trip and speeches. Search “obamanation treason” to see some of the worst, or just “obamanation” to see literally a million more unkind references to our President.

    3. My article is a rebuttal to some of the hateful responses to our American President’s speech.

    4. You’re right that I probably should have included links to the President’s speech in Turkey and to some of the responses to that speech.

  • leighann

    Naskh is an Arabic term that explains the contridictions found in the Quran. Since the Quaran was said to be revealed to Muhammad at different times, the first during his time at Mecca and the latter part during his time in Medina, the circumstances for the Muslims had changed. The first part, during his time in Mecca, was the time when he spoke of being peaceful. During his time in Medina which was after Mecca, he was more powerful and that is when the more violent passages were written in the Quran. Naskh is the principal that when one part of the Quran contradicts the other, the latter overrides the former.

    This is how the more violent of the Muslims can ignore the peaceful parts of the Quran.

    I read this somewhere and checked it out on the internet. From what I read, it seems to be true.

    It is very much like how many think the Bible is, that the New Testament overrides the Old Testament. Although many think this, it is not accurate. Most Christians believe that the New Testament fufills the Old Testament.

    Anyway, just thought I would throw that in there.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Which is interesting, in that whereas the New Testament espouses love and charity as main virtues, the “more mature” rendition of Koran goes in the opposite direction.

  • tamusan

    I would love to keep to my own business. Our tax dollars either go directly to Israel or go in the form of weapons or other aid. Because my country has offered unconditional support to Israel, I am viewed as an enemy of the enemies of Israel. I’d love to say I don’t care or not my problem. I just can’t do that.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    You’re right that I probably should have included links to the President’s speech in Turkey and to some of the responses to that speech.

    John, if you had included links you would have seen his efforts to pacify the Moslem world with my land. If that’s you idea of peace, stay out of where you do no belong.

  • http://www.dreamthisday.com Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    tamusan, Unfortunately, it is a problem that falls on all our shoulders. So much hatred in this world, so little love. I can’t say that I am surprised that my article provoked comments by those who hate all Muslims, but I am surprised that their prejudices have dominated the comments. There is much work to be done in promoting world peace.

    Ruvy, obviously I read President Obams’s speech and the hateful responses it provoked. That was the whole point of my article. World peace is the business of every responsible person in this whole world. None of us are safe as long as hatred and thoughts of vengeance dominate so many hearts.

  • http://www.dreamthisday.com Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    btw- here are
    the links
    I refer to.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “obviously I read President Obams’s speech and the hateful responses it provoked. That was the whole point of my article”

    Holy shit no it wasn’t. You mentioned it in the first sentence then dropped the subject altogether.

  • Baronius

    Matt, you’re missing the point of the article. It’s as follows:

    – Good people don’t generalize and judge people, bad people generalize and judge people. I’m a good person because I don’t generalize or judge. Anyone who disagrees with Obama is bad.

    – It’s bad to criticize religions. Judaism and Christianity are evil.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Jonathan, Matt’s criticism is entirely justified. Blogcritics is an opinions website – hell, your piece is even labelled ‘Opinion’ – so whether it’s been covered by the mainstream media or not is neither here nor there.

    If I see an article entitled ‘I Support President Obama’s Peaceful Outreach in the Middle East’ then I expect to read an opinion as to why you support it, not a perfunctory non sequitur explaining that there are nasty bits in both the Qu’ran and the Bible.

  • http://www.dreamthisday.com Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Dr Dreadful, what a lovely pen name. I do see your point of view, though I think you exaggerate a little. Perhaps a better title would have been, “I am aghast at the hateful responses to our President’s peaceful outreach to the Arab world – and especially aghast at the suggestion that all Muslims are evil because of what is written in the Quran.”

  • http://www.dreamthisday.com Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Matt, please don’t misquote me. No religion is inherently evil. While a few people have done terrible things in the name of each of the religions, most adherents of each religion are generous compassionate people who love their families and support their communities.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “Matt, please don’t misquote me. No religion is inherently evil.”

    Wow.

    All right, officially done here.

  • bliffle

    It’s nice that the president says hopeful things about the middle east conflicts, but I’m pessimistic. For 60 years cynical politicians have been stoking up the flames of hatred against israelis in order to hide their own crookedness and failings administering their own countries. They cynically use Islam to create spurious notions of loyalty.

    I’m sure that some cynical israeli politicians have used similar fear tactics to enrich themselves.

    Reinforcing my pessimism is news that the 30 year old peace negotiated between Israel and Egypt by Carter is starting to fray around the edges. I am given to understand that there are new political parties in Egypt that are just itching to get into the fight and go kill some jews.

    It will get worse before it gets better.

  • Baronius

    Matt, I’m pretty sure that comment #24 was to me.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Brother Sussman- Oh ye of little faith. Just try to get out of your little rightwing shell for a moment and IMAGINE peace.

    What would it be like? I imagine a world peace conference, perhaps hosted by the people of North Korea. We all get together and have a big picnic. Then Kim Jung Il, Mahmoud Ahmedinejihad and President Obama join hands with the rest of the world to sing Kum Bi Ya. Then we all give one another handjobs, and achieve world peace.

    That seems to be the president’s plan, anyway.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Mr Huie sez I can’t say that I am surprised that my article provoked comments by those who hate all Muslims, but I am surprised that their prejudices have dominated the comments.

    Now, you may be a fine fellow whom I would dig hanging out with and like a bunch, but I do HATE dishonest sanctimonious bullshit that willfully defies glaring reality. Lot of Muslims hate US and wish us harm, and are rooting or actively working against US. Relatively few are making any substantial effort to counter that.

    But then you come up clucking your superior little tongue about how we’re full of “hate” if we get a little bit pissy about people who hate us and wish us harm, or about the likes of Iran pursuing nuclear weapons.

    Also, this article is in no substantial way a “rebuttal” to any criticism of the president. You don’t at all make any kind of argument supporting any of his policies or speeches. All you do is say that anyone who doesn’t support this floundering pussy behavior is just a hater – as if that discredited them.

    Sometimes hatred is the answer. Sometimes hate is the correct motivation to a proper response.

    That Marvin Gaye “only love can conquer hate” stuff is obvious bullshit. It wasn’t LOVE that stopped Hirohito and the Nazis, but pure heartless killing, and a couple of merciless nuclear bombs.

  • http://www.picturethehomeless.org/index.php Cindy

    Jonathan was referring to Baronius @21 not Matt when he made the statement:

    “Matt, please don’t misquote me. No religion is inherently evil.”

  • http://www.dreamthisday.com Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Al, I am saddened that you feel that way, and further saddened that your attitude is so common.

    btw- the original quote, with which I completely agree, is,

    Hate is never conquered by hate,
    Hate is only conquered by love.
    – The Buddha

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Al Barger: Then we all give one another handjobs, and achieve world peace.

    Sorry, Al, I can’t resist. Can I sit next to you around the campfire?

    Personally, I like the President’s performance to date. He’s been the ONLY elected official that is willing to put his neck in a noose. Democrats are already so preoccupied with 2010 election fever that they’re paralyzed with fear at making the minutest faux pas. And members of the GOP, well, what’s to say about them? They’re fragmented, divided, confused and preoccupied with making sure some marriage group has the $1.5 Million to run ads talking about the evils of same sex marriage. If that’s the ONLY issue the GOP can come up with, I suggest that Mr. Steele resign and disband it once and for all.

    So, in closing, I like what Obama is doing. At least he can make a decision — even if it ends up the wrong one.

  • Arch Conservative

    “So, in closing, I like what Obama is doing. At least he can make a decision — even if it ends up the wrong one.”

    Bush was hated by so many for doing that very thing and now we’re supposed to adore Obama for it?

    Speaking of handjobs… One has to wonder if Barry’s encore to bowing to the Saudi King will be a handjob for Ahmadinejad when they meet to discuss nuclear weapons.

    As for this [Edited] article… That schtick of citing bible passages and making other feeble attempts to support the assertion that Christianity is somehow equally as dangerous to peaceful citizens of the world as islam when int he worng hands is getting a little, no make that very, tired.

    Not all Muslims are violent, deranged terorirists and not all Chrsitians and Jews are pure innocent souls. Well here’s a big thank you Captian Obvious for bringing that to everyone’s attention for the seventeenth billion time.

    But while you’re busy regurgitating the mundane and the banal there are jihadist lunatics out there who, in the name of islam, are plotting to kill as many innocent civilians, muslims and non-muslims alike who do not share their warped 11th century worldview. They want to take over the world and remake into that twisted perverted ideal. They fly buildings into planes in America, blow up subways in London and trains in Spain, murder Dutch filmmakers whose work they do not like and demand Sharia law in Eurpean nations. But you don’t want to talk about that do you. No you’d rather undermine any serious discussion of this very real global threat by pontificating pap about how great Barry is, how racist is anyone who opposes his ideas and how similiar Christianity and Islam are in every way on planet earth circa April 9, 2009.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Arch, surely even you can see the irony in your comment complaining about people stating the obvious, when you then go on to do the same, only with added rudeness.

    Also, I’m not at all pleased about you deliberately putting personal attacks into comments when you have been here long enough to know we won’t stand for it. Pack it in or you will be going on a permanent holiday from this site….

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Mr Huie- Now this may simply reflect the wickedness in my soul rather than the reality of the love and empathy in your heart, but I don’t believe for a minute that you are really “sad” about my views on anything. I see talk like that, and the obvious point is that the speaker is not emotionally affected by my beliefs, but simply looking to demonstrate their superior advanced empathy – even for evil haters like mean ol’ Al.

    Even if your claimed feelings of “sadness” were genuine, they would still be utterly worthless and irrelevant. That you feel sad or glad or mad doesn’t mean that I’m wrong. Nor will any of your worthless emotions help people being killed and oppressed by the wicked.

    In fact, I strongly suspect that you and other Western liberal peacenik types demonstrate a total LACK of true empathy. You seem to really give not a shit about the people killed or living under the bootheels of Islamist or Arab tyranny, the oppression of women and murder of homosexuals or victims of jihad.

    Nope, none of that nor the tough choices for US in dealing with such things matters. What DOES matter is showing that you have a big heart, and that you’ve risen beyond nationalism (or ethnocentrism or whatever) to see that we’re all the same, and that people everywhere are good, and that I am he, as you are me, and we are all together. Goo, goo, ga-frickin-joob.

    You simply don’t seem to care that all your feel-goodin’ bears no relationship with reality, and that your good feelings come at the expense of making you a useful idiot ultimately helping to empower the worst evil on the planet. Iran might get nukes and cause untold preventable catastrophe, but you’ll feel really good about yourself for having supported peace and opposing the military actions that would have stopped them.

    Whereas I have a heart full of empathy. If it’d help achieve World Peace, I’d go to that big peace conference – and I’d be happy to sit next to Brother Silas. Just don’t sit me next to Kim Jung Il. Yuck! There’s some things I wouldn’t do even for the cause of World Peace.

  • http://www.dreamthisday.com Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    I have no pretensions that I can change the opinion of even a single hard-core conservative, but if I can swing even a single as-yet-undecided mind toward acceptance, understanding, and peace, being subjected to your attacks is worthwhile.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Not to take sides in this argument, I think it would be instructive for both Archies, Mr. Barger and Mr. Conservative, to look at the fierceness of their attack. It’s one thing to disagree with an opposing view, but why such a venom? Are the principles at stake are so diametrically opposed that one must see their opponent as devil incarnate – in a mortal fight between good and evil?

  • Ruvy

    Jonathan,

    Ruvy, obviously I read President Obams’s speech and the hateful responses it provoked. That was the whole point of my article. World peace is the business of every responsible person in this whole world. None of us are safe as long as hatred and thoughts of vengeance dominate so many hearts.

    Save your sanctimonious bullshit for the fools stupid enough to believe you.

    From the link you referred us to, the speech before the Turkish parliament by the “Blessed of Hussein”.

    In the Middle East, we share the goal of a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. Let me be clear: The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis, and people of goodwill around the world. That is a goal that the parties agreed to in the road map and at Annapolis. That is a goal that I will actively pursue as President of the United States.

    What the hell gives any American the right to pursue “peace” by promising someone else OUR land? If the corrupt prick who you call “Mr. President” wants to offer Chicago or Illinois to the Arabs – fine THAT’S YOUR LAND! If he wants to hand over your home in Seattle to the Arabs – that’s fine with me – especially if he does it without your consent. Then we’ll see how serious you really are with all this “world peace” bullshit. But Judea and Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights OUR OUR LAND! Neither you, nor that scumbag you have for a president, has the right to offer OUR land for any peace deals.

    If that corrupt prick wants to use military force to push this shit down our throats – there will be military opposition. And I will fight this personally and die if I have to.

    Let the record speak for itself: The American government has made itself our enemy over a 74 year period of time;
    1. refusing to take in refugees from Europe;
    2. refusing to bomb concentration camps – even after the invasion of Normandy!;
    3. embargoing arms to Mandate Palestine;
    4. embargoing arms to the State of Israel;
    5. forcing the Israeli army to withdraw from el-Arish;
    6. threatening Israel that they would be all alone if they attacked Egypt in 1967;
    7. passing information to the Egyptians as to Israeli tank movements in the Sinai – (the USS Liberty);
    8. setting up a task force to attempt to force Israel back out of the Sinai in 1967 (I know soldiers in the American Army who were part of that task force);
    9. bullying Israel into not attacking first in 1973;
    10. fucking her over with the arms they promised to replace in the Yom Kippur War, (until Defense Sec’ty Schlesinger forced the issue);
    11. forcing Israel to withdraw from el-Quneitra in 1973…. Should I keep on going? I can, you know, reciting betrayal after betrayal after betrayal up until the last week or so.

    With even this partial recital of YOUR country’s record of betrayal with respect to MY country, the politest thing I can tell you is STAY THE HELL OUT OF OUR BUSINESS!

    [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]

    Your country has only done evil to us – and the blunt facts of the matter are that [Personal attack delted by Comments Editor] you are nothing but useful idiots in the hands of those who hate us. Like the Wahhabi scum who have given Islam a bad name and the awful stink of the ‘religion of death’.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    I’m not attacking you. Indeed, I’m nowhere near you to attack you, nor would I if I were there.

    Calling BS on pretentiousness and dishonesty is not an attack, nor am I inserting venom. But I suppose I will cop to not pretending to offer a fake respect for nonsense that is utterly unworthy of respect.

    Roger, I have not described Mr Huie as evil or as the “devil incarnate.” The worst thing I’ve said would be to call him a “useful idiot.” I say that not to be hateful, but to be truthful in an important matter.

    Mr Huie may be a real nice fellow, handing out lollipops and gumdrops to all the good little boys and girls on his street. I don’t doubt that. I’m sure he intends only the very best.

    But of course we know the main thing that good intentions are actually good for. Neville Chamberlain was not evil. But he ended up de facto being an enabler of the Nazis.

    Likewise in the present day, the supposed advocates of peace and understanding like Mr Huie are probably mostly very nice folk. Nonetheless, their contributions to the political discourse largely in the real world amount to running interference for the worst actors in the world – the people whose killing and terrorism will not be stopped or slowed by candy ass talk.

    And YES, the fight with them is in fact a mortal fight between good and evil.

    “I’m sorry. You were saying something about ‘best intentions’?” -Jules Winnfield

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    So you’re motivated, Archie, only by defending America against its enemies? In that case, you’ve got a lot fight on your hands – dishonest corporate behavior, to name but one, which had nearly brought us to our knees. I’m afraid you gonna be fighting for the rest of your life. And it won’t matter, because our way and life style are quickly disappearing. And it won’t be from the Muslim fanatics that we’ll suffer our fate but from within.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    While this sudden compulsion for everyone to call Al Archie has a certain whimsical appeal, I think one Arch on this site is enough…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Two peas in a pod?

  • http://www.dreamthisday.com Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Ruvy, I do agree with you on one point. The United States should stay out of Israel’s business. In my opinion, we should bring all our troops home from the Middle East, and completely end all military support of, and arms sales to, all Middle Eastern countries, including Israel.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Ruvy,

    With all due respect, Israel would be overrun by its enemies and driven to the sea without U.S or anybody else’s intervention. I’m certain you’d fight valiantly to the bitter end, but a bitter end it would be. Is that the kind of future you envisage for the Jewish people. I’m certain there are more workable solutions in sight.

  • Arch Conservative

    “Not to take sides in this argument, I think it would be instructive for both Archies, Mr. Barger and Mr. Conservative, to look at the fierceness of their attack. It’s one thing to disagree with an opposing view, but why such a venom? Are the principles at stake are so diametrically opposed that one must see their opponent as devil incarnate – in a mortal fight between good and evil?”

    I don’t think anyone reading my post could infer that I believe the author of this article is the devil incarnate. Rather, I believe his attitude of stating obvious, trivial things is foolish and counterproductive to real problems where religion is concerned.

    Jonathan is probably a nice guy but what makes him think it’s more important to point that not all muslims are terrorist for the billionth time but does not seem particularly interested in discussing the facts that here in America many muslims are preaching hatred and violence toward all of western civilization.

    Instead the author believes we’re better off using our time to compare passages from the quaran with those from the bible as if that were some unique insight into the differences between modern day islam and christianity.

    Can you imagine what it would be like if we all adopted Jonathan’s attitude? Imagine if those who comprise our counter terrorism and intelligence agencies just decided that “gee most muslims aren’t that bad so I’ll just take the day off…….”

    Where would we be then?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “here in America many muslims are preaching hatred and violence toward all of western civilization.”

    One could argue with this, Arch. Many had come here because they wanted to escape fundamentalism.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    To hell with political correctness — here goes! It is time that the REAL Conservatives take back their moniker and impose a new one on those who claim to be the same. Barry Goldwater was a Conservative. Jerry Falwell was a Zealot. The GOP in 1964 was a Conservative movement. The GOP today is not the “Grand Old Party” because the Zealot’s have turned it into God’s Own Party. If Mitt Romney wants to play the zealot card, he better be ready to discuss his magic underwear.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’ll second that, Kain. If people like the two Als or the two Archies represent the only option available to the American people to those who feel they must reject the Liberals, then we are all going to hell and we deserve it. Will the real conservatives please stand up – like Nalle or Clavos, wherever you are. Even Baronius sounds respectable compared to these clowns, Amazing, though, how they’re silent. Are they fearing they might be smeared by association with the Zealots?

    Correction, Silas: You should have said the Bigots. They are one and the same, ain’t it so?

    Let’s call a fucking spade a spade.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    With all due respect, Israel would be overrun by its enemies and driven to the sea without U.S or anybody else’s intervention.

    Bullshit, Roger.

    There is no reason that Israel need worry about its southwestern frontier. A few good explosives destroying the Aswan High Dam would damn Egypt by loosing the waters of Lake Nasser – and creating flood the country has not seen for centuries. There would be no Egypt – and very likely the floodwaters would wash out most of Gaza as well.

    A nuclear bomb can destroy Damascus, and a few nukes can do in Tehran and Riyadh. There is no reason why those of you who would kill us off as though we were monkeys and pigs do not deserve to be slaughtered – like monkeys and pigs.

    We have the nukes – and the ability to deliver them, Roger. All the bullshit up to now has been about a preventive attack on Iran, one that would not hurt civilians. I’m talking about using our nukes in offensive mode – a first nuclear strike to cripple our enemies before they destroy us.

    If you non-Jews can call for genocide against us – yet again – and a lot of you do, we can practice it against you to OUR benefit. Obviously, you Gentiles have learned absolutely nothing since the death camps were liberated in 1945. You still practice genocide. You still treat each other like animals. You would treat us the same way. The American government is in the process of enslaving you. There is no reason we should not strike you down before you strike us.

    YOU DO NOT DESERVE MERCY.

    Oh, if we loosed our nuclear arsenal, you Americans would certainly strike back – and so would the Russians. But, Roger, unlike you, I believe in G-d. G-d will spare us the worst of your attacks and he will “pour out His wrath upon the nations that know Him not and upon the kingdoms that call not upon His Name; for they have consumed Jacob and laid waste his habitation. He will “pour out His rage upon them and let His fury overtake them” and He will “pursue them in anger and destroy them from under the heavens of the L-rd.”

    If you or the Russians or the Chinese or the North Koreans attack, that is your future.

    Remember, Roger, the Redemption is vengeance against the non-Jew who would murder us. You may have trouble with that concept, but it is one I suggest you take on board very fast.

    Then consider well, and pray.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    And Jonathan, it is about time you learned a little Tana”kh from someone who knows what is being talked about. You evidently don’t.

    The following deal with the Redemption of Israel:

    Isaiah 34:8
    For the LORD has a day of vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion’s cause.

    Jeremiah 46:10
    But that day belongs to the LORD, the Lord Almighty— a day of vengeance, for vengeance on his foes. The sword will devour till it is satisfied, till it has quenched its thirst with blood. For the Lord, the LORD Almighty, will offer sacrifice in the land of the north by the River Euphrates.

    The last line refers to Iran and Russia.

    Ezekiel 25:17
    I will carry out great vengeance on them and punish them in my wrath. Then they will know that I am the LORD, when I take vengeance on them.

    This deals with the destruction of Babylon, predicted long before it occurred.

    Jeremiah 51:11
    “Sharpen the arrows, take up the shields! The LORD has stirred up the kings of the Medes, because his purpose is to destroy Babylon. The LORD will take vengeance, vengeance for his temple.”

    And finally:

    Nahum 1:2
    The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies.

    G-d is not the beaming Santa Claus fools like you appear to believe. He is a G-d of Justice and Vengeance. And there is much you non-Jews owe for your sins against us – and in your utter ignorance of G-d’s laws, against each other.

  • http://www.dreamthisday.com Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    I think comment #49 is pretty good support for my contention that neither side wears a mantle of virtue in the Middle East.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I think comment #49 is pretty good support for my contention that neither side wears a mantle of virtue in the Middle East.

    Virtue? A whore would praise a hymen? I do not talk of virtue; I talk of vengeance! Pay attention to the Arab propaganda against my people; to their daily attacks with rocks, bombs, guns, knives and rockets. Jews reciting a special blessing over the sun were attacked by an Arab mob near Bat ‘Ayin the day before yesterday – and the British foreign minister has the gall to be “concerned” over justice long delayed – the destruction of the house of a terrorist who murdered Jews in Jerusalem. Who the fuck is he to even open his mouth when “his majesty’s government” was instrumental in creating the hell we live with here!??

    As I said in comment 49, you Gentiles have learned absolutely nothing since the death camps were liberated in 1945. You still practice genocide. You still treat each other like animals. You would treat us the same way.

    YOU DESERVE NO MERCY. It bears repeating for self-righteous fools such as yourself. You bring your evil upon yourselves – your blood is upon your own heads!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    That is belligerent talk, Ruvy, Israel against the whole world. You should read out laud sometimes your own words to get the true sense of this mindset. Is this your concept of the Promised Land, that you going to take the whole world with you in order to keep it? Yes, do believe, but not in the God you’re espousing. You seem to have no respect that does not come from you holy books. God, my friend, is much more larger and more magnanimous than you and your prophets have ever imagined. He is the provincial little bully on the block. And if he had started that way, he had certainly gown seeing his “chosen people,” time after time, having forfeited their destiny and keep on disappointing him to no end. He’s a God of love and mercy, not of hatred. And of late, it’s all that seems to be coming our of your mouth. I’m sorry I had to say that, and I don’t mean to offend you, but you should read listen to yourself sometimes. I do wish you well.

    Roger

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Roger,

    You should read out laud loud sometimes your own words to get the true sense of this mindset.

    Every time I post a comment here, if someone from my family is around, I read my comments out loud to them – if for no other reason than to catch the obvious mistakes in my writing. It’s a very effective tool for writing and editing. Try it sometime – even if only your bourbon bottle is listening…. You’ll catch lots of mistakes in your own writing.

    Is what I write belligerent? Yes, it is belligerent. Israel against the world? Yes – that is what prophecy warns will occur, and sure enough, that is what is happening – not because I say it is but because objectively, this is what is occurring. Your country has decided to shitcan Israel openly in an attempt to kiss Persian and Arab ass; our leaders would like to view Russia as a replacement ally – that is what Avigdor Liberman of “Russia Israel is Our Home” is all really all about, hauling in Russian “Israelskis” to run Israel and bring it into Russia’s orbit – but the Russians are supplying Hamas, Iran and HizbAllah. So that rules out the Russians as allies, even if a whole bunch of “Israelskis” would like them as allies. The Chinese are working with the North Koreans, who are supplying Iran and the Arabs with missiles. That rules out the Chinese. Who is left? The fools from the Congo who are fighting a civil war themselves? The Cubans whoring for Canadian dollars and American tourists? The Tongans in the South Pacific, maybe? The Filipinos?

    ISRAEL HAS NO FRIENDS – AND NO ALLIES.

    Now mind you, this is not in response to an Israeli government that waves its nukes in the world’s face and threatens war and destruction; this is in response to an Israeli government that seeks an Arab “peace” partner for serious talks. For years, Israel has talked of peace, begged for peace, sued for peace when it should have fought war – and this is what Israel is getting – the back of everyone’s hand! This is what a beggar and a whore deserves, Roger. I’ve been warning of this day for three years here, and longer before I showed up on Blogcritics.

    ISRAEL HAS NO FRIENDS – NO PARTNERS; ISRAEL IS COUNTED ALONE – SEPARATE FROM MANKIND – JUST AS THE BIBLE SAYS IT WILL BE The objective facts on the ground match Biblical prophecy.

    So, since there is nothing to lose by waving our nukes in the world’s face and creating the stink of death in the enemy’s camp, we might as well do so. If we are wrong and we die, what have we really lost – is dying in a nuclear holocaust worse than being humiliated and persecuted and finally killed by Christians, Moslems and now a whole pack of militant fucking atheists? Better to die in the flames of a nuclear holocaust than suffer eternal humiliation, Roger.

    But I do not believe that will happen. If I did, I would have walked out on the religion long ago as a losing proposition.

    NO.

    It is your country that is losing its wealth – and fast! It is your country that is losing its status – and fast! It is your dollar that will be worth toilet paper by the time 2011 rolls around, Roger. In the meantime, I sit up here in the hills of Samaria enjoying the spring. Thank you for the good wishes.

    Remember my advice; remember my warnings.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Ruvy, are you still ill? Everything you have posted above reads like delirious dreams.

    The selfish and self-satisfied egocentricity in your position, such as the blatant presumption that you speak for Israel, the offensive re-writing of history to suit your own fantasy grievances, or the fact that none of what you propose, whilst possible, is EVER going to happen, just show the dangers of letting people who believe in faith over reason anywhere near the levers of power. Thankfully you are and always will be at quite a remove from those levers.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Ruvy,

    What I am going to say here you may find offensive, but let’s treat it as an intellectual exercise.

    Just consider. If Israel and the Jewish people are alone in the world, there are two and only two possible root causes: they had either brought it upon themselves or it’s an objective fact which has nothing to do with their own doing.

    Let’s consider the first option first. Your whole biblical history stresses the idea of Jewish distinctness – of setting your people apart from the rest of humanity (the Canaanites first, and by extension, all the rest of course – to include all non-Jews, meaning the Gentiles). And that distinction is based on knowledge and relationship with the true God, all other Gods being false. I realize that not all Jews had bought into this tradition (many didn’t) but by and large this is the mindset, and even those who did not subscribe to it suffered by association. Now, we also know how this mindset manifests itself in human behavior – a kind of arrogance and “I am better than you” kind of attitude – why, your own God speaks of its own people as hard-necked. And again, even those who are humble by comparison, they too have suffered by association.

    I understand that the origins of the Jewish people were nomadic; and that one way to read your biblical writings is that they offered a consolation and a promise that would help the people “over the hump” so to speak until they set a place and a country of their own. And it was of great help when the Jews faces hard times (like enslavement in Egypt). So it was of great advantage to the nomads to internalize this philosophy of uniqueness and distinctness, as opposed to the other nomadic peoples (and there were many) who did not have that kind of resource. So in a sense, it was a genius on the part of the Hebrews to have invented such a resource to help them carry on. Well, it became a myth.

    Both of us know, of course, of the internal (stylistic) inconsistencies in the Hebrew scriptures. The German scholarship and careful exegesis have established beyond a doubt there are two version of Genesis, I and II; and the same goes for the writings of Isaiah, I and II (especially the part when Isaiah II speaks of the suffering servant). You’re not a fundamentalist, or are you now? believing in a seven day creation (at least I didn’t get a sense from you’ve been posting here that you are)? So we can agree, can we? that although “a word of God,” much in the scriptures is metaphorical and not literal.

    I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of Harold Bloom, especially “The Book of J.”

    Here is a brief description:

    “Modern biblical critics have called the author of the oldest texts in the Hebrew Bible J, standing for Jahweh. Bloom and translator Rosenberg, authors of many works of literary criticism and of Jewish and biblical studies, have collaborated on a clear but controversial translation and analysis of parts of the Pentateuch using the term Jahweh. Bloom claims that the author of J was a woman, living in or at the time of the Solomonic court, 950-900 B.C.E., who wrote these selections not as a religious or historical treatise but as a literary work that Bloom compares to Shakespeare. While Rosenberg’s translation is both modern and moving, he has made significant changes in the meanings of the Hebrew text. The proofs offered for these theories are no substitute for hard evidence. Nevertheless, The Book of J deserves consideration as a literary work.”

    It’s a must-read. And whether you agree or not, we don’t really know the circumstances under which what was written, by whom, or when. (Heck, even within your Talmudic writings you have rabbinical disagreements.)

    The other option, now: the objective fact. This now would have me believe that the Jewish people were put on this earth as a test case – a litmus test as it were concerning everyone’s salvation. Become a good Jew or perish. And this proposition, you must forgive me, I simply refuse to believe.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    God bless our Brother Ruvy. He’s got the right kind of combination of nice but crazy and potentially violent that is absolutely necessary to survival for Israeli and Jewish survival. Just don’t be trying to kill his people or make excuses for those who are, and he can be perfectly nice.

    Is it any wonder that he talks like Israel has no friends? I think he might ought to historically give US a little more credit than he does, but we haven’t necessarily been nearly as good a friend as we should. And we’re about the best of the lot. A good part of the world, and particularly Israel’s immediate neighbors, would be happy to see Israel extinguished. Sure ain’t anyone else doing anything much to support them.

    Mr Huie can tut, tut about Israel lacking a “mantle of virtue,” but maybe that depends on what your idea of “virtue” is. If your idea of “virtue” is refusing to stand up and smite sonsabitches who are trying to kill you, then your idea of virtue is stupid and worthless. There’s much more virtue in standing up in your own defense than in cowering in fear and moral incertitude.

    Maybe perhaps if he weren’t surrounded by people trying to wipe his people and his country off the map, and a world full of jackasses making excuses for them – well, maybe he wouldn’t be quite so belligerent. You think?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Ruvy, are you still ill? Everything you have posted above reads like delirious dreams.

    Thank you for your kind concern, Chris. Actually, I’m feeling much better then I was. The cough appears nearly gone. When I do cough, the phlegm is light yellow rather than dark brown; I don’t know if I’m recovered. I still feel weak and any real physical effort will exhaust me, but typing on a keyboard is not that much of a physical effort at all.

    So, I was not in a delirium when I typed what I did. I do know my own Tana”kh better than Jonathan Huie ever can. It’s a pleasure to throw my book at someone for a change…. As for everything else, it was typed in a mood of cold calculation, not delirium.

    Anyway, I bid you a pleasant weekend. And thanks again for your kind concern….

    All the best,
    Ruvy

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Belligerence is not a good quality, even in those who can well afford it. It certainly is not in these who can afford it the least. And in those, it’s nothing else but trying to pretend you can back your shit up whereas in fact you cannot. It’s only going to land you on your ass.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Roger, Sabbath approaches so I have to make this kind of quick. A lot of what you write is an updated version of the “Higher Criticism” I had to learn in college four decades ago. Since then archaeological finds have made the entire thesis upon which this criticism is based mincemeat. That does not mean that academics will not hold onto something they can use to spit at G-d with. That is their nature. They will not be distracted from their agenda by mere facts. I will have to get to this later. In the meantime, I commend to you The Riddle of the Exodus, by Jim Long Lightcatcher Productions.

    Sabbath Peace to you,
    Ruvy

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Brother Barger,

    Thank you for the kind words of support. You are one of the few who understands with his gut what I’m talking about. Your understanding is appreciated immensely. And now I must leave you all for 25 hours or so to contemplate the universe G-d gave us, the laws He gave us, and our own appropriate response to it.

    Shabbat Shalom,
    Ruvy

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Same to you. Peace.
    Roger

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Ruvy, you are only half right, you are cold but a long way short of accurate calculating. 2+2 equals anything but 4 in your world.

    Get well soon…

    As to Mr Barger, I’m not sure he understands the world inside his head, let alone the world outside it.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Brother Ruvy- You are more than welcome. I also note that my support is based on you and your country’s merits, not an arbitrary personal sentimentality. Y’all richly DESERVE support.

    Also, though it might not look that way in the media or here around BC sometimes, there are a lot of Americans who would are likewise supportive.

    Finally, it’s pretty obvious at this point that once again Israel is going to have be the bad cop doing the world’s necessary dirty work. So I want to thank you and your countrymen in advance for knocking the Iranians down.

    Besides providing for the necessary defense of your own country, knocking down the Iranian nuclear threat will do far more to increase the peace in the whole Middle East than Obama and his mealy-mouthed apology tours.

  • Cindy

    The Obama administration is continuing to embrace Bush’s illegal state secrets privilege act.

    First Obama supported state secrets in regard to torture, now he’s supporting wire tapping without a warrant.

    I hope Obama people start using their critical thinking skills.

    The only reasonable position to hold in regard to someone who has power over you is a critical one. A patriotic position is not appropriate.

  • Baronius

    Al’s dead-on. Ruvy should respect the US more as Israel’s most consistent ally. But Israel had better stay on its toes, because it’s surrounded by enemies. Not that it matters, really; in the Middle East, an ally is just an enemy who hasn’t thought of a reason to kill you yet. No wonder life there breeds distrust.

    I believe that a lot of what Ruvy says about Israel versus the world will come to pass. However, when the Messiah shows up to lead Israel’s army to victory, a lot of soldiers are going to be surprised at the wounds on His hands and feet. But there’s no reason to believe it’s imminent. World crises and bloodshed in the Holy Land are pretty common historical events.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    The only reasonable position to hold in regard to someone who has power over you is a critical one. A patriotic position is not appropriate.

    Quoted for truth.

    May I suggest e-mailing the above to the White House, all members of Congress and all major media outlets – perhaps accompanied by the phone numbers of a few recommended printing and framing services?

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    I note that I’m less than impressed with Christopher Rose here, and double or triple standards of “personal attacks.” In short, I don’t think the author of comment #55 among others has any business declaring that anything that I for one have written here is any kind of “personal attack” that should be deleted.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    There’s an excellent line, Baronius, from “Elizabeth, the Golden Age.”

    When the queen is warned by her advisors to bear down on the Catholics (about 50% of the population) who were plotting against her and advocating the accession of Mary Stewart, the queen replied, “What would you have me do with them? Put half of English people in jail before they break the law?”

    It’s not that she wasn’t aware of the possible dangers. But this is the money line: “Fear only breeds more fear” (and mutual distrust only breeds more distrust).

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    That’s why they gave me the responsibility, Al, and not you!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Al, I don’t know what it was you wrote that caused Chris to wield the blue pencil, but I did see Ruvy’s screed above yours before it was edited and I concur with Chris’s assessment that the bits which were excised were way over the line.

    As the comments policy says, we know it when we see it and so do you. Which is why there’s nothing wrong with either Chris’s #55 or, for that matter, your #57.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Al,

    The very tenor of all your comments to Huie was an attack against the man. Initially, I wasn’t going to put my two cents in (because I’ve given up on some), but Silas Kain’s comment energized me. You and Archie just attacked the man on the simple ground that he was bringing to our awareness that violence and hatred are not a province that is peculiar to any particular religion but resides in the hearts of all men. So both you and Archie attacked him on the grounds that what he was saying was banal and trivial; and with what venom, is it because he stroke a chord with both of you.

    As far as I am concerned, you need to be reminded of these so-called banal and trivial things, time and again if need be, until you get it.

  • Baronius

    Al, the funny thing is that Christopher hardly ever defends his positions but only attacks those he disagrees with. He doesn’t often cross the border into “pointlessly pejorative”, but he’s reliably close to it. Maybe the idea here is like putting Joe Kennedy in charge of the SEC.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Baronius,

    This has less to do with which positions we hold by how we express our disagreements. He doesn’t need that kind of encouragement.

  • Baronius

    Dread, what part of comment #63 isn’t pointlessly pejorative, other than “get well soon”? Where are the argued points? He says that Ruvy is cold and wrong, and that Al suffers from mental problems and is wrong. There is no reference to their positions.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Chris pointed out the respect in which he disagreed with Ruvy in comments above, so that aspect of #63 was the conclusion. As to Al, I don’t see there any suggestion as to “mental problems.” To a kind of disconnect, maybe. But that’s grounded in the great bulk of the comments that Al writes.

  • Baronius

    Roger, the big difference between us is that I can perceive condescension, and you don’t seem to be able to. The big similarity between us is that we can both come off condescending. The reason I bring this up is that Huie’s article comes off as very smug. I know that’s part of the reason I reacted to it so negatively, and I’m sure that’s true of Al and Arch as well. Since you didn’t detect any condescension in the original article, you had to look for another reason for Arch and Al’s vehemence, and I think it took you a little off track.

    The delicious irony is that this particular comment comes off as condescending. I’m sorry about that.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    No, I don’t see your remark as condescending; and in truth, I haven’t perceived Huie’s article to be such. Since you’re saying there are traces of it there, I’m going to re-read it.

    But do re-read yourself Archie’s and Al’s responses to the article and tell me whether there is no venom there and a kind of senseless attack on the man simply for reminding us what we all ought to know.

  • http://www.dreamthisday.com Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    With regard to #49, I believe that I’m hearing the threat for a suicide bombing the would dwarf 9-11. Is that threat intended to convince Americans that you stand on morally higher ground than your adversaries? The only reason America has supported Israel in the past is because we believed we were defending the moral high ground. America doesn’t take well to being threatened – especially with the threat of a cataclysmic suicide bombing.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Baronius,

    This is only a one-page article, and this is the key passage:

    “President Obama’s peaceful outreach in the Middle East has been received poorly by some bigoted and hate-filled Americans who selectively quote passages from the Quran in an attempt to demonstrate that violence is demanded by the tenets of Islam.”

    Well, I see now the reason for the violent reaction – the use of the term “bigoted” and “hate-filled.”

    My analysis: There’s no question that there are bigoted and narrow-minded people everywhere, Americans included, so Huie wasn’t wrong about the facts of the case. Did he name anyone? Of course not! Well, Mr. Al and Mr. Archie naturally presumed he was addressing them. Why? Because it was ringing the truth and the truth is the hardest thing to face up to. Hence the venomous response.

    As to other aspects of the article, most Americans are not very well versed in Koran, so they do tend to cite those violent passages which tend to reinforce their beliefs as to what the book is and means. So in a way, Huie had done us some great service in pointing out to other passages as well, which are different in tenor (as well as the violent passages from the Scriptures); again, because many nonbelievers may not be very familiar with them.

    So where is the smugness and condescending, I ask.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Baronius, when do I not defend my position? I’m all about dialogue, as you can see in my triple rebuttal of Roger, Pablo and Aetius over on the Irony of History article comments thread.

    Just because I describe, for argument’s sake, Ruvy in a particular way, doesn’t make it a personal attack.

    Ruvy has put forth, yet again, his pet little theories on how to resolve things in the Middle East, none of which do anything other than benefit Israel, or rather his fantasy of what Israel should be, and have no chance of coming to pass in the real world. He also attempts to paint himself as reluctantly coming to that conclusion, that he is being cold and calculating.

    How then can it be a personal attack to respond to issues he has raised, when those issues are based on religiously inspired fantasies and self-aggrandisement, rather than political reality?

    As to Al, I in no way suggested he has mental problems, but rather reasoning ones. In my opinion, which I believe I am entitled to express even in the excessively legalistic USA, just like Ruvy he is trying to argue from a fixed ideological position, albeit a political rather than a religious philosophy. One of the many clear lessons of the last century or so is that excessively rigid attitudes cause problems not solutions.

    Al spent considerable effort pouring scorn on both the ideas and the persona of this article. The fact is both of them have a point. We do have to be strong, and prepared to use that strength if needs be, to protect ourselves in the world.

    On the other hand, we can’t lose sight of the fact of our common humanity and that the rivalry between believers of the three strands of the monotheistic illusion, isn’t going to be stopped by violence, on any scale, alone.

    I think love is a superior power to hate, social or cultural engagement is better than violent conflict. On the other hand, love does work better from a position of strength than weakness.

    Resolving that balance and finding a constructive way forward in global political terms seems far more possible now than it did over the last few years.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Baronius, you can detect condescension even when it isn’t there. Furthermore, even if he was being condescending, that wouldn’t invalidate his points. If anything, it is the author’s critics that have been condescending, attacking the messenger rather than the message, which had some validity.

  • zingzing

    ruvy 2009: “What the hell gives any American the right to pursue “peace” by promising someone else OUR land? ”

    palestine 1947: “What the hell gives any American the right to pursue “peace” by promising someone else OUR land?”

    justin timberlake 2006: “what goes around… comes around.”

  • zingzing

    ruvy: “It’s a pleasure to throw my book at someone for a change…”

    what is going on here? we’ve entered bizarro world! me think he crazy.

    “As for everything else, it was typed in a mood of cold calculation, not delirium.”

    there is always a bit of delirium in what you write, ruvy. by “bit” i mean “shitload.”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, zing. Ruvy can argue that the state of Israel was won from the Brits who then had a mandate. But then again, wasn’t the state ratified and made official by the international community, the UN? But Ruvy conveniently forgets certain facts.

    I wonder whether the state of Israel would have been able to survive to this very day without that ratification.

  • MM

    GOD IS AN EXCUSE.

  • Baronius

    Roger – Reminding us of what we all ought to know is exactly the kind of thing that can come off as smug.

    Christopher – Comment #81 fleshes out your position. Thank you.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I disagree, Baronius. There usually is a disconnect between what we ought to know and how we act. And this point is not moot one. So yes, some people need constant reminders as to what they ought to know. Nothing smug about it, just facts of life. Call is public service.

    Why do the preachers keep on preaching every Sunday – basically the same ole’ message? Because we need to hear it (even though we either know it already or ought to have known).

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    One may preach to a wolf until the cows come home — yet it will still eat the sheep. Those who are at the helm of the Fundamentalist cause are those very wolves. They devour their sheep one by one until they maintain total dominion. And some of them even wear sacred undergarments.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I guess you’re right, Silas.

    I suppose the point I was making (to Baronius) is that what he may look at as condescending may in fact be motivated by moral concern. It’s all in the motive (and the eye of the beholder, of course).

    Personally, I haven’t detected any note of smugness in this article, not in the slightest.

    I like the “sacred undergarments” part – like righteous indignation or a scoundrel’s brand of patriotism.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Baronius, re #88:

    I did not express myself most accurately. I actually agree with your remark as regards the possibility of misunderstanding. (My response dealt rather with reasons why it oughtn’t to be so; with which you may or may not agree, but that’s beside the point, because that wasn’t the point of your remark.)

    So I do apologize for my impetuousness and for not dealing with your apt comment.

    Roger

    (

    I

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Well, the Sabbath has come and gone, and it seems that what I have is not pneumonia at all, but bronchitis – a very bad case that hit on Tuesday morning, peaked on Wednesday and Thursday, and seems to have eased some. But, I’ll be on the bus tomorrow morning to see a doctor anyway.

    Let’s deal with a few of the points raised here, shall we?

    This, from the author of the article:

    With regard to #49, I believe that I’m hearing the threat for a suicide bombing the would dwarf 9-11. Is that threat intended to convince Americans that you stand on morally higher ground than your adversaries? The only reason America has supported Israel in the past is because we believed we were defending the moral high ground. America doesn’t take well to being threatened – especially with the threat of a cataclysmic suicide bombing.

    I hope this venerable gentleman has a good pair of glasses. He needs them, badly. What suicide bombing? What is this man onto? What is he somking? And can he send me some? I gotta have that kind of high! Heck, with his kinds of delusions, when I get a bill for NIS 1,000 from the electric company, I’ll go to the bank thinking that they sent me a check!

    I described no suicide bombing. I described a military strategy for the destruction of much of the Arab world – especially that part hostile to my country. the way I look at it, if the Arabs want to slaughter us like monkeys and pigs, it should be our policy to slaughter them like monkeys and pigs. That was not a threat – that was a description. There is one heck of a difference. Do they have any remedial reading classes in Seattle for this poor man?

    Then there is the part about “higher moral ground”. Mr. Huie, you need to examine your own government’s acts of betrayal of Israel (and Georgia, and Vietnam, and the Dominican Republic, and Chile, and Iraq – and countless others) to see if the moral ground you and your country stands on is even above the bottom of the sea! The United States is the shittiest nation to have as an ally!

    With the Germans, Russians, Chinese, Brits, French and others, you pretty much know where you stand. The Germans, Russians and Chinese are brutal and sadistic bastards, the Brits, French and others are craven bastards and liars. But the American government. They look SOOO nice – and fuck you over SOOO bad.

    Ask any Filipino or Cuban, if you don’t believe me.

    Mr. Huie, you nation’s government – and the corporate bastards who control it – have the raped the planet “just for a Yankee dollar” and have left the biggest, smelliest pile of shit in mankind wherever they have gone. And they have gone all over, from the jungles of Brazil to the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. Once you dig yourselves out from under the huge pile of shit you have left, you may be somewhere near the back of the line of the lowest scummiest bastards on the planet with respect to “moral ground”.

    And you know what the tragic thing is? The tragic thing is that people like you are too stupid and ignorant to even realize any of this! You honestly think your government means to do good for others and attempts to do good for others!

    The last time your government did any good for others in the world was when it helped finance some folks to set up a colony in Africa for freed slaves. That was in the 1840’s or 1850’s or something like that…. Even that didn’t turn out good – but they made the attempt.

  • http://www.dreamthisday.com Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    I believe it’s clear that without the support of the United States, Israel would never have come into existence, and certainly wouldn’t have survived this long.

    Your words, “destruction of much of the Arab world,” are the same kind of sentiment that Al-Qaeda expressed on 9-11. How is the intention to kill tens of millions of Arab women and children, followed by your own inevitable death anything less than a catastrophic suicide bombing?

  • http://www.dreamthisday.com Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Ruvy, please remember in your personal attacks, that I don’t represent the American government any more than you (fortunately) represent the Israeli government.

    If I believed that you actually had your finger on the button to start World War III, which is what you are threatening, I’d be scared out of my mind on behalf of myself and the whole world.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I believe it’s clear that without the support of the United States, Israel would never have come into existence, and certainly wouldn’t have survived this long.

    Jonathan, obviously not only do you not read, you do not pay attention either. So, I do not expect you to comprehend the following paragraphs which deals with international law. But for the other readers here who do.

    First of all, the British were to guard Jewish Sovereignty over the territory known as Mandate Palestine – a territory which extended originally (April 1920) through all of Israel (including Judea, Samaria, Gaza and ALL of Jerusalem), the Bashan (the Golan Heights) and ALL of Jordan. Note this phrasing carefully. At the meeting in San Remo on 24-25 April 1920, the Allied Powers created this territory with the Jewish People as Sovereign over ALL of it. The Resolutions on Palestine that created this entity are the only international documents that dispose with the entire territory in full, and therefore they are the standing international law here. ANY ACTIONS BY AN INTERNATIONAL BODY THAT CONTRADICTS THE TERMS OF THESE RESOLUTIONS WITHOUT THE EXPRESS APPROVAL OF THE POWERS THAT CREATED THEM AND THE PEOPLE GIVEN SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY AND CONTROL OVER THE TERRITORY (THE JEWISH PEOPLE) IS NULL AND VOID. THIS MEANS FIRST AND FOREMOST THE SEPARATION FROM MANDATE PALESTINE OF THE TERRITORY EAST OF THE JORDAN IN 1946, AND SECONDLY, THE ACTIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS TO PARTITION THE REMAINDER OF MANDATE PALESTINE IN 1948.

    So the action of the United Nations to partition Mandate Palestine (GA Resolution 181) was illegal. Temporary acceptance by the representative of the Jewish Sovereign Authority, the Jewish Agency, did not mean that the claim over the entire territory of the Mandate was vacated – particularly because the terms of the UN decision were never really carried out, and the situation that prevailed here in December 1948 was the result of fighting on the ground, rather than the actions of the United Nations or the American “support” of those actions.

    As to the American “support” of Israel, let the record speak for itself: The American government has made itself our enemy over a 74 year period of time;
    1. refusing to take in refugees from Europe;
    2. refusing to bomb concentration camps – even after the invasion of Normandy!;
    3. embargoing arms to Mandate Palestine after World War II;
    4. embargoing arms to the State of Israel;
    5. forcing the Israeli army to withdraw from el-Arish in 1949;
    6. threatening Israel that they would be all alone if they attacked Egypt in 1967;
    7. passing information to the Egyptians as to Israeli tank movements in the Sinai – (the USS Liberty);
    8. setting up a task force to attempt to force Israel back out of the Sinai in 1967 (I know soldiers in the American Army who were part of that task force);
    9. bullying Israel into not attacking first in 1973;
    10. fucking her over with the arms they promised to replace in the Yom Kippur War, (until Defense Sec’ty Schlesinger forced the issue);
    11. forcing Israel to withdraw from el-Quneitra in 1973….I can, continue reciting betrayal after betrayal after betrayal up until the last week or so.

    Let’s add a couple of items to the above list, so you get a fuller picture.

    In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon to get rid of the persistent terror attacks of the PLO. Upon reaching Beirut, UPON THE INTERVENTION OF RONALD REAGAN the IDF allowed terrorist Yasser Arafat to escape to Tunisia – only to bring the kid-fucker back to Israel UNDER THE PRESSURE OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION as the Arab dictator who was to run the “Palestinian Authority” under the “Oslo Accords” in 1993.

    So, in both instances, we had YOUR government allowing a known terrorist and murderer of Americans to escape, and then brought to power where he could – and did – perpetrate terror attacks upon my people.

    Now, let’s get this very clear in you mind – while the United States government did not actually engage in the terrorist actions that Yasser Arafat perpetrated here over many years – YOUR government was the enabler of this son of a bitch – just like the British were the enablers of the Arab murderer Amin el-Husseini.

    History has bitten the British butts good – the Arab dogs they sicked on us here 80 years ago are now biting their butts in Britain, creating no-go zones, gang-rapes and all sorts of lovely stuff, while the British sit and do nothing like castrated tom-cats. That process is repeating itself in Canada, and in your country, and your attitudes of alleged tolerance, promoting “world peace” and other delusions, place you in the role of useful idiot for the Arabs at CAIR who would undermine your way of life, enslave your women and castrate your culture. You will be repaid in full for your willful stupidity, and before you die, you will drink the bitter gall of Arab betrayal. That is not a threat – that is a prediction that is as good as gold.

    And just so we are absolutely clear here, I do not talk about all Moslems. The vast majority of Moslems want peace and prosperity and do not wish to kill anybody. I’m talking about that group that are inspired by the Wahhabi and the Deobandi “sects” – sects whose members are not Moslems at all, but heretics, as they believe that Allah has form. In Islam, this is heresy of the worst sort.

    How is the intention to kill tens of millions of Arab women and children, followed by your own inevitable death anything less than a catastrophic suicide bombing?

    Here your own hypocrisy betrays you. Either you believe in the prophecies of the Bible or you do not. Either they are valid and distinct possibilities of how events will transpire, or they are not. The Comments Editor here, Chris Rose thinks not. And he says so in so many words. But you quote my Tana”kh with the arrogant and condescending assumption that you even understand it; and you highlight a Bible as the book you would “quote”.

    If you pay careful attention to what I recommended as a strategy to murder off a good portion of our Arab enemies, you will see that I have drawn the vast majority of it directly from the Tana”kh. Ezekiel alludes to a terrible flood in Egypt. Other prophets state that Damascus will be a rubble; Tzephania warns that Gaza will be a desolation, Ashkelon and Ashdod will be evacuated in the middle of the day. So, all this is based on my belief in the Prophets. Similarly, while I realize that your nation and Russia (and others) may attack here, it is my belief in the Prophets that sustains me in believing that the Hand of G-d will shield us from your evil. Otherwise, indeed, what I write is a mere prescription for a suicide attack.

    I do not believe in suicide, Jonathan Huie. I am no damned Arab terrorist – I am not some frustrated American Postal Service worker.

    And now, as your Easter approaches, I bid you a pleasant holiday.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    This article by Caroline Glick is a look by another Israeli at the “Blessed of Hussein’s” little trip of contrition to the Arab world. She’s just as nasty as I am – and just as truthful. Some nice money lines (I’m enjoying it as the silver hits the table with its distinctive ring):

    Somewhere between apologizing for American history – both distant and recent; genuflecting before the unelected, bigoted king of Saudi Arabia; announcing that he will slash the US’s nuclear arsenal, scrap much of America’s missile defense programs and emasculate the US Navy; leaving Japan to face North Korea and China alone; telling the Czechs, Poles and their fellow former Soviet colonies, “Don’t worry, be happy,” as he leaves them to Moscow’s tender mercies; humiliating Iraq’s leaders while kowtowing to Iran; preparing for an open confrontation with Israel; and thanking Islam for its great contribution to American history, President Obama made clear to the world’s aggressors that America will not be confronting them for the foreseeable future.

    Whether they are aggressors like Russia, proliferators like North Korea, terror exporters like nuclear-armed Pakistan or would-be genocidal-terror-supporting nuclear states like Iran, today, under the new administration, none of them has any reason to fear Washington.

    This news is music to the ears of the American Left and their friends in Europe. Obama’s supporters like billionaire George Soros couldn’t be more excited at the self-induced demise of the American superpower. CNN’s former (anti-)Israel bureau chief Walter Rodgers wrote ecstatically in the Christian Science Monitor on Wednesday, “America’s… superpower status, is being downgraded as rapidly as its economy.”

    The pro-Obama US and European media are so pleased with America’s abdication of power that they took the rare step of applauding Obama at his press conference in London. Indeed, the media’s enthusiasm for Obama appeared to grow with each presidential statement of contrition for America’s past uses of force, each savage attack he leveled against his predecessor George W. Bush, each swipe he took at Israel, and each statement of gratitude for the blessings of Islam he uttered.

    But while the media couldn’t get enough of the new US leader, America’s most stable allies worldwide began a desperate search for a reset button that would cause the administration to take back its abandonment of America’s role as the protector of the free world.

    Is the Easter Bunny going to bring you all chocolate covered charcoal to chew on for Easter? Have fun, y’all in America land and the “free world”…..

    Ah, the blessings the “Blessed of Hussein” is bringing you all!!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t know, Ruvy. It’s a rather dim assessment of the US foreign policy. I had better wait and see what kind of reaction Glick’s article is going to generate. If it’s on the level, it should be reprinted in all conservative publications.

    Has it been?

  • http://www.dreamthisday.com Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Ruvy, Thank you for providing a wonderful personal example for the Americans who are following these comments that:

    1. The dangers to world peace and American security from the Middle East conflict don’t come solely from one side. I quote Ruvy, “A nuclear bomb can destroy Damascus, and a few nukes can do in Tehran and Riyadh. We have the nukes – and the ability to deliver them.”

    2. People of dangerously aggressive and uncompromising fundamentalist views can and do gather their inspiration equally from the Quran and from other holy books. I quote Ruvy, “If you pay careful attention to what I recommended as a strategy to murder off a good portion of our Arab enemies, you will see that I have drawn the vast majority of it directly from the Tana”kh.”

    If Ruvy is a solitary voice, then what he says is of no grand importance, but if his views are representative of even a small fraction of his people, we Americans have much to fear, and need to carefully consider who our nation calls friend in the Middle East.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m not going to get in between you and Ruvy, Mr. Huie. I consider him a friend, so I’ll let him answer. I would hope, however, that the views he expresses would be ameliorated to a great extent if he had the power to implement them (if for no other reason than talk is always cheap); and secondly, that they don’t represent the majority of the Israelis, even of the most hawkish persuasion.

  • http://www.dreamthisday.com Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Roger, I’ll make you a small side bet that Ruvy both asserts that his views are widespread and declares that he would personally push the button if that were within his power. Want to bet?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Now, the following is a real “cool” version of Ezekiel 25:17.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Sure he will. But then again, talk is cheap. No offense, Ruvy. Applies to everyone.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Roger, I’ll make you a small side bet that Ruvy both asserts that his views are widespread and declares that he would personally push the button if that were within his power. Want to bet?

    You win on your first little side bet – views similar to mine are widespread here. That is just simple fact. Your ignorance about us who live here is so deep it would be funny were it not tragic. But you lose on the second. I’d far rather that it not be me who is the one hitting the button….

    1. The dangers to world peace and American security from the Middle East conflict don’t come solely from one side. I quote Ruvy, “A nuclear bomb can destroy Damascus, and a few nukes can do in Tehran and Riyadh. We have the nukes – and the ability to deliver them.”

    2. People of dangerously aggressive and uncompromising fundamentalist views can and do gather their inspiration equally from the Quran and from other holy books. I quote Ruvy, “If you pay careful attention to what I recommended as a strategy to murder off a good portion of our Arab enemies, you will see that I have drawn the vast majority of it directly from the Tana”kh.”

    If Ruvy is a solitary voice, then what he says is of no grand importance, but if his views are representative of even a small fraction of his people, we Americans have much to fear, and need to carefully consider who our nation calls friend in the Middle East.

    I would have you remember that “fundamentalism” refers to a particular world view in Christianity and is continually misapplied by people with less than clear minds – like you. There are no Moslem fundamentalists – nor are Hindu fundamentalists, nor are there Jewish fundamentalists. These are the expressions of those who have narrow, lazy, minds and intellects and who don’t have catholic (with a small “c”) outlooks or educations.

    There are Wahhabi (and an allied group, the Deobandi) – who, as I already pointed out, are not Moslems (though they would have YOU think they are) but heretics who believe that Allah has form – heresy in Islam.

    There are Jews who are believers in the Torah, Tana”kh and the Holy Zohar (like me) – who are very different people from the apologetic and self-censoring types who live in North America, following like little sheep what ever the New York Times or other similar bankrupt media outlets sputter as “authority”, folks who write for the Huffington Post and similar oulets, and who think that being “religious” is keeping the Sabbath and keeping kosher..

    The dangers to world peace and American security from the Middle East conflict don’t come solely from one side.

    The dangers to world peace and American security are largely the creation of the American business magnates known as “the robber barons”. It was these people – or their representatives – who crated the Thugdom of Saudi Control, who built the big house that Hitler stayed in in Bayern for so long, who invested in the Soviet Union (maybe you heard of the NEP, a plan to prop up the sick Soviet economy in the early 1920’s….). The world’s evils, in other words, were largely financed with American capital. As an American, you need look no further than these robber barons, today represented by the Ford Foundation, the House of Morgan, the Council of Foreign Relations, etc., etc. for the sources of your dangers and instability. That knife in you back was manufactured with good Bethlehem steel, and says “made in America” and was stabbed into you with a firm American hand.

    “We have met the enemy and he is US” – an American cartoonist’s statement of wisdom far more relevant to America than Americans are allowed to realize.

    …we Americans have much to fear, and need to carefully consider who our nation calls friend in the Middle East.

    I have gone over twice in this comment thread the delusion of American government friendship versus the reality of American government enmity. So long as you persist in believing in delusions, Jonathan Huie, reality will continue to slip through your fingers. But rest assured that the enmity of your government to the state of Israel – and ultimately to the Jewish people – is no delusion.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I would hope, however, that the views he expresses would be ameliorated to a great extent if he had the power to implement them (if for no other reason than talk is always cheap);

    A government that openly told the world it no longer was interested in peace would change things considerably. Even the mild nationalistic thrusts of the pathetically weak Netanyahu government is reacted to with hostility as though it were a declaration of war. How differently would the world view a Jewish government here that called a spade a spade? Unfortunately, such a government would have to strike first, hard and fast. The criminals who run America would not sit longer than a day or so before trying to to overthrow such a regime here, by any force it deemed necessary. There could be no room for talk. Action would have to be taken to keep a powerful series of enemies off base and off guard.

    and secondly, that they don’t represent the majority of the Israelis, even of the most hawkish persuasion.

    Fortunately, my views are far more common than you can realize and are already ameliorated by the corruption of the Russia Israel Beiténu, the corruption of SHAS, the control of Likud by bought-off traitors like Netanyahu, who put on a good show but ultimately cave to their controllers overseas.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    In the meantime, folks This is reality – from the Debkafiles article:

    These allegations were a mutually agreed smoke screen, DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources report. It suited neither party to admit that the gang Cairo exposed led to a major undercover Iranian network operating in Egypt for three years.

    While Hizballah contributes to Iran’s covert overseas operations from the time of the late Imad Mughniyeh, Nasrallah could hardly admit he was not privy to all the arrested men’s identities. Egypt, for its part, refrained from publicly accusing Tehran of its deep penetration, while the Iranians placed a Hizballah security operative at its head rather than a high-ranking Iranian agent to avoid being directly compromised in the operation.

    DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources disclose that this group had a much larger strategic mission than terrorist attacks on Egyptian towns and Israeli targets in Sinai, as claimed by Egyptian and Israeli media: It was assigned with planting an Iranian logistical-intelligence infrastructure as stealthily and inconspicuously as possible along the shores of the Suez Canal. This chain was to eventually hook up with the clandestine Iranian cells operating out of Somalia and Sudan opposite the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean and provide Iran with an outer safety belt as a counterweight to the US naval presence in those waters.

    In the event of an American or Israeli military strike against its nuclear facilities, Tehran would have resources in place for retaliating against Saudi and Western traffic passing through the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the waters off the Horn of Africa.

    So much for peaceful outreach to the Middle East. The State Department under an appeaser like Obama is unwilling to attack Iran – but even it recognizes what is going on – the reconstruction of the Persian Empire via terrorist proxies like HizbAllah. A reality so obvious is hard to hide. The boys at Debkafiles, inveterate believers in American support for Israel, still phrase their stories in such a way so as to lead readers to believe that America and Israel have a confluence of interests in the Middle East.

    There is no confluence of interest. There is only the delusion on the part of many Israelis of such a confluence of interest. A weak and helpless Israel (if one is permitted to exist at all) is America’s real goal here, and anyone in the Obama administration or the State Department will explain to you that this is so and why. But the United States does not seem as ready to accept a Russian-fueled, Korean armed Persian Empire. However, there is only so much a beggar like Obama can afford to do. The Russians and Chinese hold America’s economy in their not very sympathetic hands. At present, it appears that Obama’s simplest strategy is to offer Israel up as the sacrificial goat. While fools blather on about Russia Israel Beiteinu’s Avigdor Lieberman’s supposed hostility to peace, the reality is that all he has done is take a weak assertion of national sovereignty and turn it into and inflammatory statement, by adding a few unkind home truths that fools who endlessly drool “peace” from their mouths ignore and loathe to hear. For this, Avigdor Lieberman, the cat’s paw of Kadima (that’s what they think anyway), is earning the title “ultra-rightist” from fools writing in DC Blogs who think they know at is going on. The writer, Nava Lieberman, who sounds like she is an Israeli ex-pat, talks about “America being Israel’s greatest ally” – poor deluded woman.

  • http://www.dreamthisday.com Jonathan Lockwood Huie

    Ruvy, your statement, “America would not sit longer than a day or so before trying to overthrow such a regime here, by any force it deemed necessary,” is SO true, and a huge understatement.

    Fortunately, I agree with Roger that cooler heads do and will prevail in Israel. Roger, thank you for reminding me not to judge a country by one perpetually angry individual. Ruvy reminds me of an ex-in-law of mine who thought the US should do a preemptive bombing on virtually every country outside America, and that we should shoot all the the N (Afro-Americans) besides. All I can reasonably do is pray for the anger, pain, hatred, and fear to be washed from the souls of such people.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Fortunately, I agree with Roger that cooler heads do and will prevail in Israel.

    Roger went to school here some 40 or 50 years ago. I live here now. If you want to choose to believe Roger, go ahead. Have a goyisher good time.

    By saying what you do, Ruvy, your statement, “America would not sit longer than a day or so before trying to overthrow such a regime here, by any force it deemed necessary,” is SO true, and a huge understatement., you validate my contention that this country’s regime has lost its sovereignty altogether, and is but a mere dependency on the good-will of whatever shithead inhabits the White House. That is why I supported Obama for president. He is a true enemy of the State of Israel and of the Jewish People. He is the target marker above the heads of those many Israeli traitors who must be eliminated here.

    This dip into the darkness of the Ninth Plague (the Obama administration) will eliminate the non-believers among us in time, though it won’t be over a mere three days. Then the regime will arise that deals with our enemies as they should be dealt with.

    I leave you to your delusions, Jonathan. Keep burying your head in the sand: Reality will kick you in the butt, HARD

    Have a pleasant Sunday.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Ruvy, I had no idea you had such a sense of humour!

    “I leave you to your delusions, Jonathan. Keep burying your head in the sand: Reality will kick you in the butt, HARD”.

    Literally, ROFL ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

    Stop it, you’re killing me!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You have a perfect right to be pissed at him, Christopher. Much good it will accomplish.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    I’m not pissed at him, I’m amused, hugely amused.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    That’s better, Chris, but you did use the term earlier on on my thread. That’s why I brought it up.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    The point is, Chris, whether you’re amused at Ruvy or simply pissed at him, it all comes down to one and the same thing: you’re gave up on engaging him. I’m not saying now that you’re not right to do that (personally, I haven’t come to that decision yet), but it does, in effect, forecloses any future discussion and the relationship is broken.

    Well, the import of “I’m annoyed with you” is pretty much the same. The relationship is broken and so is any further conversation. And that was precisely what I was getting at with STM: nothing else. He’s entitled, of course, to his own feelings and/or how he chooses to express such. But I have a right, too, not to engage any further with that person on the grounds I’ve just specified.

  • M ar k

    So, who’s insisting that you engage STM, Rog?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Nobody. It’s just to say that what ensured was a fallout.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “ensued”

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Roger, when I used the phrase pissed off, it involved you not Ruvy. Once again, you are confused.

    One more thing, if you’re not going to engage with someone, please just do it and stop talking about it…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well yes, Chris, but if I remember correctly, you alluded to Ruvy and the like when you brought it up. But the point really is, you seemed to have hard time understanding why I objected to such form of address. Now that you do, the air is clear.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Roger, if there is one thing that really pisses me off it is when people, normally it is Ruvy or some other person with a loaded agenda, impute actions, feelings or thoughts to me that have never even crossed my mind.” (#165)

    Goes to show I am not “confused.”

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Comments #109 onwards. You sound like a pair of junior high school boys arguing over who is going to call who that night.

    I’m just happy that I was able to amuse Chris for a bit. Entertainment is a big part of writing, Roger….

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, Ruvy, that WAS the point of contention. Once I start regard you as amusing or simply annoying, I’m no longer (in any real sense) relating to you as a person.

    I hope you do understand my meaning.

  • Clavos

    Roger,

    I once commented to you in an email that I understood that English is not your first language. You took umbrage at me and indignantly insisted that your command of English was as good as mine or any one else’s.

    Well, your exchange with Chris over what was said by him in his #165 not only proves Chris is right, but also that I was, too.

    You just quoted in your #118 above, the first paragraph of Chris’ post #165 on the other thread and claim it “goes to show [you are] not ‘confused'”

    Sorry, old chap, but Chris, Stan, I, and others (Cindy for one) are all correct; had you read further into Chris’ #165, you’d have seen that his point is actually made in the second paragraph of his comment, not the first. Thus,

    Roger, if there is one thing that really pisses me off it is when people, normally it is Ruvy or some other person with a loaded agenda, impute actions, feelings or thoughts to me that have never even crossed my mind.

    You are attempting to paint my entirely accurate observation that it is you that is out of step in this conversation as being a “false sense of loyalty”, rather than doing your ego the favour of accepting a truth you clearly dislike.

    clearly demonstrates that he is, in fact, referring to you; that his reference to Ruvy is merely an aside, mentioned en passant to the central point.

    Anyone with real command of the language can see that.

    The are numerous examples throughout these threads of you seriously misinterpreting other people’s posts.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I never denied that he was referring to me and that Ruvy and others were used in passing as an example. But it is you who is missing the point, Clavos – because I’m using Chris’s form of expression (like “being pissed at someone”) as an example in order to make another point – namely that it is more or less equivalent or analogous to saying “I’m being annoyed at you” and other such similar expressions.

    So why don’t you re-read the entire exchange rather than waste your time on your pointless criticism.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I hope you do understand my meaning.

    Unfortunately, I do, Roger. Chris is a fellow I’d like to like. He’s funny, clever, has a broad spectrum of interests. I don’t care if I agree or disagree with his opinions, or if he agrees or disagrees with mine. Professional relationships are not built of agreements of opinions but of confluences of interest and the synergy that builds out of these confluences.

    But in Chris’ eyes, a religious believer is someone he just cannot trust. Those are his words, not mine. There it is, Roger. So, I prefer he not engage me, and I not engage him. Discussing things with someone you at bottom cannot trust will turn out bad in the end. At bottom, he feels he cannot trust me. That is not said in anger; that is said in sadness.

  • Clavos

    Roger @#122,

    QED

    As I said, I was addressing your #118.

    Thanks for proving my point…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    But that was the whole point of my argument with STM (and Chris who had sided with STM). The words we use convey where we’re at and where we’re coming from. So STM’s saying that he was “annoyed with me” was, in effect, breaking all communications and the gloves were off. Were he to say that he was “frustrated” or “exasperated” with me, I still see there an attempt to communicate on his part, but not in the first instance. And that’s the reason why I gave him a piece of my mind.

    You can be annoyed with a fly, with a person’s habits – with impersonal things over which you may have little or no control – but to say that of a person? But that only tells me where he’s coming from. But they all pretended not understand that. Well, I kept on pressing, and the rest is history.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You’ve proved nothing. Whatever you’re addressing, and I don’t give a shit, really, you’re still off the point. But then I wouldn’t expect any better from you. So congratulate yourself if that’s what you desire.

    “You’ve won.”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Clavos,

    In the heat of the moment, you have violated the privacy of the editor-writer relationship.

    You have no business to disclose on these pages the contents of your email correspondence to me in your capacity as the editor. I suggest that you are more judicious in the future, however strong your desire to put me down or to discredit me. It exceeds the bounds of propriety.

    I am not going to make a formal complaint this time, just try to be mindful, please.

  • Clavos

    Complain all you want, Roger, I violated nothing; I’m an editor, not a priest, doctor, or lawyer. Any emails I write to you or anyone else are mine to disclose if I so choose; I wrote them.

    Furthermore, it was you, not I, who revealed that my email was written in my capacity as editor.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, the communication was private, and it was in your editorial capacity.” Dirty pool, no matter how you call it.

    I will make a request from now on that you’re not to edit any of my would-be pieces, so there’d be no more excuse.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Roger, re your #118 – yes, you are still confused but, with the general level of comprehension you’ve been showing with various people for several days now, that comes as no surprise.

    Rat, you may be furry and have a weird tale but you do at least understand English well. Thanks for the sentence defence.

    Ruvy, I hope that you understand that when I say that committed faithists can’t be trusted, I mean it in the general sense that if they are lead to believe that they are called upon to take a certain action as an act of faith, they will, regardless of the legality or sanity of such an action.

    Such people simply can not respect the rule of law, nor can they follow logic or reason if it conflicts with their belief system and because of that it follows that they can’t be trusted.

    You yourself have made several remarks that you would do exactly such a thing.

    I hope you also understand that I too say that more in sorrow than in anger.

    I actually like you too, but it is practically impossible to keep you off your two hobby horses of politics and religion, which are also your two worst subjects…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Chris,

    I know (as per #118) that you’re addressing me, citing Ruvy and others only in passing. What is there not to understand?

    I only used that remark of yours in order to make a point concerning your attitude of being pissed at people (for whatever reason) as a basis for making an analogy between that kind of “feeling” and the kind of feeling expressed by STM as regards “annoyance.” So it is you, not I, who do not seem to grasp the point of my taking off with your comment in order to make another point entirely.

    So don’t come off as though you’re having something on me, and least of all on account of other incidences. If you want to deal with this particular issue, fine, but don’t appeal to some kind of authority because there is none.

    You should know that misreading of texts is a normal occurrence even under the most ideal of conditions – to include native speakers. It just is. So don’t use that fucking argument if you want to shoot me down because it doesn’t wash.

    In addition, the onus is also on the writer, not the reader. So there are times (more often than not) that misreading a text is more due to the writer’s negligence to express parts of the meaning in the clearest possible way.

    We’re not talking of course about deep texts in which the intention is to leave the meaning(s) ambiguous, or when meanings are multi-layered. These are exceptions, and signify great writers.

    So don’t take me for a fucking simpleton, Chris, or least of all don’t be dismissing me so offhandishly be calling me “confused.” You don’t carry that kind of authority neither as a comments editor nor as a commenter. And if you think you do, you’re displaying very poor manners.

    You may say of course what you will, but so can I. Neither you not Clavos here are in the position to intimidate me. So let’s keep this in perspective.

  • Clavos

    The only individual with a “perspective” problem in this discussion is you, Roger.

    Or are you once again claiming that everyone in the parade is out of step but you?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Chris (re #130),

    A word in Ruvy’s defense. There may be times when acts of faith are precisely what’s required – carving a niche (if you like) beyond mere laws or reason. I’m not supporting, of course, Ruvy’s rabid and uncompromising stance vs. what he perceives as Israel’s enemies; and in this regard, I’d say that your point is well-taken. Let me give you to counter-examples, however, which you might find less objectionable.

    a) Socrates’s decision to take the hemlock rather than violating the laws of Athens by escaping his death sentence (I believe)

    b) (and this is a more drastic one), when Abraham is asked by God to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, on the altar, as test of his faith. It’s been called by Kierkegaard as “the theological suspension of the ethical.”

    As an aside, moral considerations (such as things done in the name of conscience) do not qualify: the way the term works, conscience only tells you what NOT do to; not what to do. Hence, it cannot be claimed with any legitimacy as a spring of action (an analogy with saying, e.g., that “my conscience made me do such and such”).

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Roger, here’s the heart of your problem “the onus is also on the writer, not the reader” – Wrong!

    You are really bad at listening so try to take this on board – nobody is trying to intimidate you, that’s just you over-reacting, again. Your poor listening skills are causing you to misunderstand people and then you are getting all out of sorts. Step away from the keyboard and have a cup of tea or something…

    I’ve deleted your last comment to Clavos because it was nothing but uncalled for rudeness

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cool, I am not the best listener, I admit that. But that is easily clarifiable by the writer explaining the meaning. What’s the big deal? I do it whenever I’m misunderstood, and I don’t make a big deal out of it.

    The point still remains that whatever I may or may not have understood about the remark in question (i.e., your remark) it was still a peripheral point and not impacting a more important point I was making. And I am still awaiting any kind of acknowledgment from you in that regard. It must work both ways. And under the circumstances, I must conclude either that you don’t get it; and if you do, your focus on what is a peripheral point, Chris, is that you’re simply using it as an excuse not to acknowledge the essence of my communication.

    So which is it, Chris? Are we going to play this game by the same rules or are we not?

    PS: I don’t believe my retort to Clavos was “rude” as you say. The only “offensive” words I used was “scram” or “shitty argument,” hardly abusive when compared to the other stuff which gets posted here (nnless “s …up to” you consider offensive).

    Consequently, I am addressing Clavos here to say that the kind of argument he employed – by way of “counting noses” and/or trying to ingratiate himself to whomever, won’t wash; we’ve been there before to no avail, so he may as well save his breath.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    As a matter of fact, Chris, when I misread STM’s reference to “the foreigners,” it was only because I presumed that when he was residing in the States, he was of the mind to settle in. And under the circumstances, you don’t view those who are about to become your would-be compatriots as “foreigners.” Quite the contrary.

    Consequently, my “error,” if that’s what you choose to call it, had more to do with attributing to STM more honorable intentions than he in fact had. To wit, I erred on the side of making a good presumption concerning his person, rather than on the side of having any real or imagined difficulties with the English language as Clavos here tried to insinuate.

    Come to think of it, I’d rather misread a person erring on the good side than proceed on the assumption that he’s a scoundrel – and I mean it generally, by way of policy, rather than making a reference to this particular case or that. So I hope you realize that the matter of misreading is somewhat more complex than what meets the eye.

    Thank you for listening.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    I give up! Whatever you say, Roger.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Sorry you do, Chris. I did own up to a weakness. Why can’t you, by the same token, accept what I’m saying as something other than a mere rationalization? What would it benefit me to be lying to you or trying to deceive myself (especially in the light of my admission)?

    Besides, there is no such a thing as a singular meaning for each and every listener. We all bring into the conversation our own individual presumptions and biases, which makes for individuated meanings. Under normal circumstances, like person-to-person, e.g., any perceived differences are easily cleared up to arrive at a common, shared meaning and hopefully, an agreement. The process online is somewhat more convoluted but by no means an unsurmountable obstacle. But to say that all communications are crystal clear and trouble-free is a heck of an assumption. In fact, everything in the world, this BC site included, points to the contrary.

    But as you wish, Christopher. I, too, would hate to lose you because you’re an intelligent and a sharp thinking person.

    Some other time, perhaps.

    Roger

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Considering that the shitheat, generally known as the “Blessing iof Hussein” has stated for the world the following

    The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security….

    , let’s look at the alleged “peace partner’s” response to our prime minister’s fundamental demand that these terrorist recognize Israel as a Jewish state before Israel negotiates with them. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/130904“>PA: Recognition of Israel as Jewish State a ‘Provocation’

    These are the words of the “peace partners” we are supposed to live side by side with, quoted from the Arutz Sheva article:

    “Israel expects the Palestinians to first recognize Israel as a Jewish State before talking about two states for two peoples,” Netanyahu said.

    The Fatah-led PA government based in Ramallah has agreed in the past to recognize Israel, but not as a Jewish State.

    Abu Rudaineh called Netanyahu’s words a “provocation” and claimed that the new Israeli government was placing obstacles before the “solution” of two states for two peoples being promoted by the United States……The Hamas-led breakaway PA government in Gaza, meanwhile, still refuses to recognize Israel at all, referring to the Jewish State only as “the Zionist entity” whenever it must discuss Israel.

    This is the reason that the terrorists who lead these rebellious Arab entities on our land must be executed before there can be any peace here.

    These terrorist bastards, who do anything they can to kill innocent Jews, particularly women and children, are the scum the author of this article supports either by omission or commission

  • Michelle Taylor

    The difference is that, for the most part in the Bible, the passages that speak of God’s vengeance are speaking about God making it happen Himself. In the Quran, Muhammed wants for the followers themselves to extinguish the “infidels,” which are those who are not Muslim. Now, I am not saying that there haven’t been people throughout the centuries who have used the Bible as an excuse to kill those who don’t believe in it, but that wasn’t a demand that the Bible set forth AT ALL. I would advise you to stop short of blaming the Bible for a few instances in history when man has done his own will instead of God’s. You can say whatever you want, of course, but you can’t get away from the fact that the Quran does instruct Muslims to act violently towards Christians and Jews for the mere fact of who they are, while the Bible does not advocate Christians going and killing anyone for who they are. You say that Americans (supposedly hate-filled ones) only take selected parts out of the Quran to prove its hatefulness, but what would you say to someone like me who has read the whole thing and still comes to that conclusion? What would you say to someone who tells you that you take selected parts out of the Bible to try to prove your point that the Bible is just as violent as the Quran? I find your sweeping generalizations of Christian Americans to be laughable.