Showing posts with label irony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label irony. Show all posts

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Human butchers mass murder in Jerusalem yeshiva

Just disgusting. Israeli Arab terrorists killed at least eight yeshiva boys today.

I have no words. This is an Israeli Arab group, supposedly 'so well integrated' into society,' who are doing the butchering, and in this case they purposely attacked a school - with teenage boys. The brutality and inhumanity is disgusting and beyond words.

What is most shocking is that somehow, despite the fact that this attack happened, 'peace talks' will go on, as if somehow there is a culture for 'peace,' or anything other than a desire for PIECES of Jews.

Tragic.

UPDATE:

If you have time, please say the following:

PSALM 130: A song of ascents. From the depths I called you Ado-nay. My Lord, hear my voice, may Your ears be attentive to the sound of my pleas. If you preserve iniquities, O' God, my Lord, who could survive? For with you is forgiveness, that you may be feared. I put confidence in Ado-nay, my soul put confidence, and I hoped for his word. I yearn for my Lord, among those longing for the dawn, those longing for the dawn. Let Israel hope for Ado-nay, for with Ado-nay is kindness, and with Him is abundant redemption. And He shall redeem Israel for all its iniquities.

PRAYER FOR THE ILL: He who blessed our forefathers, Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'acov, Moshe, Aharon, David and Shlomo, may He bless and heal those injured today in the terrorist attack at Yeshivat Mercaz Harav. Because I (insert your name) will, without taking a vow, contribute charity on their behalf. In reward for this may the Holy One blessed be He be filled with compassion for them to restore their health, to heal them, to strengthen , to revivify them. And may He send them speedily a complete recovery from heaven among the other sick people of Israel, a recovery of the body, a recovery of the spirit, swiftly and soon and let us all respond Amen.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Muslimophobia!

Ladies and gentlemen, I have encountered truly disturbing Muslimophobia. It rankles the core of my being and shakes my insides. This Muslimophobia is at the hands of LGF Watch!

What did they do? There is a post on there that claims that Charles Johnson, the man behind Little Green Footballs, stated that Arabs/Muslims are "subhuman" through the the "subtext" of posts which explicitly say that Islamic terrorists are subhuman. This is my response to the shocking hatred of LGF Watch.

You claim there is "subtext" that Charles is saying all Muslims are subhuman, and yet the only context in which Charles uses the word "subhuman" refers to terrorists. Such a statement produces no subtext whatsoever, so you are LIBELLING Charles Johnson.

The alternative is that, in your minds, all Muslims are terrorists.

That means you are disgusting racists and Muslimophobes.

And I am deeply offended that you dare speak of such hate.

Indeed, I think that Culture for All should run a campaign decrying the rabid Muslimophobia of LGF Watch. We cannot let this hate continue!

UPDATE:

"MJ" replied to me with a nonsensical ramble, and I replied as such...

Claiming there is a "subtext of hate" or a "context of hate" is the most dishonest thing one can do. I can conjure up a "context" of anything!

Yet the 'proof' used for this alleged 'context' is that Charles called TERRORISTS subhuman!! Talk about nonsensical!

The implication is obvious. Calling terrorists subhuman - in your book - provides a 'context' for saying all Muslims are subhuman. This really might be the most ludicrous non-reasoning LGF Watch has ever been graced with posting. (that says something)

The only way one can come to such a conclusion is if you are libelling Charles Johnson from the start (and hence were using those the posts where Charles calls terrorists subhuman as only a pretext for libel), OR, if you honestly believe that all Muslims are terrorists, and hence claiming terrorists are subhuman says all Muslims are subhuman.

So in either case you are defamers or racists.

Retract this post and apologize, or defamers and racists you shall forever be known as.

Friday, September 7, 2007

War and Peace

My friend (who I showcased an email correspondence with over here) wrote me a long email about his correspondence with a 'peace' group, and in it he wrote that he disagreed with their stance on Israel, but he agreed with their other stances. I wrote back that I doubted that he really agreed with them on their other stances. This is the exchange that followed. I am copying all you find folks, as I feel that in these emails I showed the utter hypocrisy of the 'peace' groups.

This is his email back to me:

We haven't really discussed the other positions of the 'peace group,' which I support. Here are a few:

  1. paper ballots over electronic voting...at least until more testing is done; (i have to learn more though)
  2. raising awareness about the conditions of, and resources avaibable to, Iraq War veterans.
  3. anti-Iraq war
  4. Darfur Genocide awareness
  5. counter military recruitment (at least when it targets underage kids)

My reply was as follows:

I will give my stance on those issues, and then explain why I do not believe you actually agree with all of them...

  1. Yes, I agree electronic voting has too many problems at present and I support a paper system; that said, New York's non-electronic system is one of the most faulty in the nation, and with the most machine breakdowns.
  2. Raising awareness of Walter Reed medical center and problems that might be there is noble, certainly.
  3. Anti-Iraq War is NOT noble from their position. And I doubt you agree with it. They want troops to be brought home NOW, this second. They are NOT looking for a staggered troop withdrawal. I read their statements, they believe it is most 'peaceful' to have mass pandemonium which has hundreds of thousands of troops leave at once and immediately dismantle the infrastructure. But oh, there is more. This sort of nonsensical policy would lead to mass slaughter of Iraqis. In other words, they are in favor of pandemonium and slaughter. And no, I am not exaggerating. Their petition says "bring home troops NOW." They are demanding the end to ANY funds for military action. (never mind the fact that it would take money, and lots of it, to suddenly bring hundreds of thousands of men and women back to the US at once) And never mind the fact that if troops lack money, they will have to cannibalize their resources. Military policy says that if suddenly they lack guns/arms/food due to the US not funding it, they will steal from locals, and do whatever it takes to get this.

    This horrific scenario is what the 'peace group' advocates. You cannot possibly agree with it, even if you do believe troops should be out of Iraq. I would like to add that this is the most anti-humane and anti-troop thing you could possibly think of. (not to mention anti-Iraqi) When I read they are in favor of veteran awareness, you have to laugh, given how anti-troop they really are.

    One more thing. These 'peacers' are un-American to even call this an 'Occupation' of Iraq. It is NOT an 'occupation,' and they only use the word to evoke the sympathies of anti-zionists to their cause.
  4. Darfur we agree with, but then again, they are all fake. They like to scream about Darfur, but if the US were to go in there with a military action, they would be anti-war. They are only talking about Darfur because it's a way for them to be anti-Bush.
  5. Finally, counter-military recruitment is another stupid and suicidal policy. Why, exactly, should we not be doing what we can to encourage kids to join the military? No one is forcing them to join; there is no draft, unlike in many other nations. If you are going to end military recruitment, why not end college recruitment? Is the military somehow a less legitimate life path than college? I know you do not believe that. For many kids, the military is the most sensible path and one they desire, rather than college. To be against military recruitment is to be against having an effective fighting force, and whatever your feelings on Iraq, you again cannot possibly be in favor of that. In contrast, I do believe that the 'peace group' is in favor of dismantling the US army, and this is but one way to do it.

In summary, I do not believe you actually agree with the phony "peace group's" other positions on other issues, however, I also know you are not passionate about Iraq, military equipment, or even Darfur as you are about Israel.

My friend wrote this in reply:

so you agree..... i do agree with them on other issues. no matter that they're fake on darfur. i still agree w/ the position. well, i'm not sure what their position is...military intervention, or bulking up the AU forces. no matter that i don't agree w/ where they're coming from....i still agree w/ raising awareness about veterans' needs. i agree they don't give a genuine shit about military issues and military families...only as it suits their agenda. i was at an ISO sponsored planning event for a Washington Heights anti-war rally earlier this summer...and they were talking about finding out where war widows in w. heights lived, visiting them and soliciting their help to march at the front -- so all the cameras can be on them. i played out the scenario in my head....i imagined some families would be happy to get the visit, but imagine the poor widow who gets visited and decides it's not for them and wants nothing to do w/ anti-war movement? can you imagine the condescension and self-righteousness from these socialist fuckers ...i'm sure they'd commit to not interrogating her, but they'd drop in a "you do know that your husband died for a lie, don't you? and oh, thanks for letting us use your bathroom mrs. gonzalez" i got chills sitting there.

yea, about the iraq war...you know i'm w/ you. i'm against the war, but i don't agree w/ them about ending it.

i also agree w/ you about counter-recruitment. what i agree w/ the 'peace group' about is how some recruitment centers have been targeting under-age kids....15 and 16. i don't think that's right, and they have been breaking rules doing it. counter-recruitment people in general yes, are retarded. they'd be willing to reduce america's military to the national guard....but only if they promised not to shoot.

I read that and I thought..."my friend still doesn't totally get it...I have to drive the point home!" So I wrote the following:

Let me sum up this 'peace group' as well as other 'peace' groups and their positions...

"Rethuglicans and BushCo are war mongers and hate mongers. Therefore, anything they advocate has to be bad, and we must do what is necessary to undermine any and everything they do, in the interest of peace and anti-hate."

This is the lens through which they view modern politics. So, let's examine how they view everything, with that lens...

  1. Electronic voting machines are seen as bad because a Republican owns the Diebold corporation. They fear this can be exploited against Democratic (i.e., 'peace') candidates. As such, they work against electronic voting machines. Oh yeah, those 2006 Midterm elections worked out for the Dems, didn't they? And electronic voting was used in much of the country, electing Dems...hmmm...well, let's not talk about that, and ignore it, pretend it didn't happen. So even this position is hypocritical.
  2. Despite the fact that Clinton set about eight years of cuts to the military, including to veteran facilities, the problems at Walter Reed Medical Center is another way to blame Bush, while appearing to be noble about it. They can pretend they care about the troops, when really this position again is only used to show how war-like Bush is, compared to their peacefulness.
  3. Iraq - They are against this war solely because Bush and Rethugs started it. You heard nary a peep from 'peace' groups when Clinton was bombing aspirin factories in Sudan, or bombing Kosovo, including many civilian localities. (that was under the 'war hero' and 'peacenik,' Wesley Clark) That is right, our campaign in Kosovo included bombing civilian infrastructure...but no one said this was 'a war crime,' or was sobbing for the innocent Serbs who were killed. Feel free to read more about this humanitarian bombing'), but fighting a war in Iraq is a war crime.
  4. Darfur again, under this lens, is merely a way to criticize Bush. They do not care about the Darfurians or anyone except excising BushCo from the White House.
  5. In general, if there is one thing a 'peace' group is against, it is the military. They don't merely care about targetting 'underage kids,' because they want the military to be barred from college campuses as well. As far as targetting underage kids; you have to be 18 to enlist, anyway. The only wrong thing about military recruitment of underage kids (or ANYONE) is that they might tell lies to entice people to join. That is wrong; but that is not what this 'peace group' ultimately cares about. They just see the military as linked with Bush and anyway evil, but they know based on lessons from Vietnam War protesting that they cannot come right out and say that. So they do every single thing possible to weaken the strength, morale, and fighting ability of the military, with the goal of defanging our defenses. However, we are allowed to fight only when a non-"Rethug" is in the White House. All in the name of peace.

    Sorry for going off on this ramble, but I just find 'peace' groups to be the most dishonest racket around. They believe in peace insofar as they view anti-Chimpy McHalliburton to mean 'peace,' regardless of what policies must be used to be anti-Chimpy McHalliburton. If somehow such policies would cause Israel to be obliterated, Iraqis to be slaughtered en masse, and Americans to be subjected to the worst sorts of terrorism...that does not matter. As it is peaceful, simply because it is anti-BushCo.

    They sicken me to no end.

I hope this email exchange as as interesting for you as it was for me in the intellectual exercise of writing it!

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

An inconvenient truth about global warming

In light of Al Gore's multiple Oscar victory, I figured it would be important to link to Shlemazl's post about global warming. He states that the only logical solution that currently exists is to look to nuclear power. As a nuclear scientist and expert in the field, he understands what he is talking about. Shlemazl explained how nuclear power is the safest and most efficient form of energy out there. Yet, you will see organizations such as the NRDC oppose all forms of nuclear energy. This is grossly irresponsible. I find it amusing that people such as Al Gore and the NRDC cry about the problems of global warming, while refusing to consider the very obvious solution: nuclear energy! Is there a problem with using oil as the source of fuel: you bet your bippy! It means we are entangled with the worst regimes in the world! We are literally fuelling terror! Is there global warming? Well, without a doubt there's climate change! Are humans responsible? All science says that humans are responsible to at least some degree. But what's Al Gore's solution? Ultimately, it's to cut back on consumption. How is this possible with a growing economy? And how is this effective, when India and China will be using fuel of their own? This thinking is simply the Professor Kurgman school of economics. Yet, are Republicans much better? How many of THEM are advocating nuclear power? Hardly any! They seem to fit the 'stick the head in the sand and hope it goes away' school of thought. There are three basic premises that we should all accept as undeniable FACTS: 1) We will eventually run out of oil; 2) We are currently getting oil from the worst regimes in the world, and literally fuelling terror; and 3) Nuclear energy would take us off the oil addiction (and tie to the worst regimes of the world)... ...Then it's CLEAR what we need to do. And yet somehow nuclear energy has become the third rail of American politics.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Israel accepts Darfur refugees

Israel, the one JEWISH state in the world has now given refugee status to MUSLIM individuals who fled war-torn Darfur. You can read more of the details here. I find this all quite astonishing. I believe this is the first time Israel has granted refugee status to Muslims fleeing a nation that is an enemy state of Israel. It should be noted that the choices for the Darfur refugees is otherwise very grim; they are not welcomed by most Middle Eastern/African nations, and are fleeing across the Sudanese border illegally, and then treated like crap in these nations. My thought on this is one of pride in Israel, but concern that this will open the floodgates to the millions of Sudanese refugees who absolutely DO need a place to go...but should not choose the tiny nation of Israel (with all the problems Israel faces), as that place. In any case, it does become hard to call Israel an "apartheid state" when it does things such as this, huh? Somehow, I doubt anyone in the world will pay attention to this story or even care.

Thursday, February 8, 2007

Anna...where for art thou ANNA?

So it seems, ladies and gents, that the illustrious Anna Nicole Smith is dead. The world lost a stellar citizen of the world today, a true human bastion of excellence. Whatever shall the world do without this illustrious human being to show us the way? I know I shall be unable to sleep, from the sheer loss of this incredible example for mankind. ...Okay, this is a bit much, but I actually am in a bit of shock over this. I wonder what will happen to her little baby, who is possibly heir to a fortune? This is a tabloid and lawyer's wet dream: rich gold-digging bimbo marries a near-death billionaire for his money, and the billionaire predictably croaks soon after. Major battle over the estate soon follows (during which Anna Nicole Smith becomes a blimp and then famously loses the weight), and the billionaire's own son croaks, and so it ends up being a battle between the estate of that son and Anna Nicole Smith. Said battle makes it all the way up to the Supreme Court. Then Anna Nicole Smith conceives a baby, the father of it right now being in dispute, and her son dies en route to the hospital to visit the baby! So now it is a battle between the guardian of her little tot (itself under contention and will involve all sorts of court battles), and the estate of the billionaire's son. Yup...tabloid and lawyer's wet dream indeed!

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

The irony of Jordanian ironies

Irony of the day: Jordanian King Abdullah II asks Israel to state position on Palestinian statehood. Remember that the vast majority of Jordan is Palestinian, and in fact killed more Palestinians than Israel did in its entire history. (1970 - Black September) Jordan is a far bigger country than Israel and could offer to cede territory to Palestinians within its borders, but does not. It is grandly amusing that the king of Jordan asks ISRAEL about its plans for Palestinian statehood, while in fact the king of Jordan is himself responsible for denying the Palestinians statehood. Pot, kettle -> black UPDATE: Sandmonkey explains Jordanian dynamics right here!