existential threats
 - letter to AusBC unleashed & Fed. Rep.

1. Excess-CO2 caused climate-change catastrophe - could cause irrevocable harm to our once jewel-like planet's human-life supporting ecosphere.

2. Many of the world's economies (including the US) have been ruined by neoliberalism - look at the massive US unemployment, and *no* effective action-programs even being considered to remedy this, plus the EU PIIGS + UK all going broke and being forced into austerity (not to mention the damage being done to Aus, i.e. privatisations of utilities, reducing benefits & services etc.), all *increasing* the downward-spirals.

3. The massive military push by the US to dominated & subjugate the planet (i.e. aggressive invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq & possibly Iran next), and the vicious aggressive invasion, genocide & ethnic cleansing by alien (i.e. not from there) Zionist/Jews in Palestine.

4. The disgustingly craven, corrupt & venal MSM perversely aiding & abetting all the above travesties.


Obviously, effective, corrective action is required soonest - else the expected disaster will be worse when it arrives, and sometime become unavoidable - if not already so; brrr.

5. All those who agitate for *no* change from the status quo *and* all those who impede attempts at change (including those doing nothing), make themselves accessories to the perpetrator-villains of items 2 & 3, easily identified as the US & Z regimes (and entities such as the Aus Lib/Lab bipartisan = un- and anti-democratic quisling-traitors[*]), plus neoliberal *voodoo* economics.

[*] Howard = Afghanistan, Iraq, Rudd continuation of same, Gillard ditto + attacking Assange, *all* pro-Z, *all* pro-neo-liberalism etc., *none* of which is in the public interest, rather against it.


The commenter Orly is the same entity as Anon - from style, content & timing. The name-change was forced by a debating defeat; Anon was repeatedly routed. It is intellectual dishonesty to repeat parts of the defeated material under a new name, just as it is intellectual dishonesty (and worse) for any AusBC moderators to censor attempts at countering such trolls.

A properly functioning democracy requires an informed electorate, *not* helped by pro-war, pro-Z, pro-US and/or pro-neoliberal propaganda. Why do some unleashed moderators compromise their 4th-estate, free-speech responsibilities and put themselves into paragraph(5)?


Musing: IMHO, the best truths are the revealed ones:

Heidegger ... 'disclosedness'; ... Untruth, then, is something concealed or disguised.

... real democracy, whose "currency," said Thomas Jefferson, is "free flowing information."


my best yet
 - victim of evil AusBC censors

My 'target:'
«Anon :
22 Jun 2010 10:59:26pm
Last time I checked, a lack of conviction DOES mean innocence. Or are we talking about different legal systems here? Or are you implying that justice only occurs when *you* agree with the judge's decision? Independence and sovereignty are established issues of international law. And it is through these things which Israel claims the land it holds. If you think that these rules don't apply, you need to come up with a better legal argument then "I don't like it".
Alert moderator»

Note: "then" [sic; instead of 'than'], and no 'Reply' button.

My (so far not published) input:

«duck, weave & dissemble

This's no Darlinghurst courtroom; the audience in 'our' AusBC's forums is mainly the mums'n dads of Awe-Straya and any nippers allowed up late. (Lawyers are about as scanty as men in frocks on the outer Barcoo...)

So I will stick to the vernacular.

It's not what one abhors but what's *right & fair* that counts.

Exactly which part of "no conviction does *not* mean innocent" is not to understand?

Viewers of Perry Mason will recall that suspects are *assumed* innocent - until their conviction.

'No conviction' obtains *only* because the perpetrators have not yet fronted the charges against them, here improper and aggressive alienation of almost an entire country.

Now, 'explain' is different from 'justify.'

Explanation 1: Civil war, 'unilateral' independence.

Explanation 2: Balfour (motive), Jabotinsky (method) Ben-Gurion's arms (means).

'Matter of opinion' perhaps; differentiate by which 'explanation' describes the open-wound crime-scene.

Additionally, they perpetrated plan Dalet, the Deir Yassin massacre, all the death and destruction that accompanied and followed. Oh! One other, tiny *fact*: almost all Zionists in Palestine in '47/8 were immigrants, some more 'legal' than others.

Perhaps someone could thoroughly *justify* the violent dispossession of the hapless Palestinians; the charges stand until disproven.»

Comment: AFAIK, it's all true, or *fair* comments rooted in truths. I said as much to the moderators, via an 'alert:'

«I attempt to make *factual* comments, interspersed with *fact-based* opinions. I submitted a response titled 'duck, weave & dissemble' to this comment at appr 3:51pm, 23 Jun 2010. That was over 5 hours ago now, and I notice that you've published a few comments in the meantime; your 'comment-clock' (i.e. latest comment) stands at 2:46pm. Failing factual error in my comment, would you please be so kind as to publish it, in the name of the good old Aussie "Fair go?"
Thanks in advance, (signed.)»

Result: No visible action.

Comment: The AusBC is 'our' publicly-financed broadcaster; if they refuse to publish some truth, Q: What chances of justice prevailing are there? A: None - or at least fewer via the AusBC.

Note: I had another 'ready' when shock, horror - no 'Reply' button.

So here, my 2nd (so far not published) input:

««The IDF also killed 80 other civilians that day - by close-range shooting, artillery fire, aerial fire and naval fire. Among them were six women and 29 children under the age of 16. Just go to B'Tselem's website and read the list: a 7-year-old boy, a 1-year-old girl, another 1-year-old girl, a 3-year-old boy, a 13-year-old girl.

B'Tselem is careful to differentiate between Palestinians who "took part in the hostilities" and Palestinians who "did not take part in the hostilities." Its list of fatalities states: "Farah Amar Fuad al-Hilu, 1-year-old resident of Gaza City, killed on 04.01.2009 in Gaza City, by live ammunition. Did not participate in hostilities. Additional information: Killed while she fled from her house with her family after her grandfather (Fuad al-Hilu, 62 ) was shot by soldiers who entered the house." The grandfather also did not participate in hostilities.

Or perhaps ... because Riyeh Abu Hajaj, 64, and Majda Abu Hajaj, 37, a mother and daughter, were the only ones killed while carrying a white flag that January 4? No. Matar, 17, and Mohammed, 16, were also killed. They were shot from an IDF position in a nearby house as they pushed a cart carrying the wounded and dead of the Abu Halima family, who were hit by a white phosphorous bomb that penetrated their home in northern Beit Lahiya. Five members of the family were killed on the spot, including a 1-year-old girl. Another young woman would die of her injuries a few weeks later.

Anon: Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin seamlessly continued.»

Note: Posted via next available 'Reply' button.

Comment: Waiting ... with no 'great expectations.'


AusBC continues to censor as Z-crimes also continue

Submitted to "A year in Iran" @ ~4:25pm,17Jun'10:
(AusBC clock = blog+8hr)

«"All options!" is how that US threatens Iran - even though making such threats is itself illegal. Israel is not quite so subtle(??!) - it *openly* threatens to attack - similarly illegal. If a force crosses *into* some territory, that's called invasion, and if those invaders go on to dispossesses the erstwhile legal owner/occupants without their permission that's called theft. I had assumed that this was all cleared up latest at Nuremberg but apparently not. The opprobrium is transferable and is occurring, to perpetrators and supporters both. Anon, perhaps you overlooked my "the IAEA sees *NO* evidence?"»

Submitted to "(AIJAC) Of blockades" @ ~4:37pm,17Jun'10:

«Lost? The original *and continuing* 'driver' of this horrid situation is a crime so wide and deep it almost defies comprehension, namely the theft of ½Palestine [wiki/Balfour_Declaration_1917 -> wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan]. Clearly, ½ wasn't enough, so they (the invading aliens) went both extremist & terrorist [wiki/Plan_Dalet as typified by wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre]. They, now 'official' occupiers of the *other* ½Palestine, building illegal 'settlements' = Lebensraum-theft, from pre-'47 right down to today; simply never stop [invade Lebanon 2006, Gaza '08/9, the blockade & latest = act of war on high seas against a NATO-member Turkey, killing NATO civilians - where is the NATO response?] It is quite clear that there can never be peace without justice - and the wicked actions against the ELO/Os reflect on all Israelis who support the vile policies, plus all in the diaspora who do not give their all, attempting to *effectively* object. Israelis & their supporters (see headline article) wail: "Why attack us?" - Apparently forgetting that Israel *caused* the problem 101% itself; IF the aliens had not invaded Palestine [wiki/War_of_aggression], THEN there would be *no problem at all*. Claiming any UN authority is *totally* nullified by (grievously!) violating the same authority's rules.
Disclaimer: Denounce all crimes; support *NO* criminals.»


censored input to
 'Israeli raid: crimes against humanity?'

[This post may evolve]


'Target' comment by Anon @ 02Jun'10,8:55pm

Where is the logic in Israel's existence? Easy. Israel unilaterally declared independence.

Then when Israel's neighbours refused to accept its existence, Israel upheld its independence with military force.

Independence does not need an old book, or an invisible friend, in order to occur. So your comment (while insulting to the Jewish faith) was hilariously incorrect.

Independence simply requires strength and intent. Which Israel had. And so it happened.

So much for YOUR logic, such as it was.

Reply Alert moderator

My response, submitted 03Jun'10,3:51pm

«It is totally irrelevant what anyone may say, it's only what Israel does that counts. The intent and effect, if not the modus operandi developed for plan Dalet, demonstrated at Deir Yassin have been continuously applied (and modernised; see missile-firing helicopters etc), from then until now. No declaration nor dressing up (military uniforms) changed the nature or effect of the policy, all one has to do is observe, pictorial proof [.jpg]: tinyurl.com/37wcw2x

Without significant change (for the better), this progression contains the legacy, the present and points to the future - of ever increasing dispossession by one side, ever increasing despair in the other.»

Above did not appear but other, later has;


Of course, having been censored, one gets a bit wary of 'speaking freely,' but there is nothing non-factual in my input, let alone any infraction of the AusBC's published guidelines - they practice brazen and cowardly comment suppression = un- and anti-democratic censorship.


Australian Broadcasting Corporation, biased?
 Yes; not to the left - but to buggery!

This so far small, specially constructed blog documents some of the comments that I've submitted to AusBC forums, mainly 'unleashed' - comments that sadly have *not* appeared, i.e. 'publication denied.'

The main topic for censorship is neither bad language nor abuse of other commenters - the 'normal' grounds for moderating an internet discussion. This is totally clear, because I just don't 'do' bad language or ad-homs. On occasion, I may choose to attack, aka criticize *comments* (i.e. the content) of rogue-regime apologists.

Whatever; my main gripe is the criminality and lies of the rogue regimes of the US & IL, and my posts do not shy from criticising these entities, their crimes & lies - as one can see from the material included in this blog.

I try at all times to be factual and am always prepared to 'substantiate' any statement; I describe the 'Israel project' as being driven by invading alien Zionists (shortened to 'Zs,') and their prey as 'erstwhile legal owner/occupants' aka ELO/Os, mainly hapless Palestinians. IMHO this description is not just totally justified but wholly truthful, and should not, in any properly functioning democracy, attract 'publication denied' by the AusBC.

To be censored for expressing such sentiments is un- and anti-democratic, as well as tyrannical - all the while, this rogue AusBC is paid using some of the taxes extracted from my hard-earned income.

Q: Where is my freedom of speech?

A: Denied by the AusBC.

censored input to 'Israel is not above the law'

[This post may evolve; update 1, 2.]


'Target comment' by Haha : @ 25May'10,6:59pm

"If you believe Israel is in breach of the law, then how do you reconcile the fact that:

1. Israel always has at least an arguable legal case for the issues you mention,

2. The International Court has made no binding resolutions on such issues, and

3. No successful legal case has been brought against Israel on such issues, in the sixty years since its creation?

Two possibilities there. The first is that Israel somehow controls the entire UN and the entire international justice system.

The second possibility is that your opinion on those issues might be wrong."

Reply Alert moderator

My response, posted 26May'10,12:51am

«The absence of a criminal record does not imply the innocence of the accused - this is a fallacy of the non sequitur type.

Proof: *ALL* perpetrators start out with no record.

Further, a 62+ year record of 'no conviction entered' may well be due to serious corruption of the justice system.

Proof: *These* perpetrators live in half of a duplex, 'gifted' to them by the so-called applicable 'justice system.'

(One could argue that that 'system' had no right to do such gifting; I do so argue, as slightly more strenuously, do the ELO/Os - erstwhile legal owner/occupiers - mostly hapless Palestinians.)

Further, the very same perpetrators illegally occupy most of the other half of the duplex.

Proof: Most if not all 3rd party countries, including the perpetrators very own 'protectors' acknowledge the illegality of the occupation.

Further, the perpetrators claim to 'own' their protectors' Congress. A parliament amenable to being 'owned' is also corrupt.

Please consider:
"The Federal Government is expelling an Israeli diplomat after it found Israel faked Australian passports that were used in a hit on a top Hamas leader in Dubai."

Repeat: "... Israel faked Australian passports ..."»

Above did not appear; my retry, posted 26May'10,3:51pm

«The absence of a criminal record does not imply the innocence of the accused - this is a fallacy of the non sequitur type.

Proof: *ALL* perpetrators start out with no record.

Further, a 62+ year record of 'no conviction entered' may well be due to serious corruption of the so-called justice system.

Proof: The absence of convictions does *not* imply an absence of offences.

Please refer to the prior discussions re: alien invaders vs. erstwhile legal owner/occupiers.

Please refer to the prior discussions re: abuse of occupation.

Proof: Most if not all 3rd party countries, including the perpetrators very own 'protectors' acknowledge the illegality of the occupation 'settlements.'

Further, the alleged perpetrators claim to 'own' their protectors' Congress. A parliament amenable to being 'purchased' is also corrupt.

Both the abuse of the occupation and the act of corrupting are usually considered to be criminal acts.

Please consider:
"The Federal Government is expelling an Israeli diplomat after it found Israel faked Australian passports that were used in a hit on a top Hamas leader in Dubai."

Repeat: "... Israel faked Australian passports ..."»



Update 1; 11:45. AusBC comment clock now 6:19:13pm; well past my 2nd try time; assume censored.



Update 2; 27May'10,7:47. Next submit @ 26May'10,11:03pm also failed to appear; assume censored:

«JohnnoH @ 25May'10,8:14pm

"Israel has the God given right to exist ..."


Could we see the evidence, please?

JohnnoH @ 25May'10,8:07pm

"You mean it was a criminal act for the Jews to regain their homeland in 1947?"


Could we see the pre-'47 title deeds, please?

Then let the people - honestly, openly & fully informed - decide.»

What to do? Lost my democratic voice to AusBC censorship.



The next censored input, 'Haha’s logic'

The resubmit of "Care to point those lies out?" was published, then the following @ 11May'10,5:12pm so far *not* [start of submit]:

This is not a Darlinghurst courtroom, Haha @ 11May'10,11:51am, as a public forum, we can leave the readership to judge any explications. Further, I presume nothing - other than the expectation of getting a "Fair go!"

Haha: "The only mistaken argument here is that you presume to be an arbiter ..."

Me: Noting "only," I could say 'thanks' - for accepting my logic.

Haha: "you do not have the capacity or authority ..."

Me: Hmmm, interesting. May we learn what qualifies *you* to make such judgments?

As to "plain English," I'd use Sanskrit if I thought it'd suit my purpose - but which bits did you not understand?

My arguments are logical statements of the form if X then Y, where X is a cause of Y; the veracity of such statements cannot simply be collectively dismissed as "fallacious" - especially in the light of Haha's earlier statement implying *acceptance* of my logic. More work required?

The initial X in my statements/logic chains are posited, unspecified but substantiable lies of which there are myriad. The 'best' (of course the worst) lie is Saddam's non-existent WMDs. The list is looong - and nefarious.

I can then reformulate: IF lies THEN deceit; IF deceit THEN unjust, IF unjust THEN all such wars are to be resisted with all energy available. It's the *duty* of every citizen to so resist. [end of submit]

Comment: I'll modify it & resubmit, as per yesterday.

Q: Is it a rogue gatekeeper, or AusBC policy? Perhaps we'll be able to tell, as the censorship picture develops.


compare one allowed vs. one censored


Voice of reason and realism :
10 May 2010 6:17:41pm
  «The pacifist strand in here is extraordinary.
It is ridiculous to compare WW2 and Vietnam, or to the present struggles.
Appeasement was a failure.
Soft hearted sentiment is soft minded. we're back on the path of appeasement now, hoping if we give the Mohammedan fascists respect, they'll stop demanding more. They won't.
Remember the 30s. Remember the whole of human history. We're still humans. Wake up and smell the napalm.»
[AusBC/unleashed, "Vietnam War Moratorium"]

Comment 1: Having said "ridiculous to compare," VoRR goes on to do exactly that, and *tries* to equate Islam-O-fascism (anyway an invalid construction/concept) to the WW2 fascist 'axis.'

Comment 2: Shrieking "Appeasement!" is always good - for the r-whingers, but I recall that 'the West' encouraged the Nazis in the early days, as a 'containable' counter to communism. Shrieking "Communism!" or "Socialism!" is another 'always' for erring ideologist r-whingers with totally irrational allergies against anything even slightly to 'the left' of Ayn Rand - say.

Comment 3: Since WW2 ended with a double BANG! - the dual war crime A-bombings killing about a ¼mio predominantly civilian Japanese, an act not so much to end WW2 (the Japs were pleading for surrender) as to initiate WW3, aka the so-called 'cold war' against Russia&Co, just about every war the US has initiated involved 100% aggressive invasion following a desire to push US hegemony, and usually with some pecuniary interest - like oil in Iraq, say.

Comment 4: Not 'just' the US, but its illegal Z-sprog continued/extended its alien invasion and immoral, illegal occupation of land not theirs, aka that (still!) belonging to the mostly Palestinian ELO/Os (erstwhile legal owner/occupiers), an obscene crime now 62+ bloody years old and no end in sight.

Now, to the disallowed:

Posted 10 May 2010 5:50pm [start of submit]

Re: Anon @ 09May'10,1:52pm
 Care to point those lies out?

Re: Haha @ 09May'10,2:07pm
 -And wanting your country to lose a war is traitorous.

Re: Haha @ 10May'10,11:19am
 Thank the peace protestors ... they forced their governments to lose.


Look at 4 entities A, B, C & D.

Look at 4 wars (alpha-order) V (headline) then X, Y & Z.

Look at the assertion: "We are starting this war because ..."

Look at 4 'reasons' (time-order):

1) Some g*d promised it to us!

2) Gulf of Tonkin!

3) Al Qaeda did 9/11!

4) Saddam has WMDs!

IF anyone uses a lie as part of an argument, THEN that argument is fallacious.

IF anyone uses a lie to 'convince' a voter, THEN that voter is deceived.

IF any voter is asked Q: "War?" THEN s/he may answer "Y/n."

Q: How many (uncorrupted) voters were asked, when?

IF alternative ruling parties 'offer' the same (non!)choice, THEN that's called bipartisanship = unrepresentative = non- and anti-democratic.

IF a casus belli is 'contaminated' by lies, and the true purpose (theft) is 'concealed' behind lies THEN that war is both illegal and immoral.

IF a war is started by an aggressive alien invasion, THEN that is a Nuremberg-scale war crime.



lie2 -n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. [POD]

deceit n. 1 deception, esp. by concealing the truth. 2 dishonest trick. [Latin capio take] [ibid.]

fallacy n. (pl. -ies) 1 mistaken belief. 2 faulty reasoning; misleading argument. fallacious adj. [Latin fallo deceive] [ibid.]

[end of submit]

You, dear reader, may ponder the 'wisdom' of the AusBC censors.


PS: And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy." Alice's Restaurant, by Arlo Guthrie.


two existing plus 4 apparently censored comments

two existing:

yet-another-anon :   19 Apr 2010 2:59:22am

Re: Anon @ 18Apr'10,12:06pm, who wrote:

"Iran funds Hamas, Hezbollah and other groups. Ergo, it does support terror groups."

It is incorrect to term Hamas, Hezbollah etc. terror groups.

Consider, in neutral language, the definition of theft:

"... the crime of taking the property ... without consent. ... Robbery is an aggravated form ... involving violence or the threat of violence directed against the victim ..."

Consider, again in neutral language, a particular situation:

Entity-A begins taking the property of Entity-B without their consent, including using violence, resulting in many deaths amongst Entity-Bs (the erstwhile legal owner/occupiers; ELO/Os). Usually, causing death during the commission of a crime is termed murder. This process continues 62+ years long, down to the present.

Almost all of the Entity-As lived elsewhere until shortly before the above-described theft-process began.

Groups attempting to resist such alien invader Entity-As and their associated violent, murdering theft of Entity-Bs' property, groups also attempting to reclaim *their own land* are the actual, true defenders. As proof, I offer the real world, free of the deceit of self-serving propagandists.

Anon :   19 Apr 2010 12:42:51pm

Consider, in neutral language, the following:

That 'theft' in its natural form, requires the unlawful taking of property. And that 'unlawful' requires the existence of a relevant domestic law to be broken.

That regardless of where the people of Entity-A lived prior to the fact, they lived as part of Entity-B at the time of independence.

That when the Entity-A's declared independence from Entity-B, the result was civil war. That Entity-A, through legal act and later military strength, became independent.

That 'independence' and 'sovereignty' were gained by entity-A. And that those terms have legal implications for the land that was taken.

That Entity-B ceased to exist as a nation when it was divided between Israel, Jordan and Egypt. That it no longer existed because it had no government, land or sovereignty.

That as a result of further war, Jordan and Egypt both lost the territory that they held. And later gave up their claims to both regions when making peace with Entity-A.

That Entity-A as the only legitimate government over all regions once held by Entity-B, is the only successor state recognised by the UN.

That Entity-B, as it does not legally exist, cannot legally be at war. And so cannot legally be a defender.

And that even if any of the above was incorrect, it does not stop the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah use terrorist tactics. Which makes them terror groups by default.

apparently censored:

Re: Anon @ 19Apr'10,12:42pm, alien invaders.

No, no, a 1000 times no.

Anon: "a relevant domestic law" - no.

Presumably, the hapless, dispossessed ELO/Os are not interested in pettifogging (1 practise legal trickery. 2 quibble or wrangle about trivial points. [POD]). The expression ELO/Os - erstwhile legal owner/occupiers, perfectly describes the pre-existing situation, *before* the Entity-As began mass-infiltrating/invading. The definition of theft perfectly describes the resulting situation, whereby great swathes of ELO/O land are now occupied against the wishes of those ELO/Os, and the dispossession having been carried out by armed force including killing, what may perfectly be described as murdering-theft for soil.

Any unbiased observer can see it; as proof consider that even the greatest supporter refers to 'illegal settlements.'

That should be enough, but more:

Anon: "they lived as part of Entity-B ... when the Entity-A's declared independence from Entity-B, the result was civil war" - no.

What is under discussion was the British Mandate of Palestine, administered by an alien power, which (funnily enough) had tried to limit if not stop Entity-As immigrating. It was when UNGA181 (*non-binding*, "was approved by a vote of 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions on November 29, 1947. ... the passage of the partition plan immediately instigated a civil war in Palestine.")

One can posit that any 'civil war' was either by the ELO/Os trying to resist the Entity-A's invasion - legitimate defence, AND/OR the Entity-A's attacking both the authorities and ELO/Os - illegitimate terrorism; as proof see Plan Dalet, Deir Yassin massacre etc..

[257 words, to be continued...]

Re: Anon @ 19Apr'10,12:42pm, seeking legitimacy.

Anon: "That Entity-A, through legal act and later military strength, became independent." - no.

Anon, kindly provide substantiation of your assertion: "legal act."

Again, Anon's 'narrative' does not accord with observable facts: "and later military strength."

In part-one, I documented the 'crime-scene,' (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_mandate_of_Palestine) and showed that the vicious lawlessness against the authorities by the Entity-As had begun after the *non-binding* UNGA181 and before 14May'48.

Proof: Einstein wrote a letter dated 10Apr'48:

"When a real and final catastrophe should befall us in Palestine the first responsible for it would be the British and the second responsible for it the Terrorist organizations build up from our own ranks.

I am not willing to see anybody associated with those misled and criminal people."

Notice the words above the photocopy: "two militant Zionist groups - Lehi and Irgun - as part of an effort to cleanse the area of its Arab population."

Anon's 'military strength' were terrorist gangs.

Those gangs 'became independent' by unilateral declaration - it's not just like robbers, having broken into a property, declare the property to be theirs, it is *exactly* that...

(At least one of Anon or Zing has acknowledged that land may not be legally seized by military action.)

.. and the land illegally seized by Entity-A's terrorism - to this day - prevents the formation of the promised Palestinian state.

[235 words, to be continued...]

Re: Anon @ 19Apr'10,12:42pm, more pettifogging.

Anon admits that: "land ... was taken." - OK.

At least that's part of what we can observe in the real world.

Then Anon's 'narrative' discusses various wars, Jordan and Egypt etc. down to: "Entity-A as the only legitimate government over all regions." - no.

The lie is given to this risible nonsense by the so-called 'world community,' *including* the US, all deploying the term 'illegal settlements' in 'occupied territories.'

There are UN rules as to what one may or may not do in occupied territories; both by driving Entity-Bs out and letting Entity-As in, the Entity-As are in breach of these rules. Risking some repetition for effect, being "in breach of these rules" = law-breakers = outlaws, aka criminals. (Some of us *know* this already.)

Anon: "That Entity-B, as it does not legally exist, cannot legally be at war. And so cannot legally be a defender."

Here, I repeat kenj's words: "Oh, please! There has to be at least a pretence of rationality in this discussion column."

IF someone's land is stolen AND they try to reverse that theft THEN they are defenders. Just how obvious?

[198 words, conclusion to come...]

Re: Anon @ 19Apr'10,12:42pm, morals and musing.

Anon: "Entity-B, as it does not legally exist, cannot legally be at war."

Q: Who would choose to be?

A: *Only* aggressive villains; wars are started by someone trying to take advantage. A notable reason given (then as now): Lebensraum.

Anon: "And that even if any of the above was incorrect, it does not stop the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah use terrorist tactics. Which makes them terror groups by default."

Me: Oh, really? I do believe we've had this before - and frighteningly similar, all through the last 62+ years. "Us good - them bad!"

As in the invader-aggressor, referring to 'regrettable collateral deaths' - of complete innocents - saying: "Oh, well, that's war."

And yet when the invaded (validly!) object, they're to be called terrorists?

Again, I repeat kenj's words: "Oh, please! There has to be at least a pretence of rationality in this discussion column."

And a not-so BTW: War has been described as 'politics by other means' - or whatever; I don't care for sophistry. The Entity-As failed in their bid to buy their way in, they failed in their bid to sneak in - cf. legitimate resistance by ELO/Os - from day-one - and so, Entity-As went to war (always alleging attack but in fact provoking all conflict) - the alien invader Entity-As are the aggressors - trying to seize land-not-theirs, the situation that still exists.

Violence, for the slow thinkers, is what some people do when they lose the intellectual contest.

[259 words, all for now]

Fazit: Make of it what you will. The AusBC does, and it's called censorship - but worse, it's in favour of criminals, against democracy - they take our taxes then they lie to us.


raison d'ĂȘtre

It was always going to happen; attempting to 'debate' on an 'uneven playing field' was worse than Sisyphean; simply doomed from the start.

But it *proves* my point, it shows the AusBC up for exactly what they are, namely corrupt & anti-democratic.

This blog was constructed to be found following publication of this comment:

«Re: Anon @ 19Apr'10,12:42pm

No, no, a 1000 times no; wrong on as good as every point.

Anon: "a relevant domestic law" - no, perhaps one could consider (aka search for) "positing no domestic law is a total furphy."»

Note: Posting above comment delayed until this blog proves searchable.