Reader comments
Readers' forum: Letter: Hypocrite protesters
44 comments | Read story
Anonymous | 8:09 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
So the point of this letter is that because other people do bad things it makes
it ok for us to do them? Nice morals.
Ernest T. Bass | 8:27 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
You should protest the protesters!
Actually Israel planned this offensive for 18 months.
But don't worry about the facts, they just confuse most people.
Actually Israel planned this offensive for 18 months.
But don't worry about the facts, they just confuse most people.
Anonymous | 8:43 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Bob Koenig should save his breath and (as millions of Americans have done post
9/11) admit there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Iraq had nothing
whatsoever to do with 9/11, and the only people gaining anything from the
carnage, torture and deaths of innocent civilians, were defense contractors
Lockheed Martin and Halliburton, both of whom coincidentally had Dick and Lynne
Cheney on their board of directors.
Why do you think the country voted the way it did last November?
Why do you think the country voted the way it did last November?
Comments continue below
letsbefair | 9:03 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Oh, this is a good one.
Where was America when Sadam Hussein was killing innocents? Right behind him because he was fighting Iran. We said nothing about it until we decided that he was the enemy. And who gave him the chemical weapons?
Where was America when Zionist terrorists drove from the Holy Land 750,000 unarmed civilians and destroyed 450 Palestinians villages? Huh?
Where was America when Israel has been killing innocent Palestinians for decades, their IDF using Palestinians children for target practice?
Where was America when Israel flattened Jenin and bulldozed houses over on their inhabitants, including handicapped people unable to move?
Where is America's sense of fairness in declaring that no Palestinian has a right to exist nor do they have a right to defend their homes, their families, or their land?
Israel ALWAYS claim that their crimes are either "accidents" or they fabricate accusations that they were justified because they suspected that weapons were hidden in kindergartens, hospitals, mosques, or homes, which is never proven. That's just an excuse for genocide.
Can America really expect that Americans won't suffer in the world as a result of our blatant racism and hypocrisy?
Where was America when Sadam Hussein was killing innocents? Right behind him because he was fighting Iran. We said nothing about it until we decided that he was the enemy. And who gave him the chemical weapons?
Where was America when Zionist terrorists drove from the Holy Land 750,000 unarmed civilians and destroyed 450 Palestinians villages? Huh?
Where was America when Israel has been killing innocent Palestinians for decades, their IDF using Palestinians children for target practice?
Where was America when Israel flattened Jenin and bulldozed houses over on their inhabitants, including handicapped people unable to move?
Where is America's sense of fairness in declaring that no Palestinian has a right to exist nor do they have a right to defend their homes, their families, or their land?
Israel ALWAYS claim that their crimes are either "accidents" or they fabricate accusations that they were justified because they suspected that weapons were hidden in kindergartens, hospitals, mosques, or homes, which is never proven. That's just an excuse for genocide.
Can America really expect that Americans won't suffer in the world as a result of our blatant racism and hypocrisy?
What protestors? | 9:14 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Maybe I'm missing something but the War in Iraq has seemingly drawn very
few vociferous protestors.
I remember that the Vietnam War was constantly under protest. to the point that it represented a real problem for those in action, virtually "aiding and abetting the enemy".
The situation was somewhat complex. As Ezra Taft Benson said, the US shouldn't have gone there in the first place but, since they were there, the job should have been completed in such a way as to avoid future conflict in the area. Neither happened: the USA got involved in that old French colony, lost tens of thousands of American lives and then pulled out leaving victory to the Communists, not only in Vietnam but that whole part of South-East Asia.
Today protests are more civilized and muted, perhaps because there is no draft in this war and because Americans were really frightened by 9/11.
On the other hand, most Americans seem to feel that, since Saddam Hussein is dead and free elections have been held in Iraq it is time for troops to leave. If we wait until there is stability in Iraq IMO we will never leave.
I remember that the Vietnam War was constantly under protest. to the point that it represented a real problem for those in action, virtually "aiding and abetting the enemy".
The situation was somewhat complex. As Ezra Taft Benson said, the US shouldn't have gone there in the first place but, since they were there, the job should have been completed in such a way as to avoid future conflict in the area. Neither happened: the USA got involved in that old French colony, lost tens of thousands of American lives and then pulled out leaving victory to the Communists, not only in Vietnam but that whole part of South-East Asia.
Today protests are more civilized and muted, perhaps because there is no draft in this war and because Americans were really frightened by 9/11.
On the other hand, most Americans seem to feel that, since Saddam Hussein is dead and free elections have been held in Iraq it is time for troops to leave. If we wait until there is stability in Iraq IMO we will never leave.
It's all about oil | 9:49 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
At this moment the largest U.S. Embassy in the world is being constructed in
Iraq that resembles a small college campus. It is huge!
The powers that be have no intention of ever leaving Iraq (a country that seems destined to have one civil war after another with or without any "democracy."
This entire situation has been exposed as one sick joke.
The powers that be have no intention of ever leaving Iraq (a country that seems destined to have one civil war after another with or without any "democracy."
This entire situation has been exposed as one sick joke.
thought | 9:59 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
The reason liberals don't protest these things is because Barbara Streisand
and Robert Redford haven't told them to. Think for yourselves, liberals.
Ultra Bob | 10:12 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Where were we? Right here beside you hearing and seeing the same propaganda
that you heard and saw, only perhaps we were able to use our brain to realize
that what we heard and saw was all a part of some ruthless scheme of conquest.
The stories that you speak of are the propaganda of an element of our society dedicated to the mental enslavement of America. While there is some truth in them, the whole truth is never known.
The element that I speak of not only indoctrinates their followers with the lies of partial truth but speak badly of others who may tell the other parts of the story (such as the Media).
Bob Koenig wake up and use your brain. All people everywhere have the right and the obligation to fight for their rights. It�s too bad that in this case America makes and allows the fight to be so lopsided.
The stories that you speak of are the propaganda of an element of our society dedicated to the mental enslavement of America. While there is some truth in them, the whole truth is never known.
The element that I speak of not only indoctrinates their followers with the lies of partial truth but speak badly of others who may tell the other parts of the story (such as the Media).
Bob Koenig wake up and use your brain. All people everywhere have the right and the obligation to fight for their rights. It�s too bad that in this case America makes and allows the fight to be so lopsided.
Anonymous | 10:18 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Where is the writer of this letter? He's writing about experiences
he's never lived, about people he's never known and from the safety of
a home that this writer has never been forced at gunpoint to accommodate people
whose ancestors left his neighborhood two thousand years ago.
Reading this comments from Utah, the UN can see they can relocate Utahans by signing a resolution. It's rare to read words written by a Utahan defending the human right to vanquish invaders from your home and land.
Reading this comments from Utah, the UN can see they can relocate Utahans by signing a resolution. It's rare to read words written by a Utahan defending the human right to vanquish invaders from your home and land.
another thought | 10:31 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Stop making liberals look at themselves. They can't handle it.
That's why all their comments on this string have amounted to diversions from the point that was made.
That's why all their comments on this string have amounted to diversions from the point that was made.
re: thought 9:59 | 10:50 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
This deluded chump is no doubt still smarting from the butt-whupping his modern
American conservative movement took in November and forgets to mention he takes
his orders from Rush O'Hannity and is influenced by the likes of Sarah
Palin.
LOL!
LOL!
Conservatives | 11:00 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Why didn't conservatives protest any of these illegal and immoral actions?
Why are they blaming liberals, if they didn't protest either? Did they
think it was okay for Hamas to fire rockets into Israel? I guess so, if they
didn't protest.
Stop waiting for liberals to do all your work.
Stop waiting for liberals to do all your work.
re: another thought 10:31 | 11:03 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
What can't be handled is the fact that the country booted out the wacky
far-right element from both houses and last November put the nail in the
conservative's coffin by voting into office a left-leaning black man named
Obama who has inherited a disaster from the far-right Bush Administration. So
all the neocons can do now is whine like babies and look forward to ilk like
Rush Limbaugh to make them feel more powerful.
LOL!
LOL!
Rush and Hannity | 11:19 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
You forgot Michael Savage, who has described liberalism is a mental disorder.
He's right.
Ernest T. Bass | 11:28 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
The biggest disaster to ever hit the U.S. is the far-right neo-con.
The old hat republicans have some very good ideas: Small government and small taxes.
Problem is, Reagan threw all that out and ever since the 80s repugs have been all about enriching the wealthy while enlarging the number of families scraping by in the poverty level.
Bush/Cheney have no integrity. None whatever.
The narcissism which is so prevelent in the US comes straight from the neo-cons.
The corporate greed and banking/home fiasco comes straight from their greedy little minds.
The only way the US will recover is to move away from neo-con philosophies and get back to work. Keep the tax burden off of the middle class.
Cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes.
Bush increased the size of the federal government, by 40% -John McCain on 60 Minutes.
The old hat republicans have some very good ideas: Small government and small taxes.
Problem is, Reagan threw all that out and ever since the 80s repugs have been all about enriching the wealthy while enlarging the number of families scraping by in the poverty level.
Bush/Cheney have no integrity. None whatever.
The narcissism which is so prevelent in the US comes straight from the neo-cons.
The corporate greed and banking/home fiasco comes straight from their greedy little minds.
The only way the US will recover is to move away from neo-con philosophies and get back to work. Keep the tax burden off of the middle class.
Cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes.
Bush increased the size of the federal government, by 40% -John McCain on 60 Minutes.
two words | 11:42 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
The modern American conservative movement and its dismal failure of their black
and white, good vs. evil ideology can be put into two words:
Sarah Palin.
These stupid people actually believe this is their best candidate.
Sarah Palin.
These stupid people actually believe this is their best candidate.
Anonymous | 11:56 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
There is only one way to accurately define today's modern American
conservative movement:
LOSERS
LOSERS
Re: letsbefair | 11:55 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009
I have never read a bigger bunch of lies than your post. You are purposely
misguiding people into believing fictitious stories. The reason I know that it
is on purpose is that no one could be this wrong by mistake.
Granted, Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction on the eve of the US attack. He managed, however, to produce the chemical agents by himself several years back.
Zionist Terrorists? Where did that come from? For your information, the state of Israel was formed based on a UN resolution. As the Arabs didn't like it, they attacked the Jewish settlements and wiped out 10% of their population. It is nearly a miracle that the Israelis prevailed. Seeing their defeat, many Arabs fled and left their homes. Very few were forced out. Any good history book would tell you that!
As for Jenin, this is another link in the chain of lies spread by the Arabs. Don't take my word for it, just read the report of the UN committee assigned to check this tale.
No one ever used Palestinian kids for target practice, but Hamas terrorists use them as shelter as they know the Israeli reluctance to endanger kids.
Granted, Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction on the eve of the US attack. He managed, however, to produce the chemical agents by himself several years back.
Zionist Terrorists? Where did that come from? For your information, the state of Israel was formed based on a UN resolution. As the Arabs didn't like it, they attacked the Jewish settlements and wiped out 10% of their population. It is nearly a miracle that the Israelis prevailed. Seeing their defeat, many Arabs fled and left their homes. Very few were forced out. Any good history book would tell you that!
As for Jenin, this is another link in the chain of lies spread by the Arabs. Don't take my word for it, just read the report of the UN committee assigned to check this tale.
No one ever used Palestinian kids for target practice, but Hamas terrorists use them as shelter as they know the Israeli reluctance to endanger kids.
Huh? | 12:06 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Bush is a neo Conservitive?
Whatever you people have been smoking, it's time to put it down. Anyway, Huntsman will tax that too.
I can accuratly name the ultra liberals leading their cause today.
Can anybody tell me who the leading Neo Cons are? And I don't mean Hannity, Rush, Coulter, Savage etc,. None of these people can take my money, freedom or liberty.
Whatever you people have been smoking, it's time to put it down. Anyway, Huntsman will tax that too.
I can accuratly name the ultra liberals leading their cause today.
Can anybody tell me who the leading Neo Cons are? And I don't mean Hannity, Rush, Coulter, Savage etc,. None of these people can take my money, freedom or liberty.
re: Huh? 12:06 | 12:18 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
So, are you one of the fools who voted for Cheney/Bush?
How about Palin/McCain?
(psst - the answer should speak volumes)
How about Palin/McCain?
(psst - the answer should speak volumes)
Re "Anonymous | 8:09 a.m." | 12:16 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Anonymous | 8:09 a.m.
Your usual rhetoric again today I see. But the opinion writer said NOTHING about it being OK to do bad things just because someone else did something bad. He was just putting out a plea to be consistent, and protest ALL injustices (not just the ones that fit your political agenda).
You automatically turn everything into your pre-conceived notions. Where did he say it's OK for us to do bad things?
Your usual rhetoric again today I see. But the opinion writer said NOTHING about it being OK to do bad things just because someone else did something bad. He was just putting out a plea to be consistent, and protest ALL injustices (not just the ones that fit your political agenda).
You automatically turn everything into your pre-conceived notions. Where did he say it's OK for us to do bad things?
Too "letsbefair | 9:03 a.m." | 12:29 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
letsbefair | 9:03 a.m.
You need to change your moniker. It's so out of place when assiciated with your totally biased comments.
Just because you take the other side of the arguement doesn't mean anything you say is 'fair'. Being 'fair' isn't being totally biased but just to the other side. It's being unbiased and 'fair' and seeing BOTH sides.
If you could see and understand BOTH sides, I could see using a moniker like "letsbefair", but if you're just spouting the rhetoric of the other side with no concern for the whole truth... Your comments have nothing to do with fairness or balance, just a totally biased perspective from other side of the coin.
You should go by, "Palestinian Defender" or "Voice of the Left" or something like that. But your comments obviously have nothing to do with being central or 'fair' and are just as biased as the comments from the people who think Israel can do no wrong. The "Israel can do no right" rhetoric is just as 'unfair' as the "Israel can do no wrong" postings if you ask me.
Realise and express some points on both sides of the spectrum, that's 'fair'. Hint---There's-no-side-that's-100%-right-and-the-other-side-is-100%-wrong-as-you-try-to-make-it-sound-in-your-postings. BTW...I-thought-only-right-wing-nut-jobs-think-in-absolutes...right-or-wrong...black-or-white...What's-Morally-right/fair...etc...What-happend-to-you?
You need to change your moniker. It's so out of place when assiciated with your totally biased comments.
Just because you take the other side of the arguement doesn't mean anything you say is 'fair'. Being 'fair' isn't being totally biased but just to the other side. It's being unbiased and 'fair' and seeing BOTH sides.
If you could see and understand BOTH sides, I could see using a moniker like "letsbefair", but if you're just spouting the rhetoric of the other side with no concern for the whole truth... Your comments have nothing to do with fairness or balance, just a totally biased perspective from other side of the coin.
You should go by, "Palestinian Defender" or "Voice of the Left" or something like that. But your comments obviously have nothing to do with being central or 'fair' and are just as biased as the comments from the people who think Israel can do no wrong. The "Israel can do no right" rhetoric is just as 'unfair' as the "Israel can do no wrong" postings if you ask me.
Realise and express some points on both sides of the spectrum, that's 'fair'. Hint---There's-no-side-that's-100%-right-and-the-other-side-is-100%-wrong-as-you-try-to-make-it-sound-in-your-postings. BTW...I-thought-only-right-wing-nut-jobs-think-in-absolutes...right-or-wrong...black-or-white...What's-Morally-right/fair...etc...What-happend-to-you?
Red White and Blue | 12:37 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Why are you folks so frightend of Palin? I get it over and over that she is to
be feared by liberals.
I don't know the definition of a neo-con, but I know that America was founded upon and exists because of the love of liberty.
The government large enough to give you everything you want is large enought to take everyting from you.
I don't know the definition of a neo-con, but I know that America was founded upon and exists because of the love of liberty.
The government large enough to give you everything you want is large enought to take everyting from you.
KVC | 12:34 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
The 11:55 post is right on. Why are people allowed to publish blatant
anti-semetic lies on here?
Who inhabited the Middle East first? I believe Jewish people were in modern day Israel long before Islam was even founded. I guess the liberals believe since the Muslims drove many of the Jews out of the area by force then they should be able to keep them out, including by exterminating them.
Palestinians don't want to live peacefully with Israel, they want the Jews gone all together. It is apparent many of the liberals on this page feel the same way. Palestinian protesters in Ft Lauderdale were calling for Jews to be sent to "the ovens", referring to the crematories they were massacred in during the Holocaust.
Granted, the USA unfortunately forced Native Americans on reservations at one time, but now they are free to live wherever they want in the USA. Will the Arabic community do the same for the Jews?
Another misconception about Israel is that Arabs cannot live there. Have you never heard of Arab-Israelis? They even hold spot in the Israeli Legislature. They are non-Jewish Israeli citizens and account for 20% of the Israeli population.
Who inhabited the Middle East first? I believe Jewish people were in modern day Israel long before Islam was even founded. I guess the liberals believe since the Muslims drove many of the Jews out of the area by force then they should be able to keep them out, including by exterminating them.
Palestinians don't want to live peacefully with Israel, they want the Jews gone all together. It is apparent many of the liberals on this page feel the same way. Palestinian protesters in Ft Lauderdale were calling for Jews to be sent to "the ovens", referring to the crematories they were massacred in during the Holocaust.
Granted, the USA unfortunately forced Native Americans on reservations at one time, but now they are free to live wherever they want in the USA. Will the Arabic community do the same for the Jews?
Another misconception about Israel is that Arabs cannot live there. Have you never heard of Arab-Israelis? They even hold spot in the Israeli Legislature. They are non-Jewish Israeli citizens and account for 20% of the Israeli population.
KVC | 12:48 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
By the way, how did Israel come to occupy some of their current territory in
1967? That's right, they were invaded by the surrounding Arab nations who
wanted to eradicate them. Unfortunately for Egypt, Syria, and the rest, Israel
defeated them all in only 6-days. Then they started crying how unfair it was for
Israel to take over their strategic military positions, like the Golan Heights.
How can you wage war on a nation and then cry foul because you lost and they
took a small portion of your territory for protective purposes.
Also, even as Israel was dismantling settlements in Palestinian areas, they were being attacked by terrorists groups. Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terror organizations in the Middle East are not interested in peace with Israel. Even if a Palestinian State was established and left free, they would still try to destroy Israel.
It is appalling that Islamic Nations expect muslims worldwide to have equal rights in any country they live in, but will not extend that same right to non-muslims in their nations. This further proves they have no desire for fairness, only authority over all others in the end.
Also, even as Israel was dismantling settlements in Palestinian areas, they were being attacked by terrorists groups. Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terror organizations in the Middle East are not interested in peace with Israel. Even if a Palestinian State was established and left free, they would still try to destroy Israel.
It is appalling that Islamic Nations expect muslims worldwide to have equal rights in any country they live in, but will not extend that same right to non-muslims in their nations. This further proves they have no desire for fairness, only authority over all others in the end.
I am a fool that... | 12:49 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Was fooled by an even bigger fool.
I voted for Barrack Obama.
I voted for Barrack Obama.
Who are they? | 12:51 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
The leading Neo-Cons?
Palin must be one since liberals tremble at the mere mention of her name.
Who are the rest?
Palin must be one since liberals tremble at the mere mention of her name.
Who are the rest?
"Anonymouse" & his other aliases | 12:54 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Is Anonymouse ever going to get over the election rhetoric? He's so
obsessed with the McCain/Palin ticket and the "Modern Conservative
Movement" that he can't post about anything else (except Utah and
Mormons).
And he thinks Rush O'Hannity are bogus for being biased political hacks... but he is exactly the same as they are and uses the exact same tactics they do and is just as annoying, just from the other side of the coin. Hmmm. Guess it's OK to be biased, dogmatic and annoying as long as your doing for the right party. Am I right?
Anybody see any difference between Anonymouse's rhetoric filled postings and the pompus-balony they may hear from the Rush O'Hannity crowd? They're exactly the same to me.
And he thinks Rush O'Hannity are bogus for being biased political hacks... but he is exactly the same as they are and uses the exact same tactics they do and is just as annoying, just from the other side of the coin. Hmmm. Guess it's OK to be biased, dogmatic and annoying as long as your doing for the right party. Am I right?
Anybody see any difference between Anonymouse's rhetoric filled postings and the pompus-balony they may hear from the Rush O'Hannity crowd? They're exactly the same to me.
are you deaf? | 1:02 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Rush, Hannity, Coulter can't take my freedom, liberty, or anything else
I've earned.
Who are the leading Neo-Cons in today's Republican Party. We now know Palin makes Liberals wet their pants at the mention of her name. That's one. Who are the others?
Who are the leading Neo-Cons in today's Republican Party. We now know Palin makes Liberals wet their pants at the mention of her name. That's one. Who are the others?
Anonymous | 1:18 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Palin lost.
McCain lost with her.
The country has spoken.
Get over it!
Anonymous | 2:49 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
This proves a point. "You forgot Michael Savage, who has described
liberalism is a mental disorder. He's right."
If this conservative read he would see real irony. :-)
Michael Savage is really Michael Wiener. He was a follower of gay poet Alan Ginsburg during his "City Lights" era in San Francisco. You can read about Mike's travels with Alan in Bali.
Mike is a Cal Berkeley grad.
Michael lives where today? You get get Mike from the Bay Area. He must feel a kinship with someone in San Francisco.
The way Mike lives, he must pay $5000 a month rent. Add in $400 restaurant checks and $200 bar tabs. There are the $1200 bottles of wine.
Mike needs a group to feed him. Who did Mike pick? He picked conservatives. Why?
If this conservative read he would see real irony. :-)
Michael Savage is really Michael Wiener. He was a follower of gay poet Alan Ginsburg during his "City Lights" era in San Francisco. You can read about Mike's travels with Alan in Bali.
Mike is a Cal Berkeley grad.
Michael lives where today? You get get Mike from the Bay Area. He must feel a kinship with someone in San Francisco.
The way Mike lives, he must pay $5000 a month rent. Add in $400 restaurant checks and $200 bar tabs. There are the $1200 bottles of wine.
Mike needs a group to feed him. Who did Mike pick? He picked conservatives. Why?
Partisans | 4:10 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
I can hardly believe how almost every issue so quickly becomes a partisan battle
between Republicans and Democrats, and how others see everything in terms of
being for or against Israel.
What was presented was a view that favored the ongoing US actions in Iraq and an accusation of hyprocisy apparently leveled at those who do not support the current actions of the Bush administration in Iraq.
I appreciate those who would indirectly raise issues such as the Constitutionality of how US administrations (both Democrat and Republican) nowadays enter terrible wars without any declaration of war.
The question now surely is whether the US should be (or perhaps still be) involved in Iraq. If so, why? If not, why?
There is no straight conservative / liberal split on these issues, though I think most Republicans and Democrats initially voted for the original US presence in Iraq.
We don't even know yet what actions the Obama administration will take in the Middle East and what kind of a timetable it will follow. All I could ever fathom based on the President-elect's expressed views, that I ever heard, is that he favors transferring the action to Afghanistan.
What was presented was a view that favored the ongoing US actions in Iraq and an accusation of hyprocisy apparently leveled at those who do not support the current actions of the Bush administration in Iraq.
I appreciate those who would indirectly raise issues such as the Constitutionality of how US administrations (both Democrat and Republican) nowadays enter terrible wars without any declaration of war.
The question now surely is whether the US should be (or perhaps still be) involved in Iraq. If so, why? If not, why?
There is no straight conservative / liberal split on these issues, though I think most Republicans and Democrats initially voted for the original US presence in Iraq.
We don't even know yet what actions the Obama administration will take in the Middle East and what kind of a timetable it will follow. All I could ever fathom based on the President-elect's expressed views, that I ever heard, is that he favors transferring the action to Afghanistan.
letsbefair | 4:41 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
How tragic to read of such idiocy in people who claim to be fair but don't
want to hear anything that challenges their misconceptions, myths, or racism.
I happen to know more than probably any of you about the situation and I glean my information from a large variety of souces, not just main-stream American media propaganda. My original claims can all be substantiated, but it's obvious such as KVC have their egos wrapped up in the fantasies that Israel perpetuates and they distrust all Arabs.
As for the Arabs attacking Israel in 1967---WRONG! I know, because I was there, and I swear, I was SHOCKED to find out how shamelessly Israelis lie about it even now. Except for the war in 1972, Israel has ALWAYS been the aggressor. Even now, if Arab citizens of Israel leave their homes in the evening, Israeli Jews have been known, on occassions, to break in and take over the Arab's homes and all possessions, and the police will do NOTHING about it! But you don't want to hear that, even although everything I have said is true.
To your discredit, you guys live in a dream world, and being anti-Arab IS being anti-Semitic.
I happen to know more than probably any of you about the situation and I glean my information from a large variety of souces, not just main-stream American media propaganda. My original claims can all be substantiated, but it's obvious such as KVC have their egos wrapped up in the fantasies that Israel perpetuates and they distrust all Arabs.
As for the Arabs attacking Israel in 1967---WRONG! I know, because I was there, and I swear, I was SHOCKED to find out how shamelessly Israelis lie about it even now. Except for the war in 1972, Israel has ALWAYS been the aggressor. Even now, if Arab citizens of Israel leave their homes in the evening, Israeli Jews have been known, on occassions, to break in and take over the Arab's homes and all possessions, and the police will do NOTHING about it! But you don't want to hear that, even although everything I have said is true.
To your discredit, you guys live in a dream world, and being anti-Arab IS being anti-Semitic.
Neo-Cons vs. Conservatives | 5:20 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Conservatives are a rare breed today, while Neo-Cons are plenty-full, like NAIVE
Utahans who kept voting for Bush. What about RON PAUL, what about Barry
Goldwater Jr., etc. who are the GENUINE conservatives, huh?
Anonymous | 5:22 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Focus on US problems (as our economy sinks into oblivion) and let the Middle
East sort out their own problems.
Anonymous | 7:07 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Fiscal conservatism is okay.
But what is passing for conservatism today is an absurd black and white, good vs evil ideology that doomed the Bush presidency.
But what is passing for conservatism today is an absurd black and white, good vs evil ideology that doomed the Bush presidency.
@anonymous-savage | 7:55 p.m. Jan. 7, 2009
Have you ever read any of Michael Savages books? Or, do you just get your
talking points from hatefilled liberal blogs? I his books he discribes why he
left the liberal way of thinking and became a conservative. You must read to
find out, it is quite interesting if you want to see the real Michael Savage and
what makes him tic.
Look Who's Right | 12:03 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
It is fun to see the left-wing nuts get on here and try to spin reality
into their pretend world of make believe, and to change the subject from the
original letter. But hey, let me join in. From making an all out effort to try
and justify their support for and love of terrorists, to trying to still make
themselves "feel" good about their win in the last election (Democrat
version of a landslide). Never mind the bitter and hateful feelings they have
for well known conservatives and other Republicans (Democrat version of
tolerance). As we get farther from the election and closer to the inaugeration,
we become more aware that the support for BHO was more to feel good about
themselves, and seeking an elusive hope of the unknown. Very little in his
campaign about subtance or real ideas. Now getting back to the original letter,
Conservative don't usually get caught up in meaningless, anti-American
demonstrations. They support actions that enforce policies that protect our
countries interests. They don't cowar from standing up to those in and out
of our country who will try to defeat or attack us, and attempt to destroy the
American ideals.
KVC | 7:54 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
letsbefair- You are an idiot, plain and simple. A good friend of mine is a
Syrian Christian and his father was in the Golan Heights in 1967. While he is
not an Israel supporter and was almost killed by the Israeli Army, even he
admits that the Arabic nations attacked Israel. He will also attest to the fact
that being a Christian in the Arab world is difficult and often times dangerous.
So please tell me why the Middle East should be reserved for Islamic States only
and Jews should be excluded.
You have some warped idea that the Islamic Nations all just want to be friends with everyone and get along together. That is about as far from the truth as anything imaginable. They want Islam to rule the world. Do you know nothing about the early days of Islam? How the policy was convert or die? Do you have the false belief that it spread by love and compassion? Even today, for many it remains convert away from Islam and you should be killed.
I guess next you will claim that the Moors were being peaceful and the rest of the world attacked them first.
You have some warped idea that the Islamic Nations all just want to be friends with everyone and get along together. That is about as far from the truth as anything imaginable. They want Islam to rule the world. Do you know nothing about the early days of Islam? How the policy was convert or die? Do you have the false belief that it spread by love and compassion? Even today, for many it remains convert away from Islam and you should be killed.
I guess next you will claim that the Moors were being peaceful and the rest of the world attacked them first.
letsbefair | 8:54 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
KVC, you are so full of it---misinformation. Your Christian Syrian friend is
wrong or you misunderstood him. In June of 1967 Israel pre-emptively struck and
bombed the sitting air forces of ALL of its neighbors at once, thereby insuring
complete control of the air. I was there and you weren't, and I call that a
first attack---aggression. It is standard Israeli policy and the only war they
didn't start was in 1972 when Egypt attacked them.
You are also full of Islamaphobia and your history of the Islamic world also reflects common Western bias in reporting history. You need to read up on it more in the hundreds of book available through the WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS.
Islam has always been the most tolerant of the three great monotheist religions. True, there are some countries which overstep the boundaries set by Islam, and there have arisen such abominable traditions which try to coerce Muslims into remaining Muslim, but this is against Koranic teachings.
No one is saying that the entire Middle East should be reserved for Islam alone--in fact Islam has a great respect for both, Christianity and Judaism, an honor not returned by either.
What about Moors?
You are also full of Islamaphobia and your history of the Islamic world also reflects common Western bias in reporting history. You need to read up on it more in the hundreds of book available through the WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS.
Islam has always been the most tolerant of the three great monotheist religions. True, there are some countries which overstep the boundaries set by Islam, and there have arisen such abominable traditions which try to coerce Muslims into remaining Muslim, but this is against Koranic teachings.
No one is saying that the entire Middle East should be reserved for Islam alone--in fact Islam has a great respect for both, Christianity and Judaism, an honor not returned by either.
What about Moors?
Re: letsbefair | 12:19 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Let me begin by pointing out your writing style, which certainly shows tolerance
and respect. Not.
Let's continue with a quick reality check: show me one credible source that backs up your claim that the Jews invaded Israel and/or attacked the Arabs in 1948. Perhaps you would care to explain why Arabs did not accept UN resolution 181 dated Nov. 29 1947?
It is true that Israel performed a preemptive strike in 1967. It is also true that Egypt threw the UN forces out of Sinai claiming an imminent attack on Israel as the cause, and let's not forget the Tiran straits blockade that Egypt pulled off a couple of weeks prior to the war. Funny how forgetful Arabs get when the facts are uncomfortable...
Do we also need to remind everyone how the northern part of Israel was shelled for years prior to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon? Those would be civilian targets for those of us keeping score. Now along comes 2009. After eight(!) years of Hamas rocket attacks on civilians, and three years past a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza strip, Israel is finally taking action. Hamas had this coming and deserves no sympathy whatsoever.
Let's continue with a quick reality check: show me one credible source that backs up your claim that the Jews invaded Israel and/or attacked the Arabs in 1948. Perhaps you would care to explain why Arabs did not accept UN resolution 181 dated Nov. 29 1947?
It is true that Israel performed a preemptive strike in 1967. It is also true that Egypt threw the UN forces out of Sinai claiming an imminent attack on Israel as the cause, and let's not forget the Tiran straits blockade that Egypt pulled off a couple of weeks prior to the war. Funny how forgetful Arabs get when the facts are uncomfortable...
Do we also need to remind everyone how the northern part of Israel was shelled for years prior to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon? Those would be civilian targets for those of us keeping score. Now along comes 2009. After eight(!) years of Hamas rocket attacks on civilians, and three years past a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza strip, Israel is finally taking action. Hamas had this coming and deserves no sympathy whatsoever.
KVC | 3:27 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
letsbefair- You are a liar.
Jihad has also been applied to offensive, aggressive warfare, as exemplified by Muhammad's own policies and the entire subsequent history of the spread of Islam. From the first generation of Islam, jihad ideology inspired the conquest of non-Muslim populations, forcing them to submit to Muslim rule or accept outright conversion. When used to describe warfare between Islamic groups or individuals, such as al-Qaeda's attacks on civilians in Iraq, perpetrators of violence often cite collaboration with non-Islamic powers as a justification.
In reading Muslim literature -- both contemporary and classical -- one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue, and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible.
These are not my words, but those of some of the most respected Islamic scholars. Does not seem tolerant to me.
Jihad has also been applied to offensive, aggressive warfare, as exemplified by Muhammad's own policies and the entire subsequent history of the spread of Islam. From the first generation of Islam, jihad ideology inspired the conquest of non-Muslim populations, forcing them to submit to Muslim rule or accept outright conversion. When used to describe warfare between Islamic groups or individuals, such as al-Qaeda's attacks on civilians in Iraq, perpetrators of violence often cite collaboration with non-Islamic powers as a justification.
In reading Muslim literature -- both contemporary and classical -- one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue, and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible.
These are not my words, but those of some of the most respected Islamic scholars. Does not seem tolerant to me.
@letsbefair | 3:48 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
You ask What about Moors? Were they not Muslims who waged war to take over the
Christian world and persecute non-Muslims? Why would they wage war in the name
of Mohammed if Islam was truly peaceful and tolerant? Why did Mohammed wage war
against non-Muslims with the desire to spread Islamic Rule? You try to claim all
Muslim attacks are in self defense. Why are Muslims forbidden, with threat of
death, from converting away from Islam?
I have a Persian friend whose family fled Iran and is afraid to let any Muslim know that she used to be a Muslim and is now LDS. One person actually told her that while he would not do it because of their friendship, he felt she deserved to be put to death for converting. And that was in Utah.
I have a Persian friend whose family fled Iran and is afraid to let any Muslim know that she used to be a Muslim and is now LDS. One person actually told her that while he would not do it because of their friendship, he felt she deserved to be put to death for converting. And that was in Utah.
HIstorical Intolerance | 11:01 a.m. Jan. 9, 2009
Things have changed now, but when the Moors fought with "Christians"
they happened to be fighting a far more intolerant church than their own.
Moslems allowed Catholics (who had the monopoly of 'Christianity' in the West) to keep their religion although they couldn't build new churches and were subject to taxes from which Moslems were exempt. "Christians" could not build new churches but they could use those already in existence. "Christians" had to identify themselves by their clothing etc. It was pretty bad.
On the other hand "Christians" (the medieval Roman Catholic Church) tortured and killed those of other faiths including other Christians if they did not fully and exactly believe the Roman Catholic dogmas. When they killed other Christians it was regularly done by the cruel method of burning them alive.
Thus, although Moslems were intolerant they were pussy cats compared with the Roman Catholics of their day.
This changed many centuries later but when we talk of the Middle Ages we should be aware of the relative humanity, in those times, of the Moors. This is why, in my opinion, with the exception of the First Crusade the Catholics always lost to their religious rivals.
Moslems allowed Catholics (who had the monopoly of 'Christianity' in the West) to keep their religion although they couldn't build new churches and were subject to taxes from which Moslems were exempt. "Christians" could not build new churches but they could use those already in existence. "Christians" had to identify themselves by their clothing etc. It was pretty bad.
On the other hand "Christians" (the medieval Roman Catholic Church) tortured and killed those of other faiths including other Christians if they did not fully and exactly believe the Roman Catholic dogmas. When they killed other Christians it was regularly done by the cruel method of burning them alive.
Thus, although Moslems were intolerant they were pussy cats compared with the Roman Catholics of their day.
This changed many centuries later but when we talk of the Middle Ages we should be aware of the relative humanity, in those times, of the Moors. This is why, in my opinion, with the exception of the First Crusade the Catholics always lost to their religious rivals.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Two American pilots die in Iraq 12:47 a.m.
- Murder suspect is vetran, avid skier 12:47 a.m.
- MLB: Zambrano's mom kidnapped 12:32 a.m.
- Lambert surprisingly tops news 12:25 a.m.
- Philadelphia transit strike ends 12:25 a.m.
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd 12:24 a.m.
- 12 high schools ready for 'The Turf' 12:17 a.m.
- RSL unfazed by conference final 12:17 a.m.
- Korver and Miles to be evaluated 12:17 a.m.
- Today on TV 12:13 a.m.
- Gay advocates trek to LDS office
216 - House passes health care bill201
- Lobo suspended173
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys151
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings129
- RSL rallies to advance103
- Thousands protest health bill102
- Provo company innovating engines101
- Utes pound winless Lobos89
- BYU cuts Women's Research Institute88
Advertisement
Latest comments
STOP blaming the Democrats, BLAME THE REPUBLICANS FOR 8 YEARS DOING NOTHING...
The best way to break the law is to become someone who enforces the law.
It's a real shame so many folks have never gotten out and gotten to know the...
It's all talk... you do not have any evidence for your claims. You assume...
Maybe if you could bat .408 in the major leagues, you too would be paid a...
I prefer the “Wizard of Earthsea” quartet by Ursula Le Guin, an...
The bottom line question that no one can possibly answer is; what will be the...
It looks to me like special treatment.
Jazz will have a tough week, with what should be a easy win against the...
I am very excited for this game. As much as I want the Utes to win, it won't...
Advertisements