$10 Million Defamation Suit Filed Against Pamela Geller

US News • Views: 8,844

Last year Pamela Geller injected herself into the case of Rifqa Bary, a teenage runaway and Christian convert who claimed her Muslim parents were planning to kill her. (The Florida Department of Law Enforcement subsequently investigated these claims and found “no evidence whatsoever of alleged abuse or threats of death made by the girl’s parents.”)

As part of her usual hateful rabble-rousing, Geller repeatedly labeled the attorney for Bary’s parents as a terrorist sympathizer who was “appointed by CAIR.”

Now attorney Omar Tarazi is suing Geller and an activist Christian attorney in federal court for $10 million.

A Muslim attorney on one side of the Rifqa Bary dispute has filed a $10 million defamation lawsuit against Orlando attorney John Stemberger, an activist Christian attorney who worked for the other side.

The suit was filed by Omar Tarazi in federal court in Columbus, Ohio, Friday. It names John Stemberger of the conservative Florida Family Policy Council.

Also being sued is a blogger from elsewhere, Pamela Oshry, who writes under the name Pamela Geller at the website atlasshrugged2000 and penned scathing anti-Muslim posts after Rifqa ran away from home in July 2009, saying she was afraid her Muslim parents would kill her for converting to Christianity. …

In the suit, Tarazi accuses Stemberger of falsely claiming on Fox News that Tarazi was associated with a Columbus-area mosque that had ties to terrorists. It also says Stemberger defamed Tarazi by saying Rifqa’s parents fired qualified court-appointed Ohio attorneys to use only one – Tarazi – who was paid by a pro-Muslim group in Ohio, the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR.

Tarazi was paid by no one, according to the suit. …

Oshry [Geller] published web posts that falsely said Tarazi had joined Hamas, a Palestinian terrorist organization, and received payments from ” ‘criminal’ organizations with ‘ties’ to terrorists,” according to the suit.

The attorney being sued, John Stemberger, is apparently also under investigation by the Florida Bar for possible ethics violations in the case:

Stemberger on Tuesday called the suit “ridiculous and frivolous.”

“This is just an attempt at grandstanding after a loss,” he said.

Stemberger acknowledged but would not discuss an investigation by the Florida Bar into possible ethics violations by him for statements he made about the case.

Jump to bottom

228 comments
1 Kragar  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:00:18pm

It will be interesting to hear her arguments regarding her first amendment rights. Should be good for a few laughs.

2 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:00:23pm

You go around calling enough people terrorists and socialist vampires and such, sooner or later, some of them will sue you.

Such is life in a free and litigious society.

3 Gus  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:00:35pm

Pamela Geller being sued.

Andrew Breitbart being sued.

I see a pattern here.

4 Kragar  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:01:43pm

re: #3 Gus 802

Pamela Geller being sued.

Andrew Breitbart being sued.

I see a pattern here.

THE TRUTH TELLERS ARE UNDER ATTACK!1!1!ELEVENTY!!11

///

5 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:03:24pm

Frivolous Lawsuits! Tort Reform!

//

6 Kragar  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:05:03pm

re: #5 Dreggas

Frivolous Lawsuits! Tort Reform!

//

I could go for a lemon tort right now.

7 Ming  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:07:08pm

I'm not happy about out litigious society, but sometimes people with a public voice can unfairly defame other people, and it seems that Pamela Geller has crossed that line. This reminds me of Andrew Breitbart and Shirley Sherrod. It seems that both Ms. Geller and Mr. Breitbart are very far from being capable of appreciating that they people they have defamed are REAL HUMAN BEINGS, with families and feelings. Sure, you can say anything you want about a public figure like President Obama. But if you're going to blog about a private citizen, and go into your full crazy mode, there may be consequences. You know, "consequences", sort of like that cause-and-effect thing Ayn Rand writes about in Atlas Shrugged. In this case, the legal system may be the best way to inject a little REALITY into Ms. Geller's public pronouncements.

8 Mark Pennington  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:08:48pm

Charles, you're doing a fantastic job of trying to wake the public up to the dangerous bigot Pamela Geller is.

9 lawhawk  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:08:53pm

I daresay that the discovery process will be illuminating. Just imagine what Tarazi will uncover on the website and potentially use in the case.

10 Kragar  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:10:23pm

re: #9 lawhawk

I daresay that the discovery process will be illuminating. Just imagine what Tarazi will uncover on the website and potentially use in the case.

Searching her sight for hate speach, defamation, and libel is like searching 4-chan for porn.

11 lawhawk  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:14:10pm

re: #10 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Except that I'd feel pity for the discovery/document review company/individuals who have to go through the site for the incriminating information based on its absolutely horrific use of formatting.

12 William Barnett-Lewis  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:14:25pm

re: #10 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Searching her sight for hate speach, defamation, and libel is like searching 4-chan for porn.

I am so glad I didn't have any coffee in my mouth when I read that! LOL!

13 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:14:55pm

They key point is if he's lost business due to her claims. Shouldn't be hard to show.

14 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:15:10pm

re: #8 beekiller

Charles, you're doing a fantastic job of trying to wake the public up to the dangerous bigot Pamela Geller is.

I'm just surprised, really, at how she hasn't managed to do herself in.

She writes terribly, as if she's illiterate, and creates all sorts of incredibly complex wavy lines to connect Point A to Point B, when there's obviously no connection whatsoever.

15 Kragar  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:15:54pm

re: #14 reine.de.tout

I'm just surprised, really, at how she hasn't managed to do herself in.

She writes terribly, as if she's illiterate, and creates all sorts of incredibly complex wavy lines to connect Point A to Point B, when there's obviously no connection whatsoever.

You just described the majority of Tea Party candidates.

16 cliffster  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:16:09pm

Now being served at the white house...

17 Kragar  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:16:35pm

re: #11 lawhawk

Except that I'd feel pity for the discovery/document review company/individuals who have to go through the site for the incriminating information based on its absolutely horrific use of formatting.

Its not like they'll need to dig too hard at least.

18 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:19:33pm

There an insanity defense?

19 Kragar  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:20:29pm

re: #18 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

There an insanity defense?

Yes, but not a stupid, hateful bitch defense.

20 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:21:41pm

re: #7 Ming

It seems that both Ms. Geller and Mr. Breitbart are very far from being capable of appreciating that they people they have defamed are REAL HUMAN BEINGS, with families and feelings.

Above and beyond the feelings and families, if I'm a lawyer and you say on the news that I have terrorist links, you've hurt my business considerably. You better have some damn proof of that.

21 Kragar  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:22:34pm

re: #20 SanFranciscoZionist

Above and beyond the feelings and families, if I'm a lawyer and you say on the news that I have terrorist links, you've hurt my business considerably. You better have some damn proof of that.

It is a foreign sounding name. Isn't that enough?
///

22 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:24:08pm

Whether the case is won or not, I hope it succeeds in shining a light on this bigoted moron.

23 allegro  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:25:14pm

re: #22 Jimmah

Preferably it will make her go broke and go away.

24 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:28:06pm

re: #23 allegro

Preferably it will make her go broke and go away.

That would be ideal. However, I expect her lawyers will go for the "She really believed what she was a saying was true - she's a bit crazy you know" defence.

25 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:28:34pm

Well this will be interesting - since at least the attorney being sued is not a news outlet, is the burden of proof different for the plaintiff in the case?
(e.g. for defamation against a news agency you have to prove malice, etc. )
Mongo not know, Mongo just pawn in court of law - so any lawyers care to offer opinion on the merits and likelihood of success here?

26 Gus  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:31:27pm

Knowing Geller she will respond by further defaming Omar Tarazi. That's her style.

27 wrenchwench  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:31:51pm
A Muslim attorney on one side of the Rifqa Bary dispute has filed a $10 million defamation lawsuit against Orlando attorney John Stemberger, an activist Christian attorney who worked for the other side.

It's a religious war!1!! This has been going on for centuries--we should just stand back...

//

28 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:31:54pm

re: #23 allegro

Preferably it will make her go broke and go away.

Since she seems to be intimately involved in that Horowitz/Spencer constellation ultimately backed by Chernick and others I kind of doubt that. On the other hand, maybe she is just a idiot that they will fling in the gutter like a used condom because she's becoming more infamous rather than more useful.

29 sffilk  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:32:03pm

re: #6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I could go for a lemon tort right now.

Nah! Chocolate!

30 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:33:29pm

The saddest and most frustrating thing about having people like Geller be the loudest voices against honor killing is that they make it harder to address a very real problem. When the loudest voices are nuts, everyone who speaks out against honor killing -- a very real problem in many countries -- gets tarred with the loon brush.

It's the same with militant Islam -- it hasn't gone away, and it really is a serious problem, and the loons are doing the extremists a huge favor right now by shrieking so loud.

31 wrenchwench  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:35:29pm

re: #26 Gus 802

Knowing Geller she will respond by further defaming Omar Tarazi. That's her style.

In the courtroom, I hope.

However, I believe there will be a settlement before Geller is allowed to speak in public about this. If SIOA or Jihad Watch or any of the pockets attached to them are under threat, Pamela will finally be muzzled.

32 cliffster  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:40:39pm

apropos banners for social conservatives

33 Gus  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:41:25pm

Ha! Just as I predicted. Fail!

Whatever Happened to Steve Emerson’s “13 Hours” of Rauf Audio?

A couple of weeks ago, it was announced that Steven Emerson had “unearthed” thirteen hours of “audio tape” of Faisel Rauf, containing material that was both “shocking” and “explosive”:

Among the shocking revelations Emerson’s team will reveal next week — they found Rauf:

Defending wahhabism – a puritanical version of Islam that governs Saudi Arabia

Calling for the elimination of Israel by claiming a one-nation state, meaning no more Jewish State.

Defending Bin Laden’s violence

Although this caused much excitement, some of us were able to cast our minds back a whole six weeks or so to the previous time a conservative pundit had released an “explosive” recording of someone speaking; the results had not been encouraging.

[...]


The off-mic discussion even included a point that Pamela Geller, who was Emerson’s primary conduit, was forced to contradict: that Rauf doesn’t “want a demographic Islamic state”. Geller assured her readers that this was a lie and an example of “stealth jihad”, but a secret recording in which Rauf continues to present himself as a moderate in private is somewhat lame as an exposé. Geller, as expected, milked the subject of Emerson’s audios more than anyone, but even she’s moved onto other subjects and the topic has failed to gain momentum.

[...]

Of course, Rauf has made statements and holds positions that are controversial and arguable. But if his opponents are so convinced of his essential malice, why the constant recourse to distorted quotes and sensationalised stunts?

34 sffilk  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:42:31pm

Why do I get the feeling that it's going to have to be done like this, one idiot at a time?

35 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:43:08pm

re: #30 Charles

That post is why precisely why I am here.

Thanks.

36 chubby vegan  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:44:37pm

The infamous double ding.

37 Ericus58  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:44:42pm

Abbas: We will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

"Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told interviewers that he would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Israel Radio reported on Tuesday.

Abbas reportedly said that his position is no different from those Arafat present in previous negotiations, and that his staff is the same as Arafat's.

He also hinted that the PA may fall apart if there is no hope for a solution in the near future. He then repeated that the PA will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state."

38 Interesting Times  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:45:44pm

re: #35 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

re: #36 chubby vegan

You two know each other by any chance? ;)

39 cliffster  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:46:09pm

re: #38 publicityStunted

re: #36 chubby vegan

You two know each other by any chance? ;)

that's some funny shit

40 Ericus58  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:46:39pm

Iran stands firm over Ashtiani stoning case

[Link: www.bbc.co.uk...]

"Foreign powers should stop interfering in the case of an Iranian woman who was sentenced to death by stoning, Iran's foreign ministry has said.

In Tehran, a spokesman said the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani "should not become a human rights issue"."

41 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:46:44pm

re: #38 publicityStunted

Yeah... CV's a holier than thou prick, tho.

42 lawhawk  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:46:46pm

re: #30 Charles

The saddest and most frustrating thing about having people like Geller be the loudest voices against honor killing is that they make it harder to address a very real problem. When the loudest voices are nuts, everyone who speaks out against honor killing -- a very real problem in many countries -- gets tarred with the loon brush.

It's the same with militant Islam -- it hasn't gone away, and it really is a serious problem, and the loons are doing the extremists a very real favor right now by shrieking so loud.

Repeated for truth. Honor killings are a huge problem in South Asia - and in parts of the Middle East, and it isn't confined to Muslims. It's a practice that is barbaric and should be ended. It goes to fundamental rights, and with nutters muddying the waters, it makes trying to end this practice more difficult.

And it's even worse when dealing with the true scourge of militant Islam.

43 Batman  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:46:53pm

Damn. Now I wish I named my self "Obese Herbivore."

44 wrenchwench  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:46:57pm

re: #36 chubby vegan

The infamous double ding.

Yer lookin' a little dusty....

45 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:49:21pm

re: #44 wrenchwench

I "Pledge" to do better.

46 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 12:49:22pm

re: #30 Charles

It's the same with militant Islam -- it hasn't gone away, and it really is a serious problem, and the loons are doing the extremists a huge favor right now by shrieking so loud.

They could poison any reasonable enterprise to the point where decent people want nothing to do with it. But of course what they have in mind is anything but decent. What they have in mind involves people like the EDL, the Vlaams Belang and their ilk.

47 wrenchwench  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:00:50pm

re: #34 sffilk

Why do I get the feeling that it's going to have to be done like this, one idiot at a time?

Because that's the civilized way to do it.

48 celticdragon  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:03:36pm

re: #16 cliffster

Now being served at the white house...

What the hell??

49 RadicalModerate  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:17:16pm

re: #37 Ericus58

Here's a Jerusalem Post article that has some more info on the interview Abbas gave to Al-Quds newspaper yesterday:

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

Abbas said that in recent meetings with leaders of the Jewish community in the US, he made it clear that the Palestinians would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. "I told them that this is their business and that they are free to call themselves whatever they want," Abbas said. "But [I told them] you can't expect us to accept this."

Abbas said that by raising the issue of Israel's right to be a Jewish state, Netanyahu was seeking to "strip" Israeli-Arabs of their rights and turn them into illegal citizens. He said that Netanyahu's goal was also to block any chance of Palestinian "refugees" from returning to their original homes inside Israel.

This is a point where both sides are going to have to give some ground for any hope for a lasting agreement.

Abbas, and by extension, Palestine is going to have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state - it is a central point to Israel's existence. Also, he will have to accept that there are certain instances (specifically in cases of security concerns, or logistically impossible) where the Palestinian refugees are not going to be able to return to their original homes.
Netanyahu, on the other hand will have to put in place assurances that the Israeli-Arabs maintain full rights in Israel, and that, where possible, Palestinians removed from their homes by settlements are allowed to return.

50 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:17:33pm

He's just flakking, trying to take the attention off of where it needs to be.

51 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:20:52pm

re: #49 RadicalModerate

Here's a Jerusalem Post article that has some more info on the interview Abbas gave to Al-Quds newspaper yesterday:

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

This is a point where both sides are going to have to give some ground for any hope for a lasting agreement.

Abbas, and by extension, Palestine is going to have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state - it is a central point to Israel's existence. Also, he will have to accept that there are certain instances (specifically in cases of security concerns, or logistically impossible) where the Palestinian refugees are not going to be able to return to their original homes.
Netanyahu, on the other hand will have to put in place assurances that the Israeli-Arabs maintain full rights in Israel, and that, where possible, Palestinians removed from their homes by settlements are allowed to return.

Almost all of the settlements are built on uninhabited land, not on former Arab residences. The only exceptions are the squatters who moved into the Jewish quarter of the Old City after the Jews were expelled by the Jordanians. So should the squatters who occupied Jewish homes get their "homes" "back"?

52 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:22:49pm

re: #46 Jimmah

re: #30 Charles

That happens on immigratio. Not just in blogs, but on the border. Border ranchers and landowners get painted with the "minutemen" brush.

53 cliffster  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:23:48pm

cliffster hearts TS Hermine. it's raining like a mojo right now.

54 Obdicut  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:23:49pm

re: #49 RadicalModerate

I still don't really understand what a "Jewish state" means.

If it means recognizing that, like the United Kingdom is a Christian state, or like Saudi Arabia is a Muslim state, that's just, well, reality.

55 Targetpractice  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:24:43pm

My guess is that Pam will claim that it's the "timing" that proves that this lawsuit is "frivolous," that the fact that it comes just days before her big 9/11 rally is proof that the "jihadists" are trying to intimidate her and force her to call it off. Well she's not gonna do it, she's gonna slander the man even more, and then gonna rally the troops (more specifically, their money) and fight against this lawsuit in the name of her First Amendment Right to be a crazy, shit-slinging bitch!

/

56 Digital Display  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:25:57pm

10 million Dollar lawsuit? Looks like Pam needs to lawyer up and spend the money she got off her book.. Kind of ironic really

57 RadicalModerate  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:26:53pm

re: #51 Alouette

Almost all of the settlements are built on uninhabited land, not on former Arab residences. The only exceptions are the squatters who moved into the Jewish quarter of the Old City after the Jews were expelled by the Jordanians. So should the squatters who occupied Jewish homes get their "homes" "back"?

Should the squatters get those homes back? No, as they were not rightful owners. This would fit in my "logistically impossible" criteria.
There were some cases, however of Israeli-Arabs who were indigenous to the region who were displaced in the 1940s-1970s who should have some recourse.

58 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:27:19pm

Here's a link on the Joyce Chernick connection, just to back up what I said above :

[Link: www.jewishtimes.com...]

59 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:29:53pm

re: #51 Alouette

Almost all of the settlements are built on uninhabited land, not on former Arab residences.


The problem is that it makes it extremely problematic to then give that land to the Palestinians as part of a two-state solution, as you've already rigged their own electorate against them. Even after you divide the country in half, the other half remains divided, and the problems persist. It's the exact same thing King James did by moving English-loyalists into Northern Ireland.

60 Kragar  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:30:23pm

BP Oil Spill Hasn’t Caused ‘Dead Zones’ in Gulf, Agencies Say

Dissolved oxygen levels have fallen about 20 percent from their average in areas of the Gulf where scientists reported subsurface oil, not enough to create hypoxia, or dead zones, according to a report released today by three federal agencies.

“None of the dissolved oxygen readings have approached the levels associated with a dead zone and as the oil continues to diffuse and degrade, hypoxia becomes less of a threat,” said Steve Murawski, chief scientist for fisheries at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, one of the agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Science and Technology Policy also worked on the report.

The drop in oxygen stems from microbes consuming the more than 4 million barrels of oil dumped into the Gulf after an April 20 blowout at BP’s well, said scientists involved in the study. Dissolved oxygen levels would have to decline a further 70 percent to create dead zones, Murawski said.

61 scienceisreal  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:31:47pm

Remember when Jeremy Glick was contemplating suing Bill O'Reilly? It amazes that Fox News isn't completed inundated with lawsuits of this type. From what I understand the case would have to prove that Geller not only lied, but knowingly lied. In Glick's case the argument was O'Reilly is so crazy he doesn't know when he's lying.

62 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:32:30pm

re: #28 Thanos

When I was with PJ Media in the beginning there was a lot of concern about not making connections to bloggers and groups that were extremists or nuts. We got legal advice on all kinds of stuff, from comments to liability for bloggers in the network, ad nauseam.

All of those concerns seem to have vanished now.

63 cliffster  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:35:39pm

typepad? She doesn't even have her own domain name? I went to the atlasshrugs domain and there's a squatter site there, with links for Hot Lingerie and Fast Cash Loans. And.. "Arab Dating". Heh.

64 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:36:05pm

re: #59 elbruce

The problem is that it makes it extremely problematic to then give that land to the Palestinians as part of a two-state solution, as you've already rigged their own electorate against them. Even after you divide the country in half, the other half remains divided, and the problems persist. It's the exact same thing King James did by moving English-loyalists into Northern Ireland.

You are mixing apples and oranges. The English loyalists who moved to Northern Ireland in the 17th and 18th centuries did not have any prior attachment to Ireland and went there for political purposes only. The Jews have a 3,000 year old history in the Holy Land and the vast majority of "settlements" are natural growth of Jerusalem suburbs, as well as being located in regions that have historical and religious significance for Jews.

65 lawhawk  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:40:04pm

re: #49 RadicalModerate

Abbas said that by raising the issue of Israel's right to be a Jewish state, Netanyahu was seeking to "strip" Israeli-Arabs of their rights and turn them into illegal citizens. He said that Netanyahu's goal was also to block any chance of Palestinian "refugees" from returning to their original homes inside Israel.

That bit about Israel stripping Israeli-Arabs of rights is BS. Israel has never made any intention to do so. Israel simply doesn't want to see its Jewish population overwhelmed through a Palestinian right of return that now includes a grossly inflated refugee population created because other Arab countries refused to resettle/recognize those Palestinians born outside of the territories as citizens and because the UNRWA refused to close the refugee camps after any reasonable period of time.

There can be some reasonable right of return for some Palestinians who were directly affected by the 1948 conflict, and maybe some portion from 1967, but the rest will have to realize that they aren't going to get what their leadership has been promising from the outset - to overwhelm Israel through a population shift.

66 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:40:43pm

re: #62 Charles

When I was with PJ Media in the beginning there was a lot of concern about not making connections to bloggers and groups that were extremists or nuts. We got legal advice on all kinds of stuff, from comments to liability for bloggers in the network, ad nauseam.

All of those concerns seem to have vanished now.

It's almost as if they've decided to enact the crazy Weyrich manifesto from early in this first decade post mortem. (That Yurica report link from wayyyyy back gives you the essentials.)

67 Obdicut  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:41:29pm

re: #64 Alouette


Actually, it was mainly Scots that went to Northern Ireland. Scots and Irish had been travelling back and forth between Northern Ireland and Scotland for a long time, and they were both of the same Celtic/Norse ancestry. Lots of Scots mercenaries were hired in the middle ages, too.

68 Reginald Perrin  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:44:05pm

re: #62 Charles

When I was with PJ Media in the beginning there was a lot of concern about not making connections to bloggers and groups that were extremists or nuts. We got legal advice on all kinds of stuff, from comments to liability for bloggers in the network, ad nauseam.

All of those concerns seem to have vanished now.

How well insured are major blogs?

69 Cato the Elder  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:45:00pm

Evil harpy is evil.

70 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:45:07pm

I just got a fund raising lettter from Joe "You Lie" Wilson... yeah GOP, sending me email from an idiot is a good way to get money out of me for your campaigns....

//not

71 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:48:35pm

re: #64 Alouette

You are mixing apples and oranges. The English loyalists who moved to Northern Ireland in the 17th and 18th centuries did not have any prior attachment to Ireland and went there for political purposes only. The Jews have a 3,000 year old history in the Holy Land and the vast majority of "settlements" are natural growth of Jerusalem suburbs, as well as being located in regions that have historical and religious significance for Jews.

There is no need to go back into history so that a legitimate claim to Israeli statehood can be made. Israel's legitimacy can easily predicated on current moralities.

In our world, environment helps to shape values. The values found in free societies are very different than the values taught in dysfunctional, oppressive and repressive regimes.

The values of free societies are passed on to free citizens. We- and the Israelis- engage in free dissent, debate and argument. We are free to challenge each other, our respective governments and especially, ourselves. We are free to formulate our own opinions and if we wish, we are free to change those opinions.

The values of repressive and dysfunctional societies such as those found in the Arab world and in the Palestinian territories become the values of citizens living in those societies. Subjugation, repression and hate are a part of everyday life in those societies.

When we compare the values of the western free societies including Israel, with the dysfunctional and oppressive values that are force fed in the Arab world, there are many questions that have to be asked and answered.

The Arab world and the Palestinians see the rejection of their values as a rejection of themselves- they do not see or understand that by rejecting the ugly values they have had forced upon them, they can only elevate themselves.

The Palestinians want yet another handout- statehood at the expense of Israel. That should come as no surprise- the west has always complied.

Why earn something when all you have to do is threaten violence? It isn't as if there have ever been any real consequences!

72 SpaceJesus  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:49:11pm

this is awesome.

73 Petero1818  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:52:08pm

re: #37 Ericus58

re: #54 Obdicut

You are right in a sense. But with respect to Israel it is more about the substance. The Palestinians don't need to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish State per se, but they must agree ultimately to a two state solution that gives up the broad based right of return that has been their sacred cow. Beyond that, all they need to do is respect Israel's borders and right to determine its internal politics and society as Israelis see fit. If the demographic issue is resolved it will be a Jewish state. Israel does not need to recognize that Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state. It is. To make Abbas come out and say "Israel is a Jewish State" is ultimately foolish as it forces him to alienate part of his constituency. This is merely about the one state vs. two state solutions.

74 Digital Display  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:52:24pm

re: #72 SpaceJesus

this is awesome.

Instant Karma's gonna get you,
Gonna knock you right on the head,
You better get yourself together,
Pretty soon you're gonna be dead,
What in the world you thinking of,
Laughing in the face of love,
What on earth you tryin' to do,
It's up to you, yeah you.

Instant Karma's gonna get you,
Gonna look you right in the face,
Better get yourself together darlin',
Join the human race,

75 Kragar  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:53:31pm

re: #72 SpaceJesus

this is awesome.

Youtube Video
76 Varek Raith  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:56:02pm

Sorry Geller, buy karma's a bigger bitch than you are.

77 Kragar  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:56:57pm

re: #76 Varek Raith

Sorry Geller, buy karma's a bigger bitch than you are.

I don't think you can buy karma, at least not in those quantities.

78 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:57:56pm

re: #71 researchok

There is no need to go back into history so that a legitimate claim to Israeli statehood can be made. Israel's legitimacy can easily predicated on current moralities.

Nobody's arguing against Israeli statehood.

On the one hand, Palestinians are being told that they're going to get a two-state solution, while Israelis are being moved into the land that the Palestinians were supposedly going to get; that undermines any two-state approach. And no, it's not a "handout." Meanwhile, people are arguing that other Arab nations should just take all the Palestinians that Israel kicks out.

The difficulty I have in discussing this issue is that nobody seems willing to say what they want done with the Palestinians. Do they get part of what's currently Israel? Then stop moving Israelis there. Do they not get their own land? Then just have everybody have the same rights in one country. None of these approaches seem to be acceptable to the pro-Israel commenters here.

Since I'm left to guess, the only thing I can imagine that you see as a solution is that 100% of the Palestinians should be expelled from Israel's current borders and repatriated in other Arab states. Is that what you're advocating?

79 Petero1818  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 1:57:57pm

re: #51 Alouette

Almost all of the settlements are built on uninhabited land, not on former Arab residences. The only exceptions are the squatters who moved into the Jewish quarter of the Old City after the Jews were expelled by the Jordanians. So should the squatters who occupied Jewish homes get their "homes" "back"?

Though I wish it were not the case, Hebron has seen Settlers move into homes previously occupied by Arabs, though the situation is quite complicated. Beyond that, many settlements have been built on land that was being actively farmed. Furthermore, while you are right, some Arabs evicted were essentially squatters, not all were, and some had homes that were theirs legally and for quite some time. No conclusions, I just feel that it is to nobody's advantage to overstate the case.

80 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:00:01pm

re: #71 researchok

The Arab world and the Palestinians see the rejection of their values as a rejection of themselves

Man, I hear a lot of non-Arabs these days telling Arabs what Arabs think.

81 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:02:23pm

Oh badass, you go Omar Tarazi

I hope he owns her blog by the time this is over, rad rad rad

82 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:03:03pm

re: #78 elbruce

Nobody's arguing against Israeli statehood.

On the one hand, Palestinians are being told that they're going to get a two-state solution, while Israelis are being moved into the land that the Palestinians were supposedly going to get; that undermines any two-state approach. And no, it's not a "handout." Meanwhile, people are arguing that other Arab nations should just take all the Palestinians that Israel kicks out.

The difficulty I have in discussing this issue is that nobody seems willing to say what they want done with the Palestinians. Do they get part of what's currently Israel? Then stop moving Israelis there. Do they not get their own land? Then just have everybody have the same rights in one country. None of these approaches seem to be acceptable to the pro-Israel commenters here.

Since I'm left to guess, the only thing I can imagine that you see as a solution is that 100% of the Palestinians should be expelled from Israel's current borders and repatriated in other Arab states. Is that what you're advocating?

Settlements have never been an impediment to peace agreements.

Israel has walked away from settlement in exchange for peace. Those settlements have never been an issue.

What Israel rightly resents is the Palestinians setting the terms for negotiations- as if they were a moral authority.

Just today, Abbas noted he will concede nothing to the Israelis. He is in no position to make demands.

83 Cato the Elder  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:03:12pm

To repeat: the "one-state solution" = Final Solution.

84 Petero1818  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:03:18pm

re: #78 elbruce

Nobody's arguing against Israeli statehood.

On the one hand, Palestinians are being told that they're going to get a two-state solution, while Israelis are being moved into the land that the Palestinians were supposedly going to get; that undermines any two-state approach. And no, it's not a "handout." Meanwhile, people are arguing that other Arab nations should just take all the Palestinians that Israel kicks out.

The difficulty I have in discussing this issue is that nobody seems willing to say what they want done with the Palestinians. Do they get part of what's currently Israel? Then stop moving Israelis there. Do they not get their own land? Then just have everybody have the same rights in one country. None of these approaches seem to be acceptable to the pro-Israel commenters here.

Since I'm left to guess, the only thing I can imagine that you see as a solution is that 100% of the Palestinians should be expelled from Israel's current borders and repatriated in other Arab states. Is that what you're advocating?

While I can't speak for anyone other than myself, I can say that I believe strongly in the Geneva accord documents, which ultimately are not that far off from the Arab Leagues plan (though clearly the devil is in the detail). The palestinians in Israel would remain in Israel if they chose to, as full citizens, just as they live today. Compensation would be paid to Palestinians in exchange for giving up any further right of return subject to a few special cases. The Palestinians in the territory would become Palestinian citizens of Palestine, and in the future, how Palestinians deal with their own diaspora will be up to them. It is not for Israel to decide what the Arabs should do with Palestinians in refugee camps in Syria, or Lebanon or Jordan. They will either move to Palestine as defined by a Peace agreement or live in their host countries subject to their own rules. No further expulsion of Arabs from Israel is being considered by anyone seriously interested in peace.

85 cliffster  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:03:48pm

google's front page is pretty cool today

86 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:04:14pm

re: #80 elbruce

Man, I hear a lot of non-Arabs these days telling Arabs what Arabs think.

Oh I know, rite?!?!?

Beardy beard-stroking very serious americans armchair opining about the psychology of an entire culture with absolutely zero academic foundation, gotta love it, the internet is the era of the instant expert

87 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:04:43pm

re: #80 elbruce

Man, I hear a lot of non-Arabs these days telling Arabs what Arabs think.

Really.

Well, I'm not that smart. I just respond to to what I see and what I hear.

So how is it your an expert on Israelis?

88 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:05:14pm

re: #85 cliffster

google's front page is pretty cool today

FUCK GLOBES AYIEEE WHY DIDN'T YOU WARN ME


(that is pretty freaking awesome, yes)

89 Varek Raith  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:05:28pm

re: #86 WindUpBird

Oh I know, rite?!?!?

Beardy beard-stroking very serious americans armchair opining about the psychology of an entire culture with absolutely zero academic foundation, gotta love it, the internet is the era of the instant expert

As an expert on the Internet, I agree.

90 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:06:15pm

re: #86 WindUpBird

Oh I know, rite?!?!?

Beardy beard-stroking very serious americans armchair opining about the psychology of an entire culture with absolutely zero academic foundation, gotta love it, the internet is the era of the instant expert

Something else you clearly know nothing of.

I do have the credentials.

An inconvenient truth, I guess.

91 RadicalModerate  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:07:03pm

re: #65 lawhawk

That bit about Israel stripping Israeli-Arabs of rights is BS. Israel has never made any intention to do so. Israel simply doesn't want to see its Jewish population overwhelmed through a Palestinian right of return that now includes a grossly inflated refugee population created because other Arab countries refused to resettle/recognize those Palestinians born outside of the territories as citizens and because the UNRWA refused to close the refugee camps after any reasonable period of time.

There can be some reasonable right of return for some Palestinians who were directly affected by the 1948 conflict, and maybe some portion from 1967, but the rest will have to realize that they aren't going to get what their leadership has been promising from the outset - to overwhelm Israel through a population shift.

If Israel has given any intention to strip rights from the Israeli-Arabs, then it shouldn't be difficult to get that assurance put into writing in any agreement that Israel and Palestine create.

The right of return for the Palestinians is going to be a big problem, as there are tens (hundreds?) of thousands of displaced Palestinians (primarily descendants of the displaced) who are currently not citizens of any nation, as they don't live in Palestine, and other Arabic nations are not allowing them to live within their borders. The UNRWA was stuck in a bad situation, as the residents of those refugee camps had nowhere else to go. Israel can't let all, or even a majority of those people back to their original residences, but there has to be some solution found.

92 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:07:11pm

I would imagine at the absolute bare minimum to opine with any authority on the psychology of arabs as a whole, you should at least be living in a predominantly arab country and immersed in their community

But that's just me

93 cliffster  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:07:14pm

re: #88 WindUpBird

I never want this day to end, because that means the google balls will be gone

94 Cato the Elder  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:07:33pm

re: #87 researchok

He's an idealist. That makes one an expert on bloody well everything.

95 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:08:07pm

re: #94 Cato the Elder

He's an idealist. That makes one an expert on bloody well everything.

Je comprends. C'est triste.

96 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:08:13pm

re: #89 Varek Raith

As an expert on the Internet, I agree.

I am an expert at running around wearing a neon bird costume

Consultations start at $50 an hour :D

97 Petero1818  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:08:25pm

re: #82 researchok

Settlements have never been an impediment to peace agreements.

Israel has walked away from settlement in exchange for peace. Those settlements have never been an issue.

What Israel rightly resents is the Palestinians setting the terms for negotiations- as if they were a moral authority.

Just today, Abbas noted he will concede nothing to the Israelis. He is in no position to make demands.

Israel has walked away from settlements for peace, agreed. But that does not mean that they are not also an impediment. For instance, there is no question that certain settlements will never be abandoned, which is a potential sticking point. Secondly, it sets Israel up for an even more gut wrenching internal conflict that will shake Israel to its core when the time comes. It is harder to move someone from a community than it is to prevent them from moving in in the first place. Lastly, the issue of setting terms for negotiations is one that Israelis are familiar with, having themselves used them in the past. They will get past it.

98 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:08:26pm

re: #93 cliffster

I never want this day to end, because that means the google balls will be gone

This is my favorite thing you have ever said

99 tradewind  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:08:40pm

re: #11 lawhawk

Worst mess of a website I've seen in a while. And Geller , just ick.
It's unclear from this NBC /Ohio site , though, whether or not Tarazi has actually done work for CAIR , which he denies. That could make for some interesting discovery as well, and maybe a Rule 11 question.
Looks like Rifqua was given a green card, which no doubt has upset her parents.

100 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:09:10pm

re: #90 researchok

Something else you clearly know nothing of.

I do have the credentials.

An inconvenient truth, I guess.

What are they then, if you've got the credentials, show them my way, if you're a prof, I'll happily concede

101 tradewind  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:09:37pm

PIMF, ' rifqa '.

102 cliffster  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:09:42pm

re: #80 elbruce

Man, I hear a lot of non-Arabs these days telling Arabs what Arabs think.

it is a little insulting, isn't it? Kinda like, "I don't understand how any mexican could ever be a republican."

103 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:10:18pm

re: #97 Petero1818

Israel has walked away from settlements for peace, agreed. But that does not mean that they are not also an impediment. For instance, there is no question that certain settlements will never be abandoned, which is a potential sticking point. Secondly, it sets Israel up for an even more gut wrenching internal conflict that will shake Israel to its core when the time comes. It is harder to move someone from a community than it is to prevent them from moving in in the first place. Lastly, the issue of setting terms for negotiations is one that Israelis are familiar with, having themselves used them in the past. They will get past it.

Perhaps- that remains to be seen.

They said Israel would not walk away from Gaza, and that was very highly developed. Also, Abbas has from time to time referred to land swaps.

Time will tell.

104 Varek Raith  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:10:22pm

Here are my credential. See? Internet Expert.
[Link: t1.gstatic.com...]
/

105 tradewind  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:10:37pm

re: #97 Petero1818
At the end of the day, it's not really about the real estate.

106 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:10:38pm

Meanwhile Lady Gaga has resurrected the "Meatkini"

[Link: sdgln.com...]

107 tradewind  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:11:02pm

re: #106 Thanos
Gaga me with a spoon/

108 RadicalModerate  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:11:08pm

re: #91 RadicalModerate

pimf - "if Israel has *never* given"...

109 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:11:10pm

re: #91 RadicalModerate

If Israel has given any intention to strip rights from the Israeli-Arabs, then it shouldn't be difficult to get that assurance put into writing in any agreement that Israel and Palestine create.

The right of return for the Palestinians is going to be a big problem, as there are tens (hundreds?) of thousands of displaced Palestinians (primarily descendants of the displaced) who are currently not citizens of any nation, as they don't live in Palestine, and other Arabic nations are not allowing them to live within their borders. The UNRWA was stuck in a bad situation, as the residents of those refugee camps had nowhere else to go. Israel can't let all, or even a majority of those people back to their original residences, but there has to be some solution found.

The "problem" should be solved by the ones who created it. Palestinian "refugees" should receive citizenship in the Arab countries where they were born. "Refugee-ism" should not be hereditary.

110 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:12:00pm

re: #102 cliffster

it is a little insulting, isn't it? Kinda like, "I don't understand how any mexican could ever be a republican."

Oh I can!

W Bush was doing a good job of making the case, because some of the social politics that moderate Rs advocate sound good to hispanics, he wasn't nativist at all

But then the Republican party turned on Bush and went more nativist and that sorta turns off hispanics who have friends or family members who may be here illegally, which whether being here illegally is bad or good, if the party is totally hostile to illegals, and illegals are related to legal hispanics, they're losing those votes

111 tradewind  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:12:28pm

re: #109 Alouette
I'm waiting for Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan along with parts of Egypt, to throw open their gates and welcome back their tired and poor.
/dripping/

112 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:12:55pm

re: #102 cliffster

it is a little insulting, isn't it? Kinda like, "I don't understand how any mexican could ever be a republican."

hell, I know gay republicans. I know several! But they're not voting for republcans when they go all so-con. They vote Republican in local elections where there's a lot less of the wedge issues and more local issues

113 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:13:10pm

re: #96 WindUpBird

I am an expert at running around wearing a neon bird costume

Consultations start at $50 an hour :D

$50? That's cheap. I charge $200 an hour for parties.

114 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:13:25pm

re: #111 tradewind

I'm waiting for Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan along with parts of Egypt, to throw open their gates and welcome back their tired and poor.
/dripping/

Trans-Jordan was supposed to be the "homeland of the Palestinian Arabs" but the Hashemite royal clan decided that they wanted it all for their very selves.

115 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:13:30pm

re: #100 WindUpBird

What are they then, if you've got the credentials, show them my way, if you're a prof, I'll happily concede

I write under a pseudonym for a reason.

If you have the least bit of any kind of education on the subject, please see the posts in my sidebar (Middle East). That should indicate to anyone with a little background my understanding of the matter.

116 Petero1818  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:13:34pm

re: #105 tradewind

No its not about real estate, but in a modern nation state, aspirations both nationalistic and religious are codified in law through legal mechanisms like real estate. The solution to the conflict will also be codified in such instruments.

117 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:14:25pm

re: #113 MrSilverDragon

$50? That's cheap. I charge $200 an hour for parties.

Oh this is just for me to tell you which bird head is right for you!

If you want ME to show up and flap around at your bar mitzvah or your birthday party, that's more :D

118 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:14:30pm

Friday is second day Rosh Hashanah, so I have to bake my pie tonight.

119 Petero1818  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:14:49pm

re: #114 Alouette

Trans-Jordan was supposed to be the "homeland of the Palestinian Arabs" but the Hashemite royal clan decided that they wanted it all for their very selves.

Actually, originally Trans Jordan (or part of it) had been promised to the Jews.

120 tradewind  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:14:53pm

re: #114 Alouette
It was like ' the horses are out..., now lock that barn door '!

121 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:16:09pm

re: #115 researchok

I write under a pseudonym for a reason.

If you have the least bit of any kind of education on the subject, please see the posts in my sidebar (Middle East). That should indicate to anyone with a little background my understanding of the matter.

I'll read them! But I just want to know if you have an advanced degree in psychology or if you're an ethnologist.

122 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:16:42pm

re: #92 WindUpBird

I would imagine at the absolute bare minimum to opine with any authority on the psychology of arabs as a whole, you should at least be living in a predominantly arab country and immersed in their community

But that's just me

By the way, I have spent a fair amount of time in Arab countries- Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

I am also familiar with Turkey, but they are not Arab or particularly ;Middle Eastern'.

123 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:18:44pm

re: #121 WindUpBird

I'll read them! But I just want to know if you have an advanced degree in psychology or if you're an ethnologist.

Psychology. I am a behavioral analyst (predictive behavior) . I also am familiar with cultural anthropology as I use that a lot, but CA is a discipline unto itself.

124 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:20:02pm

re: #117 WindUpBird

Oh this is just for me to tell you which bird head is right for you!

If you want ME to show up and flap around at your bar mitzvah or your birthday party, that's more :D

I don't need consultation for the right head. I already know that I'm some kind of "pecker". And I'll tell ya, costumed entertainers can clean up at parties!

125 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:20:03pm

re: #122 researchok

By the way, I have spent a fair amount of time in Arab countries- Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

I am also familiar with Turkey, but they are not Arab or particularly ;Middle Eastern'.

I'm just not feeling your opinions when you make massive generalizations about "the arab world all thinks like this", that doesn't sound like something any academic would do

I see a lot of conservatives and so-cons and people hostile to arabs who like to paint the Arab world as some hive mind of drones that all think alike and are dangerous because they're just not individuals like we are, real solipsistic stuff. And if you can paint a culture as all thinking alike in an alien way, that's a great way to dehumanize them, the same way people like to talk about the Chinese, or the Soviet Union

126 Varek Raith  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:20:04pm

re: #123 researchok

Psychology. I am a behavioral analyst (predictive behavior) . I also am familiar with cultural anthropology as I use that a lot, but CA is a discipline unto itself.

That's tick or million above my paygrade!
:)

127 iossarian  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:22:06pm

re: #109 Alouette

The "problem" should be solved by the ones who created it. Palestinian "refugees" should receive citizenship in the Arab countries where they were born. "Refugee-ism" should not be hereditary.

Not sure about this claim - isn't the whole I/P issue, at its core, due to the fact that both sides claim rights to live in various locations despite having been expelled at various points in history?

I say this as someone who would like to see progress made in the style of Northern Ireland, but who is sadly not optimistic.

128 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:22:07pm

re: #124 MrSilverDragon

I don't need consultation for the right head. I already know that I'm some kind of "pecker". And I'll tell ya, costumed entertainers can clean up at parties!

eehee awesome, I think we need to compare notes about being weird in costume :D :D

129 DaddyG  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:25:06pm

re: #59 elbruce

The problem is that it makes it extremely problematic to then give that land to the Palestinians as part of a two-state solution, as you've already rigged their own electorate against them. Even after you divide the country in half, the other half remains divided, and the problems persist. It's the exact same thing King James did by moving English-loyalists into Northern Ireland.

My ancestors were some of the Loyalists King James moved into Ireland. Of course their loyalty was to whomever was in power on the Scottish v. English side of the borderlands. When the Grahams were removed the Enlgish conveniently forgot to send their property with them and so they ended up unlanded gentry in Ireland for a few hundred years. It didn't go over well with the locals. The religious differences didn't help.

130 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:25:51pm

re: #126 Varek Raith

That's tick or million above my paygrade!
:)

I consider myself an expert on not knowing a whole lot.

Questions are far more interesting to me than answers.

131 DaddyG  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:26:21pm

re: #123 researchok

Psychology. I am a behavioral analyst (predictive behavior) . I also am familiar with cultural anthropology as I use that a lot, but CA is a discipline unto itself.

I wish I'd had more of a cultural anthropology background when I started my Organizational Behavior degree. The core constructs are really helpful understanding complex organizations and nested cultures.

132 Petero1818  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:27:07pm

re: #127 iossarian

Not sure about this claim - isn't the whole I/P issue, at its core, due to the fact that both sides claim rights to live in various locations despite having been expelled at various points in history?

I say this as someone who would like to see progress made in the style of Northern Ireland, but who is sadly not optimistic.

Yes it is. But ultimately in order to have peace, some need to give up their claims. Jews from all through the Arab world long ago abandoned any hope of returning to their stolen homes and businesses when they were run out of Arab countries in the first half of the 20th century (to say nothing about Europe). The "refugees" in the camps will return either to the WB, Gaza or to whatever Arab countries will open their doors up as part of the solution.

133 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:31:15pm

re: #125 WindUpBird

I'm just not feeling your opinions when you make massive generalizations about "the arab world all thinks like this", that doesn't sound like something any academic would do

I see a lot of conservatives and so-cons and people hostile to arabs who like to paint the Arab world as some hive mind of drones that all think alike and are dangerous because they're just not individuals like we are, real solipsistic stuff. And if you can paint a culture as all thinking alike in an alien way, that's a great way to dehumanize them, the same way people like to talk about the Chinese, or the Soviet Union

Massive generalizations work because they are accurate.

Citizens of free societies are very different citizens of repressive societies.

Are there outliers? Of course, but they are of little concern. There were anti Nazi Germans- should we have no gone to war because they existed?

The moment an innocent dies in a conflict, that conflict becomes immoral. That said, even immoral conflicts can be just.

The Israelis are in a just conflict because their adversaries are both evil and immoral. Are all Palestinians evial and immoral? No, of course not. However, inasmuch as Israel faces terror, violence and at times even an existential threat, those become the priorities.

We live in a messy world. Wars and conflicts are not tea parties.

134 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:31:41pm

re: #123 researchok

Psychology. I am a behavioral analyst (predictive behavior) . I also am familiar with cultural anthropology as I use that a lot, but CA is a discipline unto itself.


I believe you, and I'll happily take back my crack about instant expertise, but I still believe your "arab world" generalizations are you working backwards from the solution you arrived at (your political opinions about Israel and Palestine) and using your expertise to justify it.

135 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:32:42pm

re: #82 researchok

Settlements have never been an impediment to peace agreements.


Well they sure don't seem to bother you. But they sure seem to bother a whole heck of a lot of people who are actually involved. If only the peace agreements were entirely up to you...

136 iossarian  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:33:50pm

re: #132 Petero1818

Yes it is. But ultimately in order to have peace, some need to give up their claims. Jews from all through the Arab world long ago abandoned any hope of returning to their stolen homes and businesses when they were run out of Arab countries in the first half of the 20th century (to say nothing about Europe). The "refugees" in the camps will return either to the WB, Gaza or to whatever Arab countries will open their doors up as part of the solution.

Well, certainly the refugees will need to be accepted somewhere, no question. Personally I think the various Arab countries are unlikely to be helpful, which is why I am not very optimistic about the outcome.

137 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:35:25pm

re: #87 researchok

So how is it your an expert on Israelis?

I don't tell them what they think.

I do know that populations of people aren't individuals. The vast majority of any population group is first and foremost concerned with having a job and raising a family. So when we're talking about strong political opinions within that group, we're talking about relatively small minorities. But that's true for everyone, not any one group, and no one is immune.

138 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:37:40pm

re: #131 DaddyG

I wish I'd had more of a cultural anthropology background when I started my Organizational Behavior degree. The core constructs are really helpful understanding complex organizations and nested cultures.

I hear you. I wish had more Bion/(psychology of the Group) in my discipline.

There are now a lot of OB guys working on Middle East projects (Navy contracts). The number will get bigger. It used to be about hearts and minds, more 'touchy feely'. Now, it's about pragmatism and trade and the psychology to facilitate that.

To realign a society takes about 30 years (save for the post war Germans- they did it in 20. Ordnung, you know?). With advent of WMDs, we just don't have the time.

Trading partners are happy partners. Business is always better than war, especially if it pays.

139 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:38:59pm

re: #133 researchok

Massive generalizations work because they are accurate.

Citizens of free societies are very different citizens of repressive societies.

Are there outliers? Of course, but they are of little concern. There were anti Nazi Germans- should we have no gone to war because they existed?

The moment an innocent dies in a conflict, that conflict becomes immoral. That said, even immoral conflicts can be just.

The Israelis are in a just conflict because their adversaries are both evil and immoral. Are all Palestinians evial and immoral? No, of course not. However, inasmuch as Israel faces terror, violence and at times even an existential threat, those become the priorities.

We live in a messy world. Wars and conflicts are not tea parties.

This is more politics, and less academia I'm hearing from you here, which is fine, this is a political blog, but we didn't go to war with Germany because of their aggregate psychology. We went to war because Japan attacked us and Hitler declared war on us.

and sure, you can make some generalizations about a culture, but the noises you're making seem to lean more towards value judgments that justify your politics, not academic observations

140 Petero1818  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:39:29pm

re: #136 iossarian

Well, certainly the refugees will need to be accepted somewhere, no question. Personally I think the various Arab countries are unlikely to be helpful, which is why I am not very optimistic about the outcome.

Well, that is not entirely true. They could remain where they are in the refugee camps and the UN can raise them as their own. They made these camps what they are, they defined them as refugees even when they were not.// But I understand your pessimism as the Arabs have all had dog in this fight and the Arab states have never really wanted a solution (other than a defeated Israel). But if Peace is at stake, and all other issues resolved, I believe enough pressure could be brought to bear on many of the Arab states to accept some.

141 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:39:46pm

re: #102 cliffster

it is a little insulting, isn't it? Kinda like, "I don't understand how any mexican could ever be a republican."

"Republican" isn't an ethnicity. It's a political party that's currently dog-whistling its base by bad-mouthing Mexicans.

142 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:42:21pm

re: #133 researchok

Massive generalizations work because they are accurate.

With apologies to Trig Palin, this has got to be about the most retarded thing I've ever read on the Internet.

143 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:43:15pm

re: #109 Alouette

Palestinian "refugees" should receive citizenship in the Arab countries where they were born. "Refugee-ism" should not be hereditary.


I agree. I suspect it may be possible that refusal to do that may be driven by suspicion that Israel will just expel all of the Palestinians, expect them to be accepted as refugees, wait for the current generation to die out, and then they've successfully gotten rid of all their Palestinians. I would like to say that I doubt they want to do that. But I'm not hearing anybody here or there willing to say that they don't want to just solve the problem by kicking out all the Palestinians. I was kind of prompting for that, still getting no bites.

144 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:43:43pm

re: #137 elbruce

I don't tell them what they think.

I do know that populations of people aren't individuals. The vast majority of any population group is first and foremost concerned with having a job and raising a family. So when we're talking about strong political opinions within that group, we're talking about relatively small minorities. But that's true for everyone, not any one group, and no one is immune.

See my 133re: #134 WindUpBird

I believe you, and I'll happily take back my crack about instant expertise, but I still believe your "arab world" generalizations are you working backwards from the solution you arrived at (your political opinions about Israel and Palestine) and using your expertise to justify it.


Well, the people who hire me might disagree with that assessment.

The fact is generalizations are necessary so progress can be made- and that applies to every single cultural endeavor.

We don't change traffic lights because some people are color blind. School curriculum is intended for masses.

Consider this- societies exist because we bring order out of chaos. We predicate our rules on agreed compacts, conventions, etc. We cannot cater to everyone.

DaddyG might have a lot to say on this issue.

145 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:46:43pm

re: #142 elbruce

With apologies to Trig Palin, this has got to be about the most retarded thing I've ever read on the Internet.

I suspect you are not understanding what I am saying.

See this for a related idea.

I will assume you might not agree with the premise but the underlying idea should shed some light on what I am trying to say.

146 Petero1818  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:46:53pm

re: #143 elbruce

re: #143 elbruce

I agree. I suspect it may be possible that refusal to do that may be driven by suspicion that Israel will just expel all of the Palestinians, expect them to be accepted as refugees, wait for the current generation to die out, and then they've successfully gotten rid of all their Palestinians. I would like to say that I doubt they want to do that. But I'm not hearing anybody here or there willing to say that they don't want to just solve the problem by kicking out all the Palestinians. I was kind of prompting for that, still getting no bites.

Perhaps I missed something here (and forgive me if I did) but why are you asking people to say that the solution is not just kicking out all the Palestinians from Israel, when no one has suggested that it is the solution.

147 DaddyG  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:48:36pm

re: #133 researchok

Massive generalizations work because they are accurate.

Hari? Hari Seldon? /

148 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:49:06pm

re: #90 researchok

Something else you clearly know nothing of.

I do have the credentials.

An inconvenient truth, I guess.

Claimed credentials on the Internet are worth less than nothing; even if you're not lying, if you can't support your arguments then it only proves you're grossly overpaid.

149 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:49:50pm

re: #147 DaddyG

Hari? Hari Seldon? /

See the end of my 144. I suggested you might be better able to convey the how and whys of group dynamics.

150 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:49:52pm

re: #144 researchok

The fact is generalizations are necessary so progress can be made- and that applies to every single cultural endeavor.

Generalizations typically impede progress, particularly where groups of people getting along with each other are concerned.


re: #144 researchok

We don't change traffic lights because some people are color blind. School curriculum is intended for masses.

Those are cases of meeting the real needs of actual numeric majorities. Not of elevating the opinions of minorities to majority status, which is entirely different.

151 Obdicut  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:50:30pm

re: #144 researchok

We do standardize light position on traffic lights so that you don't have to have color knowledge. We use auditory clues at crosswalks for the deaf. We use raised braille for the blind.

So I'm not really understanding what you mean.

152 DaddyG  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:53:22pm

re: #144 researchok
I has a professor who taught in the Org. Behavior department at my grad school who consulted with the PLO. They spent a lot of time discussing base assumptions of cultures. WHere the Judeo Christian system had love as a base, the Arab and Muslim cultures were more inclined to reference tradition as their base.

These were not stereotypes but real working values that each culture brought to the table and a majority of their adherants and members demonstrated these values/behaviors.

At some point there will be a group dynamic that individuals do not override easily or in short timeframes. That is the reality of dealing with cultures be they Western, Eastern, Arab, Christian... you name it.

153 DaddyG  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:54:20pm

BBL- bus! Why do the interesting conversations start when I've got no access to the net?

154 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:54:51pm

re: #2 SanFranciscoZionist

You go around calling enough people terrorists and socialist vampires and such, sooner or later, some of them will sue you.

Such is life in a free and litigious society.

Well, litigious yes, but lies are lies and such falsehoods can do real harm.

155 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:55:31pm

re: #151 Obdicut

We do standardize light position on traffic lights so that you don't have to have color knowledge. We use auditory clues at crosswalks for the deaf. We use raised braille for the blind.

So I'm not really understanding what you mean.

Those are newer additions that augment an already existing system.

An assertion was made that because there are outliers and differentials, we ought not consider the mainstream or power structure(as in 'there are good Palestinians, too').

See my 133 for a bit of context.

156 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:55:58pm

re: #146 Petero1818

re: #143 elbruce

Perhaps I missed something here (and forgive me if I did) but why are you asking people to say that the solution is not just kicking out all the Palestinians from Israel, when no one has suggested that it is the solution.

I've gone around and around with a group of commenters in previous threads. On the one hand they tell me that a one state solution is bad. On the other hand they tell me that Israeli settlements should continue. I'm trying to figure out what kind of solution to the problem they advocate, but whenever I ask that all I hear is "it's all the Palestinian's fault, except for what's the neighboring Arab states' fault!" To which I reply, "so what's your solution?" And all I get back is jumping and pointing while screaming "ALL THEIR FAULT ZOMG!!!1!"

I'm just trying to use the process of elimination here. They support giving the Palestinians some of the land (aka. two state solution), but they also support moving Israelis into the land that was supposed to be given to the Palestinians (aka. settlements). Both of those solutions logically eliminate each other. Before I go all moonbatty on them and accuse them of supporting death camps, I wanted to see if mass expulsion of the entire inconvenient Palestinian populace was on the table, as living with them or letting them have some of the land to themselves are both being opposed.

157 Obdicut  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:56:12pm

re: #152 DaddyG

These were not stereotypes but real working values that each culture brought to the table and a majority of their adherants and members demonstrated these values/behaviors.

Depending on what you mean by 'real', of course.

158 Obdicut  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:56:50pm

re: #155 researchok

Those are newer additions that augment an already existing system.

An assertion was made that because there are outliers and differentials, we ought not consider the mainstream or power structure(as in 'there are good Palestinians, too').

See my 133 for a bit of context.

I don't think the analogy works or makes any sense, then, since it's very easy to solve the traffic light problem.

159 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:58:36pm

re: #119 Petero1818

Actually, originally Trans Jordan (or part of it) had been promised to the Jews.

Yeah, that's why, when the Hashemites got kicked out of the Hejaz by the gang of Saud, they went crying to the British to give them their very own kingdom to rule over, and the Brits said "we'll give you 3/4 of the Jews mandate."

160 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 2:58:53pm

re: #152 DaddyG

I has a professor who taught in the Org. Behavior department at my grad school who consulted with the PLO. They spent a lot of time discussing base assumptions of cultures. WHere the Judeo Christian system had love as a base, the Arab and Muslim cultures were more inclined to reference tradition as their base.

These were not stereotypes but real working values that each culture brought to the table and a majority of their adherants and members demonstrated these values/behaviors.

At some point there will be a group dynamic that individuals do not override easily or in short timeframes. That is the reality of dealing with cultures be they Western, Eastern, Arab, Christian... you name it.

Sure! Look at how heroism is defined. In our cultures, saving lives defines heroism.

In many Islamic (though not all and primarily Arab) cultures heroism is defined by those who take lives. This is taught behavior, the result of repressive tyrannies who subjugate entire societies.

Massive tragedy.

161 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:01:54pm

re: #155 researchok

An assertion was made that because there are outliers and differentials, we ought not consider the mainstream or power structure(as in 'there are good Palestinians, too').

I'll grant you the power structure.

But: guess what us lib'ruls get to do when you say that an entire race are bad people?

Wait for iiitt...

....

RACIST!!!

162 Nimed  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:01:54pm

re: #156 elbruce

Were there people who supported settlements? Now that's just silly.

I don't know why you defend one-state solution. It's impossible to achieve, and not particularly better than a two-state solution even if it was possible.

163 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:02:20pm

re: #158 Obdicut

I don't think the analogy works or makes any sense, then, since it's very easy to solve the traffic light problem.

See this for more context.

You will probably disagree with the post premise, but you'll get the point.

Sorry to be brief- multitasking again!

164 Obdicut  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:03:54pm

re: #160 researchok

Sure! Look at how heroism is defined. In our cultures, saving lives defines heroism.

This is not true, as any review of movies in the US will tell you.

Take The Matrix. Neo and his compatriots slaughter shitloads of humans, with the weak-ass defense that they're too deeply invested in the Matrix. They're heroes. They're mass murderers.

There are a thousand thousand other examples in the West of people who's main attribute is killing others being held up as heroes.

165 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:03:55pm

re: #143 elbruce

I agree. I suspect it may be possible that refusal to do that may be driven by suspicion that Israel will just expel all of the Palestinians, expect them to be accepted as refugees, wait for the current generation to die out, and then they've successfully gotten rid of all their Palestinians. I would like to say that I doubt they want to do that. But I'm not hearing anybody here or there willing to say that they don't want to just solve the problem by kicking out all the Palestinians. I was kind of prompting for that, still getting no bites.

This is a red herring because Israel has never considered such a plan, and those few who have suggested it (Kahane, etc.) are rightfully marginalized as fanatic extremists.

However, it is totally mainstream for the Palestinians to insist that any territory they receive must be swept clean of all Jews.

166 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:04:19pm

re: #160 researchok

Sure! Look at how heroism is defined. In our cultures, saving lives defines heroism.

In many Islamic (though not all and primarily Arab) cultures heroism is defined by those who take lives.

The notion that a hero is somebody who saves lives is an extremely recent development in Western (particularly American) culture. Before that, it was just as much a part of military (i.e. taking lives) culture as everywhere else in the entire world. What did you think the knights from those fairy tales do with those swords of theirs?

167 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:05:50pm

re: #166 elbruce

The notion that a hero is somebody who saves lives is an extremely recent development in Western (particularly American) culture. Before that, it was just as much a part of military (i.e. taking lives) culture as everywhere else in the entire world. What did you think the knights from those fairy tales do with those swords of theirs?

They were defending the kingdom, etc or saving the 'other' from evil.

168 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:06:46pm

re: #164 Obdicut

This is not true, as any review of movies in the US will tell you.

Take The Matrix. Neo and his compatriots slaughter shitloads of humans, with the weak-ass defense that they're too deeply invested in the Matrix. They're heroes. They're mass murderers.

There are a thousand thousand other examples in the West of people who's main attribute is killing others being held up as heroes.

True- but usually in defense of the realm, etc or to prevent or eradicate evil.

169 Obdicut  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:06:59pm

re: #163 researchok

See this for more context.

You will probably disagree with the post premise, but you'll get the point.

Sorry to be brief- multitasking again!

Yes, I immediately and wearily disagree.

In fact, religion is like DNA. It gets passed on, generation to generation and while there are the inevitable losses, by and large, religious belief perseveres because religious people obviously benefit from their beliefs. If they didn’t, religion would have disappeared long ago.

This is like saying that if people being vulnerable to viruses wasn't actually a benefit to us, it would have disappeared long ago.

Or like saying that suicide must obviously benefit our society, otherwise we would have died out long ago.

Evolutionarily, every organism has a lot of attributes that are actually 'negative' but persist.

170 captdiggs  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:07:01pm

re: #135 elbruce

e: #82 researchok

Settlements have never been an impediment to peace agreements.


Well they sure don't seem to bother you. But they sure seem to bother a whole heck of a lot of people who are actually involved. If only the peace agreements were entirely up to you...

There were no settlements in 1948 when the arab world declared a war of genocidal intent.
There were no settlements before June of 1967, yet the arab world demanded the extermination of Israel ( a crime against humanity, by the way).
The Israeli settlements in the Sinai did not stop Israel from reaching an agreement with Egypt, so yes, researchok's statement is correct.
The palestinians use the settlements as a red herring to avoid peace.

171 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:07:15pm

re: #165 Alouette

Hi Alouette...

I'm curious, and I admit upfront that I'm not as educated with the settlements (towns, villages) as I know I ought to be, but, are the settlements themselves being built in the zones laid out according to the agreement at Oslo?

172 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:08:59pm

re: #169 Obdicut

Yes, I immediately and wearily disagree.

This is like saying that if people being vulnerable to viruses wasn't actually a benefit to us, it would have disappeared long ago.

Or like saying that suicide must obviously benefit our society, otherwise we would have died out long ago.

Evolutionarily, every organism has a lot of attributes that are actually 'negative' but persist.

I know you disagree with that premise- that was not my point.

What I was trying to say is that order from the chaos is what fuels 'religion'- or culture or society. And that order has to apply to a broad a group as possible.

173 Nimed  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:09:20pm

re: #160 researchok

Sure! Look at how heroism is defined. In our cultures, saving lives defines heroism.

In many Islamic (though not all and primarily Arab) cultures heroism is defined by those who take lives. This is taught behavior, the result of repressive tyrannies who subjugate entire societies.

Massive tragedy.

Oh, please. Not only are people who take lives very much heroes in our culture (just pick a random action movie), there's an immense regard for soldiers in American society -- people who are trained to fight wars and take lives.

174 Obdicut  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:09:22pm

re: #168 researchok

True- but usually in defense of the realm, etc or to prevent or eradicate evil.

Exactly. "To eradicate evil."

It's still heroism defined by taking life. Hell, we often celebrate people who use lethal force to defend property.

175 Obdicut  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:10:13pm

re: #172 researchok

I know you disagree with that premise- that was not my point.

What I was trying to say is that order from the chaos is what fuels 'religion'- or culture or society. And that order has to apply to a broad a group as possible.

I actually think the argument that religion provides chaos is the much stronger argument.

176 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:11:21pm

re: #174 Obdicut

Exactly. "To eradicate evil."

It's still heroism defined by taking life. Hell, we often celebrate people who use lethal force to defend property.

I would agree that taking life to defend property isn't heroic.

To fight evil is heroic. WW2 is testimony to that.

177 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:11:54pm

re: #175 Obdicut

I actually think the argument that religion provides chaos is the much stronger argument.

LOL- you aren't the first to make that argument!

178 Nimed  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:12:27pm

re: #168 researchok

True- but usually in defense of the realm, etc or to prevent or eradicate evil.

Offering good and noble reasons to justify killing people is an universal phenomenon, not something distinctive of our culture..

179 Obdicut  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:12:34pm

re: #177 researchok

LOL- you aren't the first to make that argument!

I know. You made it in that column. I meant, between the two arguments-- that it provides order or chaos-- I think that chaos provides the better advantage.

180 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:13:28pm

re: #173 Nimed

Oh, please. Not only are people who take lives very much heroes in our culture (just pick a random action movie), there's an immense regard for soldiers in American society -- people who are trained to fight wars and take lives.

There is a difference.

We don't believe in killing the 'other' simply because they are different is quite the same as those who do.

181 Obdicut  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:13:51pm

re: #176 researchok

I would agree that taking life to defend property isn't heroic.

And yet we celebrate that, often, in Western culture.

In addition to celebrating killing for revenge. At least in the US, we do.

182 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:15:26pm

re: #179 Obdicut

I know. You made it in that column. I meant, between the two arguments-- that it provides order or chaos-- I think that chaos provides the better advantage.

Oh man- we need a long, long conversation on that very subject.

I've written a boatload of work product on that (I will assume you will connect the dots). There is a great divide across that cultural/religious Grand Canyon.

183 Obdicut  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:15:37pm

re: #180 researchok

There is a difference.

We don't believe in killing the 'other' simply because they are different is quite the same as those who do.

We used propaganda during WWII that characterized the Japanese in such a way as to make it easier to kill them.

Image: d-day-invasion-20.jpg

Image: ww2%20louseous%20japanicas.jpg

184 captdiggs  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:17:17pm

re: #173 Nimed

Oh, please. Not only are people who take lives very much heroes in our culture (just pick a random action movie), there's an immense regard for soldiers in American society -- people who are trained to fight wars and take lives.

The difference is "what lives" were taken and for what.
For example, Hezbollah held a massive demonstration to applaud the "heroism" complete with a medal to honor the murderer ( Samir Kuntar) of a four year old Israeli girl.

185 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:17:20pm

re: #171 eclectic infidel

Hi Alouette...

I'm curious, and I admit upfront that I'm not as educated with the settlements (towns, villages) as I know I ought to be, but, are the settlements themselves being built in the zones laid out according to the agreement at Oslo?

Most of the "settlements" are actually towns of 30,000 people and the majority are suburbs of Jerusalem, simply the result of natural population expansion of the city. The "Green Line" is not an international border, but the positions that were held when a cease-fire was declared in 1948. The Jordanians had Jerusalem surrounded on all sides except for the western approach.

Israeli settlements and international law.

186 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:17:40pm

re: #181 Obdicut

And yet we celebrate that, often, in Western culture.

In addition to celebrating killing for revenge. At least in the US, we do.

Yes, true- though in fact I'd say that were more related to allegory or mythology. The 'wild, wild, west' really wasn't as wild as Hiollywood or Louis L'amour would have you believe.

Interestingly, the west mythology remains popular for the same reason fighting in hockey is popular- perceived instant justice.

187 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:18:33pm

Islamists who cheer on suicide bombers as heroes see them as fighting evil to defend the innocent. They're wrong, but their illusion is framed exactly the same way.

188 Obdicut  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:18:42pm

re: #186 researchok

Yes, true- though in fact I'd say that were more related to allegory or mythology. The 'wild, wild, west' really wasn't as wild as Hiollywood or Louis L'amour would have you believe.

Interestingly, the west mythology remains popular for the same reason fighting in hockey is popular- perceived instant justice.

No, I was talking about capital punishment, actually.

I know the Wild West actually had a very low murder rate. Not enough population density for it to be high.

189 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:19:53pm

re: #188 Obdicut

No, I was talking about capital punishment, actually.

I know the Wild West actually had a very low murder rate. Not enough population density for it to be high.

OK, gotcha.

I'm strongly against CP, by the way.

Achieves nothing.

190 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:20:26pm

re: #187 elbruce

Islamists who cheer on suicide bombers as heroes see them as fighting evil to defend the innocent. They're wrong, but their illusion is framed exactly the same way.

Right.

They are moral equals.

191 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:20:31pm

re: #170 captdiggs

There were no settlements in 1948 when the arab world declared a war of genocidal intent.
There were no settlements before June of 1967, yet the arab world demanded the extermination of Israel ( a crime against humanity, by the way).
The Israeli settlements in the Sinai did not stop Israel from reaching an agreement with Egypt, so yes, researchok's statement is correct.
The palestinians use the settlements as a red herring to avoid peace.

You're talking about the past. I'm talking about the future. How is there supposed to be a two-state solution when one state is moving their people into the land they said they'd give to the other state?

192 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:21:31pm

re: #185 Alouette

Most of the "settlements" are actually towns of 30,000 people and the majority are suburbs of Jerusalem, simply the result of natural population expansion of the city. The "Green Line" is not an international border, but the positions that were held when a cease-fire was declared in 1948. The Jordanians had Jerusalem surrounded on all sides except for the western approach.

Israeli settlements and international law.

One more thing to add- only about 5% of the security barrier is actually a ‘wall,’ constructed to impede sniper fire into Israeli homes and cars, a sport Palestinian terrorists enjoy immensely. The rest is a chain link fence.

193 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:22:25pm

re: #191 elbruce

You're talking about the past. I'm talking about the future. How is there supposed to be a two-state solution when one state is moving their people into the land they said they'd give to the other state?

When have the Israelis not given up land in exchange for peace?

Why not land after peace instead of land before peace? Doesn't that make more sense?

194 ProGunLiberal  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:23:32pm

re: #191 elbruce

Actually, one of the solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is messy to say the least. Go to "Plans for a Solution", then look at the third bullet point. What's scary is that there is 46% support for that solution.

195 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:23:41pm

re: #183 Obdicut

We used propaganda during WWII that characterized the Japanese in such a way as to make it easier to kill them.

Image: d-day-invasion-20.jpg

Image: ww2%20louseous%20japanicas.jpg

Yup- psy ops all the way.

196 captdiggs  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:23:58pm

re: #191 elbruce

You're talking about the past. I'm talking about the future. How is there supposed to be a two-state solution when one state is moving their people into the land they said they'd give to the other state?

The past is prologue ( I believe that's Shakespeare.)
This is a religious war. The entire reason that the arab world went to war against Israel is Islamic intolerance for a non muslim nation in the region.
That has always been the elephant in the room.

197 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:24:50pm

re: #191 elbruce

You're talking about the past. I'm talking about the future. How is there supposed to be a two-state solution when one state is moving their people into the land they said they'd give to the other state?

They did not say they are giving all this land to the other state. That's what the negotiations are about. The land where most of the Jews live will not be given to the other state and has not been promised to them, even though the Palestinians demand it.

198 ProGunLiberal  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:26:10pm

re: #194 ProLifeLiberal

Actually, one of the solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is messy to say the least. Go to "Plans for a Solution", then look at the third bullet point. What's scary is that there is 46% support for that solution.

Oops, forgot to include the link.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

199 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:27:03pm

re: #196 captdiggs

The past is prologue ( I believe that's Shakespeare.)
This is a religious war. The entire reason that the arab world went to war against Israel is Islamic intolerance for a non muslim nation in the region.
That has always been the elephant in the room.

That's a big elephant.

The regimes have twisted the religion to their advantage.

The populations believe that if Israel is allowed to exist, the Quranic promise of domination over Jews and Christians is false- and that just can't be.

In large measure, that is why peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan are 'cold'.

200 Nimed  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:27:09pm

re: #185 Alouette

Well, there's plenty of settlements that are not near Jerusalem. Why were these ever built, even actively promoted, in territory that Israel recognized as Palestinian?
Image: Westbankjan06.jpg

201 Petero1818  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:27:41pm

re: #156 elbruce

re: #156 elbruce

I've gone around and around with a group of commenters in previous threads. On the one hand they tell me that a one state solution is bad. On the other hand they tell me that Israeli settlements should continue. I'm trying to figure out what kind of solution to the problem they advocate, but whenever I ask that all I hear is "it's all the Palestinian's fault, except for what's the neighboring Arab states' fault!" To which I reply, "so what's your solution?" And all I get back is jumping and pointing while screaming "ALL THEIR FAULT ZOMG!!!1!"

I'm just trying to use the process of elimination here. They support giving the Palestinians some of the land (aka. two state solution), but they also support moving Israelis into the land that was supposed to be given to the Palestinians (aka. settlements). Both of those solutions logically eliminate each other. Before I go all moonbatty on them and accuse them of supporting death camps, I wanted to see if mass expulsion of the entire inconvenient Palestinian populace was on the table, as living with them or letting them have some of the land to themselves are both being opposed.

Well I can't speak for them but I will join them in my ABSOLUTE opposition to a one state solution. A one state solution is nothing more than bringing Jews in the middle east under Arab Islamic rule and setting up the further subjugation of the Jewish people. It is a non starter with anyone who has any serious intent of achieving any peaceful solution.

As for the rest of their positions they can defend themselves. I myself view settlements (other than a few previously established for security reasons) as provocative and unnecessary. I view Settlers as increasingly dangerous to our (the Jewish People's) survival and the survival of the state of Israel. It is a sentiment shared by a great many Israelis.

202 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:30:34pm

re: #200 Nimed

Well, there's plenty of settlements that are not near Jerusalem. Why were these ever built, even actively promoted, in territory that Israel recognized as Palestinian?
Image: Westbankjan06.jpg

Those settlements are relatively new. Had peace been achieved, there would be no settlements.

For decades, since 1967, peace in the region was predicated on 3 points, agreed to by the UN, NATO, The Quartet, etc:

*Cessation of violence.
*Diplomatic recognition of Israel
*Secure borders.

Which of those things are too onerous for the Palestinians to bear?

203 Nimed  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:34:04pm

re: #184 captdiggs

The difference is "what lives" were taken and for what.
For example, Hezbollah held a massive demonstration to applaud the "heroism" complete with a medal to honor the murderer ( Samir Kuntar) of a four year old Israeli girl.

Have you ever seen an old Western movie before they got all politically correct? The savage and bloodthirsty Indians were killed by the hundreds -- their lives are treated as essentially worthless. The psychology of Hezbollah -- a terrorist organization -- when it comes to what they classify as Their Mortal Enemies is, sadly, very similar.

204 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:34:20pm

re: #185 Alouette

Most of the "settlements" are actually towns of 30,000 people and the majority are suburbs of Jerusalem, simply the result of natural population expansion of the city. The "Green Line" is not an international border, but the positions that were held when a cease-fire was declared in 1948. The Jordanians had Jerusalem surrounded on all sides except for the western approach.

Israeli settlements and international law.

In other words, the settlements are a red herring issue? It seems that way to me.

205 Petero1818  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:39:27pm

re: #204 eclectic infidel

In other words, the settlements are a red herring issue? It seems that way to me.


In no way are the settlements are red herring issue. Israel is well aware that it will need to abandon some (thereby having built homes for Palestinians), and bargain for land swaps to maintain others. They are a very important part of the negotiation that would bring Peace. IMHO they will be a bigger problem for Israel than they are for the Palestinians as their evacuation will be traumatic for the Israelis and will lead to massive internal conflict. The part that is more debatable is why Palestinians would not negotiate if settlement was ongoing. At the end of the day it is about negotiating in good faith. The optics are horrible.

206 Nimed  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:40:31pm

re: #202 researchok

Those settlements are relatively new. Had peace been achieved, there would be no settlements.

For decades, since 1967, peace in the region was predicated on 3 points, agreed to by the UN, NATO, The Quartet, etc:

*Cessation of violence.
*Diplomatic recognition of Israel
*Secure borders.

Which of those things are too onerous for the Palestinians to bear?

Your argument would make sense if I was claiming the Israelis are the only party who violated the Oslo Accords. That's clearly not true, and I'm not exempting the Palestinians of their responsibility. Still, if the road to peace clearly depends on a future agreement that will most certainly be some version of the 1967 borders, to keep on building settlements is to make the prospects for peace even more remote. It just seems counterproductive to continue grabbing Palestinian land if your objective is to maximize the chances of peace.

207 researchok  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:44:13pm

re: #206 Nimed

Your argument would make sense if I was claiming the Israelis are the only party who violated the Oslo Accords. That's clearly not true, and I'm not exempting the Palestinians of their responsibility. Still, if the road to peace clearly depends on a future agreement that will most certainly be some version of the 1967 borders, to keep on building settlements is to make the prospects for peace even more remote. It just seems counterproductive to continue grabbing Palestinian land if your objective is to maximize the chances of peace.

What does any of this have to do with Oslo??

Oslo came about because the Palestinians refused the above term?

Israel has taken the position that they will exchange land for peace, based on those terms. So I ask again, which of those things are too onerous a burden for the Palestinians?

208 lostlakehiker  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:44:45pm

re: #135 elbruce

Well they sure don't seem to bother you. But they sure seem to bother a whole heck of a lot of people who are actually involved. If only the peace agreements were entirely up to you...

The problem is the Hamas and Hezbollah and Fatah position that the whole of Israel is "settlements". And on the other side of the fence, you've got people who figure that everything from the river to the sea is theirs by divine right.

Israel will never agree to a peace deal that costs them "greater Jerusalem". That's not "settlement" any more, it's just part of the city. They might possibly agree to relinquish most of the rest of the settlements, and tuck and trim the borders to round things out.

My own guess is that the Palestinians would not accept 1948 Israel except as an interim solution until they could implement their Final Solution, but who knows? They'll have a chance to say what they want, what they really really want.

209 Nimed  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:54:55pm

re: #207 researchok

Sorry, that was a mental fart. Forget Oslo, I was thinking about Resolution 242. :)

I don't know why do you use the expression "exchange land for peace". The West Bank is not Israel's land to exchange by Israel's own admission. Expanding current settlements obviously decreases the prospects for peace because these settlements will obviously not be all relocated in the future -- that would imply massive population dislocations and great human suffering. So it just seems counterproductive to keep building them.

210 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:56:43pm

re: #205 Petero1818

I don't think Israeli w/d from established communities will bring peace. I think if it wasn't the 'settlements' it would be another issue that the PA would nit pick. IMO, we've already seen just how well the pull-out from Gaza went in that regard, and that was a viciously disruptive event in Israel's history - in both cost and emotion.

211 Petero1818  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 3:58:11pm

re: #209 Nimed

Sorry, that was a mental fart. Forget Oslo, I was thinking about Resolution 242. :)

I don't know why do you use the expression "exchange land for peace". The West Bank is not Israel's land to exchange by Israel's own admission. Expanding current settlements obviously decreases the prospects for peace because these settlements will obviously not be all relocated in the future -- that would imply massive population dislocations and great human suffering. So it just seems counterproductive to keep building them.

It is occupied territory, but its return is subject to peaceful conditions and need not be returned absent those conditions. Even the worst interpretation of the relevant UN resolutions (from Israel's perspective) is clear on that point. In that respect, land will be exchanged for peace.

As for the point about counterproductive, I agree.

212 Petero1818  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 4:02:09pm

re: #210 eclectic infidel

I don't think Israeli w/d from established communities will bring peace. I think if it wasn't the 'settlements' it would be another issue that the PA would nit pick. IMO, we've already seen just how well the pull-out from Gaza went in that regard, and that was a viciously disruptive event in Israel's history - in both cost and emotion.

There will always be another issue. No question. That doesn't mean that one seeks to resolve all the issues that may be a barrier to peace, on both sides. As for Gaza pull out, decisions made for political purposes rarely turn out well. A unilateral pullout was never a good idea from the perspective of peace, all it did was get the IDF out of harms way for a while. I do not believe any settlement should be evacuated other than as part of a comprehensive agreement. Not an interim solution, a comprehensive agreement for a permanent peace. I just see continuing to build as impeding the process.

213 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 4:04:56pm

re: #212 Petero1818

There will always be another issue. No question. That doesn't mean that one seeks to resolve all the issues that may be a barrier to peace, on both sides. As for Gaza pull out, decisions made for political purposes rarely turn out well. A unilateral pullout was never a good idea from the perspective of peace, all it did was get the IDF out of harms way for a while. I do not believe any settlement should be evacuated other than as part of a comprehensive agreement. Not an interim solution, a comprehensive agreement for a permanent peace. I just see continuing to build as impeding the process.

Just so you and I are on the same page, when you say 'continuing to build' are you referring to the areas B & C per Oslo II?

214 Petero1818  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 4:14:00pm

I believe there should be no building whatsoever in areas B & C of Oslo II until a final agreement is reached. But I also believe that so called "organic growth" of settlements around Jerusalem should not be permitted at this time. Regardless of whether or not we believe this area will remain within Israel.

215 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 4:28:43pm

re: #151 Obdicut

We do standardize light position on traffic lights so that you don't have to have color knowledge. We use auditory clues at crosswalks for the deaf. We use raised braille for the blind.

So I'm not really understanding what you mean.

high five for this

216 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 5:26:54pm

re: #214 Petero1818

I believe there should be no building whatsoever in areas B & C of Oslo II until a final agreement is reached. But I also believe that so called "organic growth" of settlements around Jerusalem should not be permitted at this time. Regardless of whether or not we believe this area will remain within Israel.

Does this objection extend to the Palestinians as well?

217 ihateronpaul  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 5:43:09pm

Is 9/11 being sacred a commie-liberal plot? I don't understand this atlas shrubbery person very well

218 Petero1818  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 5:52:55pm

re: #216 eclectic infidel

Never really thought of it, since Areas B & C are administered by Israel and pretty much preclude most Arab building. But for the most part sure in B & C all development activities should stop.

219 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 6:24:34pm

re: #193 researchok

When have the Israelis not given up land in exchange for peace?

Why not land after peace instead of land before peace? Doesn't that make more sense?

So they should do the thing that's supposed to solve the problem only after it's been demonstrated that the problem no longer exists?

I don't think land should be in exchange for anything. Any partitioning should be done irrespective of any purported "peace deals."

220 Petero1818  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 6:29:19pm

re: #219 elbruce

I don't think land should be in exchange for anything. Any partitioning should be done irrespective of any purported "peace deals."

Um, how do you think we got to this point to begin with? The word partition you used should be a clue.

221 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 6:30:03pm

re: #201 Petero1818

Well I can't speak for them but I will join them in my ABSOLUTE opposition to a one state solution. A one state solution is nothing more than bringing Jews in the middle east under Arab Islamic rule and setting up the further subjugation of the Jewish people. It is a non starter with anyone who has any serious intent of achieving any peaceful solution.

I don't think that anybody involved really entertains it. But in the long term, it's the only viable option. If you split the country in half and say these kinds of people live there and those kinds of people live here, then over time you run into the same problem unless both states support extreme measures to preserve some kind of official ethnic identity. I don't see racial separation as being a viable option in the long term. The most ethical option is the best option. That doesn't mean it would be easy to implement or safe to implement in a quick or careless fashion.

222 Petero1818  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 7:11:56pm

re: #221 elbruce

Well I can't speak for them but I will join them in my ABSOLUTE opposition to a one state solution. A one state solution is nothing more than bringing Jews in the middle east under Arab Islamic rule and setting up the further subjugation of the Jewish people. It is a non starter with anyone who has any serious intent of achieving any peaceful solution.

I don't think that anybody involved really entertains it. But in the long term, it's the only viable option. If you split the country in half and say these kinds of people live there and those kinds of people live here, then over time you run into the same problem unless both states support extreme measures to preserve some kind of official ethnic identity. I don't see racial separation as being a viable option in the long term. The most ethical option is the best option. That doesn't mean it would be easy to implement or safe to implement in a quick or careless fashion.

It cant be the only viable option if it is not viable. And from the perspective of Israel it is not viable and will never happen. Therefore to call it the only viable option is to actual declare that there is no chance for peace.

223 shai_au  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 7:36:04pm

The rally invitation on Geller's site now includes this little snippet:

The rally will begin with a brief memorial service for the victims of the 9/11 attacks, featuring prayers offered by a rabbi, a minister and a priest for the families of the victims and for the nation.

I wonder if they actually invited a Muslim cleric to offer prayers. After all, Muslims died on 9/11 too.

I'm pretty sure I know what the general response to that invitation would be, though.

224 elbruce  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 8:56:59pm

re: #222 Petero1818

It cant be the only viable option if it is not viable.

Well, there's short-term viable and there's long-term viable...


re: #222 Petero1818

And from the perspective of Israel it is not viable and will never happen.

Their call, not mine.


re: #222 Petero1818

Therefore to call it the only viable option is to actual declare that there is no chance for peace.

A two-state solution might put the problems off for a generation or two. But seeing how problematic that is as well, me saying a one-state solution is better is like saying I like that flavor of pie in the sky better than that other one.

225 jamesfirecat  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 9:25:09pm

re: #163 researchok

See this for more context.

You will probably disagree with the post premise, but you'll get the point.

Sorry to be brief- multitasking again!

Not to Necro but

"Obviously, while religion is not for everyone, it is clearly a part of the DNA of many, no matter what secularists argue. "

This is meant as a metaphor, right?

226 jamesfirecat  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 9:33:27pm

re: #163 researchok

See this for more context.

You will probably disagree with the post premise, but you'll get the point.

Sorry to be brief- multitasking again!

Also

"What is different is that many secularists are bound and determined to kill God. They are not satisfied coexisting with believers. The reasons are many and varied, but one thing is clear. Unlike many secularists, Christians, Jews and Buddhists do not lose sleep because they pray differently. God as described by secularists very rarely, if ever, resembles the God of the believers. "

Is this guy trying to argue that Christians don't loose sleep because other people pray to different gods or in different ways?

Please tell me he isn't, and what he is trying to argue... because if he's trying to argue that Christians don't loose sleep over people believing in slightly different versions of god then clearly he knows precious little about some of the more evangelical forms of Christianity... (says this lapsed Presbyterian who had an extremely awkward talk on his doorstep with a well meaning Jahova's witness...)

227 ClaudeMonet  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 11:26:27pm

re: #24 Jimmah

That would be ideal. However, I expect her lawyers will go for the "She really believed what she was a saying was true - she's a bit crazy you know" defence.

Oh goody, then the opposing attorneys can go for a psychiatric evaluation and a possible finding of mental incompetency.

228 ClaudeMonet  Tue, Sep 7, 2010 11:43:01pm

re: #189 researchok

OK, gotcha.

I'm strongly against CP, by the way.

Achieves nothing.

Fact--Executed murderers commit no more murders. That's all I want of such people.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 64 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 165 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1