[Update: 24hrs later, submitted comment has not been published. Any unjustified censorship (i.e. of anything non-libellous, etc.) is un- & anti-free-speech, un- & anti-democratic, un- & anti-we the people, un- & anti-humanitarian. The AusBC is all those & worse; they take our tax-$s under totally false pretences = the AusBC perpetrators of such offences are criminal frauds. Worse again, the AusBC is here acting to prevent the truth being said about I/J/Z-plex criminals, making the AusBC themselves accessories to vicious crimes.]
In response to:
APM:
02 Jan 2014 12:12:25pm
I don't fall for the trick of differentiating between the Israeli government and Jews. Presumably these policies are based on the democratic wishes of most Jews. Therefore BDS is really racism thinly disguised.
The following was submitted:
{Note on Z-democracy - since they harp on it, the entire I/J/Z-plex stands charged as responsible for Z-criminality; IF they were truly democratic (AND had the humanitarian impulse) THEN some J-majority could stop the crimes. None does; hence all members of the I/J/Z-plex are either perpetrators (their heirs, successors, descendents&ilk), accessories, apologists or even just 'idle' bystanders benefiting from the Z-crimes[§] = *all* are more or less guilty. The only ones who can escape guilt are any *active* dissidents.
[§]Premeditated ethnic-cleansing of an entire 'Mandate Territory' (a trust designed to protect natives' inalienable rights; totally violated) using genocidal methods. Proof:
1.Herzl, expropriation
2.Balfour, no consult
3.Jabotinsky, colonise by force
4.Ben-Gurion: "we are the attackers and the Arabs ... own the land"
5.UNGA181: "an area ... shall be evacuated"
6.Meir, $US50mio for guns & bombs for Plan Dalet&Co
7.When immigrants (=aliens) attack natives, it's not civil war but Nuremberg-class crime
8.Z-terrorism, down to today; highest-tech vs besieged natives
9.US-support & vetoes, also down to today
0.Z-hasbarah = 'loose with the truth' = designed to deceive
This quick summary is a) fully substantiable = true and b) should be known to all - IF not THEN blame the 'news-gatekeepers' = MSM+PFBCs.}
Post-submit comment: APM writes "I don't fall for the trick" and then "BDS is really racism" - which are both hasbarah-style deceptions. In plain text; Israel is an un-remedied crime-scene, *anyone* who favours such wicked crimes make themselves criminal via the accessory-mechanism. BTW, the people who call themselves Jews are, to the best of my research, hardly a race. Calling for BDS, performing BDS, are actions directed against vicious crimes – crimes the so-called 'international community' (mostly rogue-regimes & their quisling patsies) tolerates. Not most people in general, and not me in particular.
PS Here is a 32-word minimal situation descriptor:
Herzl zionist Balfour declaration Jabotinsky Iron Wall colonise force perpetual war Ben-Gurion we are attackers [they] own land ethnic cleansing improper dispossession illegal squatting Nuremberg-class crime; Zs say SORRY! revest recompense reparations
My suggested solution is similar to UNGA194:
11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;
Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;
Me: The world owes justice to the hapless Palestinians; time to restore it in full.
2013-09-14
antiwar censor-robot active - grrr!
Some keywords (hence the XXXs below) trigger the shunting of comment-input onto the 'moderation' queue; IF we knew THEN we could possibly avoid this annoyance. Of course, it's their right...
Update, 14Sep 08:51: Unfortunately, I overlooked "the Jews decided" in a Clarence quote, which triggered the antiwar censor-bot. But then some IMHO (un)democratic criminal person killed = deleted my input. You may read it for yourself and decide:
Input (to antiwar Raimondo We Beat the War Party - For now ... (re Clarence - aletheia exchange)):
The prime-crime (land/property theft by mass-murdering violence = ethnic cleansing by genocidal methods) is visible to all who look, as illustrated in the #-points above, along with means, motive, and opportunity etc.. Anyone is welcome to challenge anything with this advice: aletheia is dedicated to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that truth to be exposed. I do my best.
Reviewing critical points:
From a book written in 1895-6, “The XXX-ish question persists wherever XXXs live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with XXX-ish immigrants.”
Observation: Wherever they go, they *cause* an hostile reaction. It's only natural, that they might seek relief. On the principal of 'prevention is preferred to cure,' one might expect relief to be sought somewhere *without* neighbours to vex, but no such cleverness. By 1905, the 'final destination' was chosen, but note: *Not* a 'land without people.' The vexing followed as night follows day (the natives were not only restless, but driven to rioting), the XXXs sought assistance by lobbying the British (lobbying = coercing, threatening, bribing etc., see Mafia-methods); result = the Balfour sell-out, 1917. That was obviously insufficient for Jabotinsky, ~1923: “only active retaliation would deter ... only ... armed force would ensure ...” = perpetual war (Sounds like Obama/Kerry; plus ça change). This was admitted and consolidated by Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We ... are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending ... [they] own the land ...” Then add Plan Dalet/massacres (continuing sporadically to this day), and the rest is history.
Now, to JJJihad's «steal all "Judea and Samaria"» etc., which Clarence 1st *rewrote* as «It defies reason to claim "the Jews decided" everything. It flies in the face of the facts» and to prove that was no accident, Clarence then *reiterated* it as «i.e. that a small, scattered ethnic minority should be blamed for deciding the course of world events». Clarence demonstrates an active, if erring, imagination (and possibly megalomaniacal tendencies).
Given that neither of Clarence's rewrites were what JJJihad wrote, consider "straw man," "red herring" and "non sequitur" etc.. Clarence deploys fallacies along with bad words and attacks the messenger = "ad homiminem," another fallacy. This is not a surprise. Of course criminals lie, to do otherwise would be to self-convict. Note that along with lying, criminals are generally considered outcasts, and IMHO differ from normal, law abiding citizens so much, as to be considered ill (i.e. psychopaths). As the prime-crime is blindingly obvious (after circumventing the lie-cloud attempted disguise), so apologists must also lie, dissemble, obfuscate and generally attempt to deceive. Say "Hello," Clarence.
Briefly, to Clarence's own 'reason-defying' claim, consider that the ME countries on the WC7in5 list are all considered to be Z-enemies AND the US is working through that list, PLUS the US considers itself 'Lord of all creation,' THEN accusing Zs of "deciding the course of world events" is not at all far-fetched, even quite possible. The alternate thesis, that the US and Zs are only *coincidentally* on the same destructive, murdering for spoil (one soil, the other oil) path is disproven by the USS Liberty incident - where Zs mass-murdered US citizens with impunity, in the outrageous attempt to sink a US warship. The USS Liberty incident shows which is the tail and which the dog (recall Mafia-methods = coercing, threatening, bribing etc., add killing). But nevertheless, *the* substantial issue here is not who may run the world (or what a bad job they're doing), but the un-remedied Z-crime-scene; an entity illegally squatting on improperly alienated land has *no* legitimacy (and never did), and nothing the Zs do and/or their apologists say has any legitimacy either. Oh, and not so BTW, nobody may claim the right to defend stolen land/property; another deception bites the dust.
=====
0
aletheia · less than 1 minute ago
Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly.
grrr! 10:59.
Update: 1hr later; comment-count up by one, but comment still not there...
Update, 14Sep 08:51: Unfortunately, I overlooked "the Jews decided" in a Clarence quote, which triggered the antiwar censor-bot. But then some IMHO (un)democratic criminal person killed = deleted my input. You may read it for yourself and decide:
Input (to antiwar Raimondo We Beat the War Party - For now ... (re Clarence - aletheia exchange)):
The prime-crime (land/property theft by mass-murdering violence = ethnic cleansing by genocidal methods) is visible to all who look, as illustrated in the #-points above, along with means, motive, and opportunity etc.. Anyone is welcome to challenge anything with this advice: aletheia is dedicated to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that truth to be exposed. I do my best.
Reviewing critical points:
From a book written in 1895-6, “The XXX-ish question persists wherever XXXs live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with XXX-ish immigrants.”
Observation: Wherever they go, they *cause* an hostile reaction. It's only natural, that they might seek relief. On the principal of 'prevention is preferred to cure,' one might expect relief to be sought somewhere *without* neighbours to vex, but no such cleverness. By 1905, the 'final destination' was chosen, but note: *Not* a 'land without people.' The vexing followed as night follows day (the natives were not only restless, but driven to rioting), the XXXs sought assistance by lobbying the British (lobbying = coercing, threatening, bribing etc., see Mafia-methods); result = the Balfour sell-out, 1917. That was obviously insufficient for Jabotinsky, ~1923: “only active retaliation would deter ... only ... armed force would ensure ...” = perpetual war (Sounds like Obama/Kerry; plus ça change). This was admitted and consolidated by Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We ... are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending ... [they] own the land ...” Then add Plan Dalet/massacres (continuing sporadically to this day), and the rest is history.
Now, to JJJihad's «steal all "Judea and Samaria"» etc., which Clarence 1st *rewrote* as «It defies reason to claim "the Jews decided" everything. It flies in the face of the facts» and to prove that was no accident, Clarence then *reiterated* it as «i.e. that a small, scattered ethnic minority should be blamed for deciding the course of world events». Clarence demonstrates an active, if erring, imagination (and possibly megalomaniacal tendencies).
Given that neither of Clarence's rewrites were what JJJihad wrote, consider "straw man," "red herring" and "non sequitur" etc.. Clarence deploys fallacies along with bad words and attacks the messenger = "ad homiminem," another fallacy. This is not a surprise. Of course criminals lie, to do otherwise would be to self-convict. Note that along with lying, criminals are generally considered outcasts, and IMHO differ from normal, law abiding citizens so much, as to be considered ill (i.e. psychopaths). As the prime-crime is blindingly obvious (after circumventing the lie-cloud attempted disguise), so apologists must also lie, dissemble, obfuscate and generally attempt to deceive. Say "Hello," Clarence.
Briefly, to Clarence's own 'reason-defying' claim, consider that the ME countries on the WC7in5 list are all considered to be Z-enemies AND the US is working through that list, PLUS the US considers itself 'Lord of all creation,' THEN accusing Zs of "deciding the course of world events" is not at all far-fetched, even quite possible. The alternate thesis, that the US and Zs are only *coincidentally* on the same destructive, murdering for spoil (one soil, the other oil) path is disproven by the USS Liberty incident - where Zs mass-murdered US citizens with impunity, in the outrageous attempt to sink a US warship. The USS Liberty incident shows which is the tail and which the dog (recall Mafia-methods = coercing, threatening, bribing etc., add killing). But nevertheless, *the* substantial issue here is not who may run the world (or what a bad job they're doing), but the un-remedied Z-crime-scene; an entity illegally squatting on improperly alienated land has *no* legitimacy (and never did), and nothing the Zs do and/or their apologists say has any legitimacy either. Oh, and not so BTW, nobody may claim the right to defend stolen land/property; another deception bites the dust.
=====
0
aletheia · less than 1 minute ago
Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly.
grrr! 10:59.
Update: 1hr later; comment-count up by one, but comment still not there...
2013-09-12
a change to the idiot Abbott
might mean emboldened censors
or just the same old bigoted tax thieves
Silly me; tried again, censored again, here my input:
@Tom Switzer: "American credibility and prestige"
I made these notes as I read the article:
Obama sound-snips sounded weak and unconvincing
arab spring fomented ?% by NED, went violent ?% by CIA
no right to call for regime change
no right to call "red line" - sets false-flag bait
no 'smoking gun' on CW attack, *most likely* US-baited false-flag
the offer noCW=noSA (Syria gives up their Chemical Weapons, and US won't bomb them back to the Stone Age) publicised by Kerry's 'blunder'
"Moscow’s interest" vs. Zs' (Golan Heights; m4s++) + US' (WC7in5)
"ineffectiveness:"
{Kerry: We won't attack ... if you do this impossible thing.
Syria: Oh, We'll do it.
Russia: They'll do it.
UN: They'll do it.
Kerry: S**t!}
"strict self-defence?" No, + UNSC *correctly* stalemated
US' true (criminal) motive = 'help' Zs steal more land; the road to Tehran goes through Damascus.
arms/$s from KSA + Qatar, jihadis from outside, many Libyan Al-Q
*not* US business; MYOB!
The mission?
see Iraq, see Libya, see Stone Age
prolong and exacerbate it?
~21Aug, new arms = 400 tonnes, perhaps 1000+, all to 'rebels'
Obama has been all over the place
"all over the place" = US rhetoric; see 'digestive-tract accident'
Prestige and credibility?
no US-attack (supreme international crime), no risk &/ embarrassment
UK&/US have coveted ME oil continuously since pre-WW1
one of the biggest problems is: "Say one thing, do another."
they try to disguise their true intentions with lofty principles, latest R2P,
.. but secretly pursue resources by force - as if it's not obvious?
secrecy is a mortal enemy of democracy
no more attacks, no more killing (to steal), no more war!
===== definitions added:
m4s++ = mass-murder for spoil, soil, oil
WC7in5 = Wesley Clark leaking Pentagon intentions: 'US to take out 7 countries in 5 years.'
In full:
Wesley Clark: «About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon ... "This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."»
-=*end of submit*=-
Comments: What I write is a mix of truth = substantiable fact, and valid opinion based on same. If any are offended, it is most likely that such are part of some problem = are somehow negatively involved with some criminality which I happen to be condemning at the time. At any crime-scene, there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories, possibly apologists active, and any bystanders who, if they see the crime in progress and do nothing ('duty to assist victims'), are part of the group of more or less guilty participants. The only ones who may claim the moral high-ground are those who actively attempt to stop crime, and/or bring the guilty to justice.
AusBC censors refusing to publish valid commentary make themselves part of the guilty group.
PFBCs = publicly-financed broadcasters, like the AusBC.
It is the AusBC's task to fully and fairly inform the electorate; any deviation from that amounts to treachery, not to mention fraud + theft = taking taxpayers' $s under false pretences.
@Tom Switzer: "American credibility and prestige"
I made these notes as I read the article:
Obama sound-snips sounded weak and unconvincing
arab spring fomented ?% by NED, went violent ?% by CIA
no right to call for regime change
no right to call "red line" - sets false-flag bait
no 'smoking gun' on CW attack, *most likely* US-baited false-flag
the offer noCW=noSA (Syria gives up their Chemical Weapons, and US won't bomb them back to the Stone Age) publicised by Kerry's 'blunder'
"Moscow’s interest" vs. Zs' (Golan Heights; m4s++) + US' (WC7in5)
"ineffectiveness:"
{Kerry: We won't attack ... if you do this impossible thing.
Syria: Oh, We'll do it.
Russia: They'll do it.
UN: They'll do it.
Kerry: S**t!}
"strict self-defence?" No, + UNSC *correctly* stalemated
US' true (criminal) motive = 'help' Zs steal more land; the road to Tehran goes through Damascus.
arms/$s from KSA + Qatar, jihadis from outside, many Libyan Al-Q
*not* US business; MYOB!
The mission?
see Iraq, see Libya, see Stone Age
prolong and exacerbate it?
~21Aug, new arms = 400 tonnes, perhaps 1000+, all to 'rebels'
Obama has been all over the place
"all over the place" = US rhetoric; see 'digestive-tract accident'
Prestige and credibility?
no US-attack (supreme international crime), no risk &/ embarrassment
UK&/US have coveted ME oil continuously since pre-WW1
one of the biggest problems is: "Say one thing, do another."
they try to disguise their true intentions with lofty principles, latest R2P,
.. but secretly pursue resources by force - as if it's not obvious?
secrecy is a mortal enemy of democracy
no more attacks, no more killing (to steal), no more war!
===== definitions added:
m4s++ = mass-murder for spoil, soil, oil
WC7in5 = Wesley Clark leaking Pentagon intentions: 'US to take out 7 countries in 5 years.'
In full:
Wesley Clark: «About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon ... "This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."»
-=*end of submit*=-
Comments: What I write is a mix of truth = substantiable fact, and valid opinion based on same. If any are offended, it is most likely that such are part of some problem = are somehow negatively involved with some criminality which I happen to be condemning at the time. At any crime-scene, there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories, possibly apologists active, and any bystanders who, if they see the crime in progress and do nothing ('duty to assist victims'), are part of the group of more or less guilty participants. The only ones who may claim the moral high-ground are those who actively attempt to stop crime, and/or bring the guilty to justice.
AusBC censors refusing to publish valid commentary make themselves part of the guilty group.
PFBCs = publicly-financed broadcasters, like the AusBC.
It is the AusBC's task to fully and fairly inform the electorate; any deviation from that amounts to treachery, not to mention fraud + theft = taking taxpayers' $s under false pretences.
2011-06-15
suppressing information
like failing to index a blog
is also un- & anti-democratic
.. censored inputs ...
.. indicate systemic bias ...
.. and may lead to poster radicalisation
-=*=-
[update, 17Jun'11, update, 19Jun'11.]
A funny thing happened after recently submitting what I regard as a *fair* comment and having it censored; my corresponding blog-report here has so far not been indexed; I don't suppose we really have to wonder why?
"This happened once before
when I came to your door
No reply
They said it wasn't you
but I saw you peep through
your window"
- democracy's the loser...
Censored inputs indicate systemic bias and may lead to poster radicalisation.
-=*end*=-
PS It's not all inputs that are censored (just one would be too many), but what is censored indicates the (erring!) ideology of the censors. That AusBC is tax-payer supported and they dare to un- & anti-democratically censor anything is proof of their corruption and treachery both.
-=*=-
Update, 17Jun'11; Progress. From the google cache @ appr 07:30, this post and the preceding 'message' post have now been indexed, but the home-page cache is still old = down-level. If one wonders how they do that, I'd say 'bad fingers.'
It can be proven that I submitted a comment (I keep the receipts), and that indexing was interfered with. The question only becomes: Whose bad fingers?
[«back»]
-=*=-
Update, 19Jun'11; Progress? Not much, if any; still some down-level indexing. This article is deliberately duplicated, partly as a test.
A bit of nontrivia: Consider auto-da-fé[1], then heretic[2], a thesaurus entry for which is listed below[3]. If we dump all the supernatural implications (as totally invalid), the issue then is truth vs. lies. I advocate for truth & justice; in that frame it is the liars (commission/omission) who are the heretics, aka recusants (recalls Marxisant. Haw!) Also not just by-the-way, 'belief' is what people do in the absence of evidence; hence on principle I am *not* a believer.
Interfering with free-speech is a crime against democracy, and invalidates the perpetrator-platform.
-=*=-
Ref(s):
[1] auto-da-fé n. (pl. autos-da-fé) 1 hist. ceremonial judgement of heretics by the Spanish Inquisition. 2 public burning of heretics. [Portuguese, = act of the faith] [POD]
[2] heretic n. 1 person believing in or practising religious heresy. 2 holder of an unorthodox opinion. heretical adj.[ibid.]
[3] ›noun
he was condemned as a heretic and executed at the stake
DISSIDENT, dissenter, nonconformist, unorthodox thinker, heterodox thinker, apostate, freethinker, iconoclast, schismatic, renegade; sceptic, agnostic, atheist, non-believer, unbeliever, idolater, idolatress, pagan, heathen; separatist, sectarian, revisionist; rare tergiversator, recreant, recusant, nullifidian; archaic paynim.
-opposite(s): CONFORMIST; BELIEVER. [New Oxford Thesaurus of English]
[«back»]
2011-06-11
message to unleashed moderators and commenters
.. censorship is ...
.. un- & anti-democratic ...
.. censors are democracy-criminals
-=*=-
Free speech is an essential part of democracy; only so may we exchange facts and opinions - obvious.
Censorship - of fair comment - happens far too often on unleashed; just once is already damnable. So, message to unleashed moderators: Kindly stop censoring fair comment.
Message to unleashed commenters: IF you post a fair comment to unleashed AND it is censored, THEN you may post your comment here as a comment; if I judge it as 'fair comment' then I will publish it.
A good collection of censored comments may expose the bias of the censoring moderators, and provide evidence to support more serious actions, see below.
(*Unfair* comment would be abuse, extreme ad-homs or silly language, it's just common sense and no one needs it.)
.. specific requirements and recommendations regarding comments to Unleashed:
"Comments which the ABC considers to be abusive, defamatory, discriminatory or off-topic, or otherwise unlawful, will not be published."
[abc/thedrum]
Comments based on, and/or responding to already published comments should be allowed, also with some tolerance - that'd only be fair = normal democratic conversation.
In any case, a good next step against unfair AusBC censorship is to take complaint(s) to your local Federal MP.
Another possible next step would be the appropriate ombudsman or state-sponsored legal aid.
All fair comment welcome here - trolls needn't bother.
PS Copies of comments posted to unleashed, never to be seen again = censored, submitted here as a comment should include a) the post-point, b) the unl-thread "name" or number, and c) the approximate comment posting-time.
i.e. Re: Unbeliever@09Jun'11,3:15:56pm on "Prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons," censored comment posted 10Jun'11,3:51am.
2011-06-10
censorious AusBC unleashed moderators should be gaoled - if not worse - tumbrels!
Two comments submitted to "Prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons," neither published. GRRR!
1. Re: Unbeliever@09Jun'11,3:15:56pm
{The A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, instantly killing x (the 'lucky' victims) and leading to the lingering death of y, altogether about ¼mio dead, is a study in complexity.
«Even in the event of a US mainland invasion, the highest projected casualty estimates for US forces were not "over a million" like Stimson and Truman later claimed, but between 30,000 and 50,000 [3]. More importantly, prior to August 1945 Truman and his advisers had considered it possible that the war would end without either the atomic bombs or a mainland invasion by US forces [4].»
A well-entrenched propaganda technique is to deploy a deception so shocking that it causes wide-spread stupefaction; see the exaggerated estimate [3], then ¼mio horribly dead Japanese appears comparatively 'worth it.' Further, there's the contradiction [4] - the 'official narrative' fails as multiply, deliberately deceptive.
The 'unconditional' demand was a psy-op to *delay* surrender until the bombs were ready; proof = Hirohito continued as emperor.
What the US did get was otherwise unobtainable data on U-235 and Pu-239 bombs on 'live' civilian targets, simultaneously 'sending a message' illustrating their brutality, especially to Russia. Similar messaging techniques occur along the Deir Yassin through Cast Lead time-line.}
2. Re: Anon@08Jun'11,5:36:52pm
{One of two possible reasons may explain assertions contradicting historical fact, namely ignorance or malice.
[Van Crevel]
«"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force."»
[Golda Meir]
«At a point I interrupted her to say: “Prime Minister, I want to be sure I understand what you’re saying... You are saying that if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and even the whole world down with it?”
Without the shortest of pauses for reflection, ... Golda replied, “Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying.”»
One assumes that only enemies are to be targeted, making the entire world - which currently includes Israel, classified as 'enemy.'
In 'normal' criminal justice, the threat of assault is usually considered equivalent to the assault itself, and making threats as blackmail = coercion & intimidation, etc..
The "Samson Option" = greatest 'suicide-bomber' threat possible, ever.}
2011-05-19
submitted to unl,2715898 on 19May'11, ~12:30am; not published
People who kill other people in cold blood are psychopaths, either by nature ("My mother made me a ...") or by nurture (military training, say).
Someone *may* have hijacked aircraft (the FBI admitted having no proof on ObL, and passports fluttering out of *that* devastation don't pass the 'giggle-test'), but ObL&Co did *not* 'do' 9/11 - unless they had an invitation & free access - to pre-load the *3* WTC towers with high-explosives&detonator-systems. Proof: Find a few clear videos, *watch closely* - and then think a bit.
War is immoral (mostly murdering theft); 'legal' is a corrupt construct.
Our so-called 'democracies' are complete sham; two of many proofs: 1) dumbed-down and lied-to sheople cannot make 'informed' votes & 2) bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic; US, UK & Aus changed from tweedle-dumb to tweedle-dumber but the wars continue. What we actually have are tyrannies-by-stealth, camouflaged by the corrupt&venal MSM.
Laws made amongst 'consenting tyrannies' have no valid application vis-à-vis us, we the sheople; only just law may earn respect.
Since the 'ruling élites' are stand-alone-tyrants like the spoiled-brat sovereigns of old (nothing élite about criminality), if they wish to steal others' resources, they should keep the killing strictly amongst themselves, and leave us, we the sheople, to get on with enjoying life - instead of being lied to, scared shitless, and sent off to wars-for-spoil to personally be killed, or to mass-slaughter 100s of 1000s of innocent 'collaterals.'
Without some clear thinking leading to effective action and soon, our so-called 'ruling elites' will f**k-up our life-supporting ecosphere - and that ain't too flash.
Comment added for this article: AusBC censorship of fair comment proves that they're in it up to their quivering bottom-lips.
2011-04-11
UN to enable France+UK, US & NATO
- to bring justice to Palestine
(by bombing Israel)
[update ~12:50PM, update 12Apr'11, update ~12:10PM, update ~15:30PM,
update 13Apr'11, a final post]
[update 13Apr'11:]
Definitions:
AIMs4S = alien invader murderers for spoil (i.e. soil, oil; also AIM4S)
ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers (i.e. improperly dispossessed Palestinians)
PPP = pushed-propaganda paradigm (mostly lies; a 'specialty' of 'reporters' like Anne Barker, say)
Ethnic cleansing "is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas. (Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 780)". [wiki]
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. [wiki]
burglar analogy = how to describe the Zionist crimes against Palestine, hence 'improper alienation.'
improper alienation = the reverse of "A fair exchange is no robbery"
revest = return stolen property, i.e. by AIMs4S to ELO/Os, say.
Note: Most of the censored 1st comment has now been published, in modified form split across several subsidiary posts.
Comment: Censoring valid debate inputs (i.e. unl-comments) is un- & anti-democratic and thus is a crime against us, we the voting sheople; censorship-perpetrators should be both immediately sacked and severely punished = into gaol.
[end update]
-=*=-
Original beginning:
The following submitted as comment to AusBC/unleashed, target = It's democracy stupid @ ~4:45pm, 11Apr'11:
«UNGA181 was 'problematic,' 'debatable' and *undemocratic* from the outset (the mostly Palestinian erstwhile legal owner/occupiers (ELO/Os) were neither (properly) consulted nor their (known, anticipated) wishes respected); latest after the evidence of utterly primitive savagery = ethnic cleansing, genocide and land-theft via operations such as the Deir Yassin massacre (11Apr'48), UNGA181 should have been annulled. Yet the I/J/Z-plex project "Eretz-Yisra'el" was 'allowed' to endure until UNGA273 (11May'49), whereby the Israeli regime *promised* to abide by UNGA181 (respect Palestinians' rights) and UNGA194 (acknowledge Palestinians' right of return). That Israel has been continuously in breach of UNGA273 ever since is *not* in any doubt (one look tells all), making the Z-project wholly illegitimate, latest from 11May'49.
Following UNGA1973, first French+UK warplanes then US (predominately Tomahawk robot-missiles), now NATO warplanes a) demolished Libya's air-force and -defences, b) are attacking Libya's armed forces, ostensibly to 'protect' civilians, incidentally(?) aiding 'revolutionary/rebels' in a civil war.
Sauce for the goose; France+UK, US & NATO should now return the favour and come to the aid of the hapless Palestinian ELO/Os, the air-force and -defences and armed forces of the AIMs4S (aggressively invading murderers for spoil) should now be similarly suppressed/eliminated.»
Waiting for AusBC publication (or not?)
-=*=-
Update, ~4hrs later; unnaturally enough, the AusBC/unl p-clock has not yet crawled up to my comment-submit time - so comment still not visible means not (yet?) censored ... trying another anyway, target = @ 09 Apr 2011 5:53:45pm:
«Bipartisan support for anything - here land-theft from hapless ELO/Os (erstwhile legal owner/occupiers) by violence up to and including murder (alien invader murderers for spoil = AIMs4S) - is both un- & anti-democratic.»
Ooops; forgot to add: " .. as it offers the voter *no* effective choice."
[«back»]
-=*=-
Update, 12Apr'11; result = 1st not published = censored, 2nd published ... trying two more, 1st new target = dgr @ 11 Apr 2011 9:30:32pm:
«The outrages of Plan Dalet etc. were premeditated crimes, see Dier Yassin as just one of many, see Herzl & Jabotinsky for premeditation, Balfour & Truman (thanks Eric) for 'great power' perfidy. Shall such crimes and treachery merely be forgotten = forgiven? Under what *moral/legal* = *humanitarian/justice* principles? Then, such crimes (see AIMs4S elsewhere) have been repeated at intervals in the 63+ bloody years since. The proof is in the public domain; ever more of Palestine being gobbled up by an illegitimate entity, see "illegal wall" and "illegal settlements" as manifestations. Should such crimes (indelibly written on history in the name of the I/J/Z-plex) *ever* be ignored = unpunished? Why?
As preconditions to UNGA273, the Israeli regime *promised* to respect UNGA181 (inalienable Palestinians' rights) and UNGA194 (Palestinians' right of return) in particular, and the UN (international legal framework) in general. Observe that Israel was/is continuously in breach of both 181 & 194. For another proof of illegitimacy see the unanimously adopted UNSCR242, the preamble of which refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..." How much more suffering must the hapless, improperly dispossessed ELO/Os bear, how much proof is needed before the perpetrators are brought to justice?»
-=*=-
Update, ~12:10PM, now this is getting interesting; above "brought to justice" comment published, so the following was then submitted,
.. and 2nd new target = hallway hallway @ 12 Apr 2011 11:00:13am:
«That Lib may equal Lab on Israel (or worse, say neo-liberalism = privatising the public domain, to the sheople's enduring loss) - proves *nothing* about voter intention; in a predominately two-party system, a bipartisan consensus (note: between the two major groups of so-called 'representatives') on *anything* = un- & anti-democratic, since it offers the voters *no* effective choice at all = total loss of sovereignty. To make the latter less obvious, the sheople are immersed in propaganda = lies = deceived, encouraged into a TV/sport/celebrity culture to dumb them down = distracted. Where/when so deceived & distracted, an electorate is incapable of any rational decision, even if they were offered some real choice. All deliberately done, thanks, but "No, thanks!" to our so-called 'leaders,' the (corrupt & venal) MSM and sell-out academia (mainly corrupt economists) - who really should know *and do* better. Where is the Enlightenment, (vis-à-vis Israel, where is truth & justice = absent for hapless Palestinians), *where is my vote*? Apropos people 'voting with their feet,' anyone recall the Fugawi tribe?»
[«back»]
-=*=-
Update, ~15:30PM; phew! Fast & furious, over here; "Fugawi" published *and* the next (target = It's demonisation, stupid @ 12 Apr 2011 4:44:01pm too, followed below by two newly submitted & still queued):
«Bravo 'demonisation,' a very good start in the 'win-win' direction.
There're still at least two items 'to do,' namely *fair&acceptable* compensation for the victims and the 'bringing to justice' of the perpetrators - plus an 'extra' item, somewhat tarnished reputations to possibly be rebuilt.
Some of us like to assume 'the best' in regard for our fellow-wo/men, so it's unlikely that *all* the people involved in the Israel-debacle were actually intentionally bad. Having said that, there are those who thought land-theft was a good idea, those who actually did the thieving (starting with Irgun et al.) and those who gave the orders. Some of these are now dead = beyond redemption, and some will deny responsibility (aka quislings, cowards etc.) and others will continue to deny that vicious crimes were committed at all. To all this I simply say: "Look around Palestine; what happened there pre- and post-UNGA181?"
After Nuremberg, the spectre of the gallows looms. But, since we are compassionate in our pursuit of truth&justice, and recalling the recent "Raymond Davis" affair, there is possibly a kinder, gentler way: the perpetrators *pay their way* out.
Should be easy-peasy; the same diaspora contributors who raised $US50mio+ pre-UNGA181, thus ensuring the Nakba outrage, can now contribute to raising today's equivalent (see fair&acceptable) - for peace.
And the possible rebuilding of reputations may be started with a (genuine!) "Sorry!"»
-=*=-
.. 2nd last queued for today, target = La la la @ 12 Apr 2011 8:27:53pm:
«"La la la;" your 'pseud' is well chosen.
"... an agreement between the UK and the Arabs" - kindly substantiate *exactly* what you mean by 'UK and the Arabs;' i.e. provide documentation, for example were there referendums to anchor any such decision in any proper democratic majority? A: No. Q: What rights did either party have over the ELO/Os of Palestine and/or their property? A: None.
Proof of above: "A fair exchange is no robbery;" in which case, the hapless Palestinians would have looong ago decamped, with their fair recompense. *Obviously* never happened.
"... Declaration (of independence) occurred on" - kindly substantiate *exactly* how some burglar may declare him/herself 'independent' of the law? (Tip: Murdering theft is a crime.) A: Cannot.
"... it seems they are in constant war with Palestine" - no; the real 'war' is Zs against truth&justice (= *cannot* be won.)
"... choice seems to be between a democracy or a totalitarian regime" - also not, and non sequitur to boot.
The real choice is whether we, as the human race, can ever escape the so-called 'law of the jungle' - usually attributed to primitive animals; troglodytes, say.»
-=*=-
.. and last queued for today, target = Anon @ 12 Apr 2011 9:33:28pm:
«It's a 'funny' thing (but *not* funny-ha-ha); why would anyone of sound mind go out of their way (like, crossing continents and whole oceans, even) - just to create enemies?
.. and then proceed to kill those created enemies, to steal their property/land? (See AIMs4S vs. ELO/Os.)
Oh. Keywords: "Of sound mind."
Anyone else notice how often Anon discusses killing such *created* enemies? "And while aiming at the enemy targets, civilians died." S/he means innocent civilians and not just a small few, *killed*. Oh no! Send in the UN, France, UK, US (robot cruise missiles), NATO - to protect the entire pre-'48 hapless innocent civilian Palestinian nation? No? *Why the B-hell not*?»
[«back»]
-=*=-
update 13Apr'11, a final post; one more to hammer the point,
target = @ 13 Apr 2011 8:34:07am:
«chipinga: "Hell will freeze over ..."
Picture: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gates_of_Hell
Zionists, their apologists and sympathisers alike, continually complain: "(Arabs/Muslims/someone/anyone) is out to kill us/Israelis/Israel."
Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin-type massacres (see definitions of 'ethnic cleansing' and 'genocide'); crimes perpetrated by 'people-not-from-there' terrorist groups like Irgun and Lehi etc., quite literally opened the gates of Hell, both for the hapless victims = ELO/Os and the invading Zionist perpetrators = AIMs4S (definitions 'above').
Coming straight after WW2, the AIMs4S set out to commit what in more 'normal' times would be considered 'the crime of the century,' by stealing an entire country by violently driving out most of the native inhabitants.
So couched in vicious crime, Israel ('allowed,' even 'encouraged' by so-called 'great powers') persists in that illegitimate state - but, having opened those gates of Hell themselves, some have the temerity to complain if/when any victims attempt to reverse the Zionist-perpetrators' crimes. WTF?
Well, I say the world has had more than enough of this vile crime; since the UN has recently 'discovered' R2P for UNSCR1973, they should now *enforce* UNGA194 - to respect, protect & restore the former civilian population = ELO/Os to their freedom, place and property -
..by *all necessary measures*.»
PS Last one now published, 13 Apr 2011 6:34:48pm; goal achieved, hooray!
PPS Tried an extra one (silly me) - got censored;
target = Peter the Lawyer @ 13 Apr 2011 2:55:10pm:
«Hmmm, denigratory ad-homs deployed: "many folk-marxists" ... "little brown people" ... "prepared to kill Jewish children..." - immediately denies any credibility Oh, so cynically claimed by the use of "the Lawyer" in the 'pseud' = likely propaganda (aka lies).
Perhaps IF the self-termed 'great powers' ceased meddling in countries-not-theirs, allowing if not encouraging properly democratic self-determination by any/all people not members of the Anglo/Judiac 'club,' i.e. adopted 'do unto others,' the converse 'do no harm' and adding 'mind their own business,' THEN the world might work that much better and friendlier, thus eliminating any cause or opportunity for anyone to go murdering-to-steal? Let me put that, another way: all aliens (people not from there) should cease crossing borders inwards = aggressively invading, any such alien invaders (here Zionist immigrants into Palestine) to return to whence they came - in clear text, leave the Muslim/Arab/oil lands alone, hopefully also in peace?»
Me: Nothing wrong with that - as always & of course, IMHO.
[«back»]
2011-01-10
more in anger than in sorrow
- more AusBC censorship, less comprehension
Beethoven may have suffered, however briefly, from 'Die wut über den verlorenen groschen.'
Some people, so it is said, cry over spilt milk.
But there's very little point in getting one's nickers in a twist, over AusBC censorship, for here we 'borrow' from detested Ameri-speak (spit!): "Don't get angry, get even."
One way to document the AusBC crimes against freedom of speech & therefore against democracy itself, is to list 'in here' the items they have censored:
1) posted ~09Jan'11,09:52pm;
{Say one thing, do another.
"You can say what you like" - but nothing helps, if you don't listen.
Claiming 'legality' whilst dismissing at least all of UNGA181, 194 & 273, and UNSCR242 leads to contradiction.
"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories" does not reconcile well with "recognised as the lawful occupier," as "illegal settlements" attest.
See discussion on conceding; you did not dispute 'The law is an ass' nor 'Only *just* law can earn respect.'
Israel has ignored IntLaw from the beginning (i.e. Deir Yassin).
Israel's 'friend' vetoes anything critical.
Which means that IntLaw simultaneously means *all* to you/Israel - or *nothing* = contradiction.
It's the same as saying IF 'p' AND '~p' THEN no conclusion is possible.
This is not a Darlinghurst courtroom; arguing the 'legality' (and/or illegitimacy) means only to continue the status quo at best, leading to *more* opprobrium for one side, ever *less* justice for others.
The question is not of fiddling the legal system (un-levelling the 'playing field'), *clearly* what's been happening, but of seeking truth and justice.
The only 'win' possible is a win-win; *not* that the biggest/most guns get the spoil (aka murdering-burglary/home-invasion), but that *nobody* gets ripped-off.
«Primum non nocere.»}
2) 2nd (paraphrased) try, ~10Jan'11,06:45am;
{«qui tacet consentire videtur»
Recall "...only assume you concede them."
Not me; temporary silence may occur due to extraneous events.
Apropos, no-one disputed 'the law is an ass' nor 'only *just* law can earn respect.'
Claiming 'legality' whilst dismissing at least all of UNGA181, 194 & 273, and UNSCR242 leads to contradiction.
"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories" does not reconcile well with "recognised as the lawful occupier," as illegal settlements attest.
Israel has ignored IntLaw from the beginning (i.e. Deir Yassin).
Israel's 'friend' vetoes anything UNSCR/critical.
Which means that IntLaw simultaneously means *all* to you/Israel - or *nothing* = contradiction.
It's the same as saying IF 'p' AND '~p' THEN no conclusion is possible.
This is not a Darlinghurst courtroom; arguing legality and/or illegitimacy means only to continue the appalling status quo, leading to *increasing* pariah-status and opprobrium for one side, ever *less* justice for hapless victims.
The question is not of fiddling the legal system (un-levelling the 'playing field'), but of genuinely seeking truth and justice.
The only *just* win is a mutual win; *not* when the biggest/most guns get the spoil (aka murdering-burglary/home-invasion), but when *nobody* gets ripped-off or killed.
«Arma potentius aequum»}
Comment: A lot of my inputs are duplications (in new permutations) of things I've written and had published before; AFAIK there's nothing particularly new or outrageous in the above inputs.
Sooo, two questions:
a) Who gives the AusBC the right to censor *at all*, then
b) What can they possibly object to, in my facts and fact-based opinions?
Suggested A to the latter: they are *part of the problem*. See? Nothing much new here; move along!
2010-12-17
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."
2010-06-23
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.»
[haaretz]
Anon: Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin seamlessly continued.»
Note: Posted via next available 'Reply' button.
Comment: Waiting ... with no 'great expectations.'
2010-06-17
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.»
2010-06-03
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;
Comment:
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.
2010-05-26
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."
[abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/24/2907598.htm]
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."
[abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/24/2907598.htm]
Repeat: "... Israel faked Australian passports ..."»
waiting...
-=*=-
Update 1; 11:45. AusBC comment clock now 6:19:13pm; well past my 2nd try time; assume censored.
[«back»]
-=*=-
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 ..."
Um.
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?"
Um.
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.
[«back»]
2010-05-11
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.
2010-05-10
compare one allowed vs. one censored
Allowed:
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.
Oooh-Kayee:
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.
-=*=-
Ref(s):
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.
-=*end*=-
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.
2010-04-20
two existing plus 4 apparently censored comments
two existing:
1:
yet-another-anon : 19 Apr 2010 2:59:22am
2:
Anon : 19 Apr 2010 12:42:51pm
apparently censored:
1:
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...]
2:
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."
[lettersofnote.com/2010/03/when-real-and-final-catastrophe-should.html]
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...]
3:
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...]
4:
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.
1:
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 ..."
[answers.com/topic/theft]
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.
2:
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:
1:
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...]
2:
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."
[lettersofnote.com/2010/03/when-real-and-final-catastrophe-should.html]
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...]
3:
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...]
4:
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.
2010-04-19
raison d'être
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)