Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Well, I'm sure you've all had fun, considering the increasing levels of vitriol on this thread, and latterly threats of legal action over things that have been said or linked to.

Enough. You aren't listening to each other, as far as I can see, just reading enough to find something to be outraged by.

It is the opinion of the Editors that it's time to end this subject and close the comments box, and, for the time being at least, to add the 'Israel/Zion/anti-semitism' trope to the list of things we won't publish any further comments on.  

After all the aggressive muck that has flooded out of the media for months and months there is at last a sane article in the "The" surnamed "Australian" for today, an article by Matthew Parris on page 8, "Danger on the Road to Damascus", subheading "We shouldn't raise false hopes in the rebels".

It's all so common-sensical that one wonders why it has taken so long and is so isolated.  And why 99.999 percent of newpaper reporters are so totally devoid of common sense.  Does it go with the job?

Also, I wondered why the "The" would publish something so sane, rather than suppress it. Or, since it is reproduced from "The Times", just ignore it. Have they woken up at last?  Can we hope for decent and sane coverage of the Syrian situation from the "The" at long last?

(Aside. Pardon my pedantic quirks.  The definite article has its uses.  "The spirit of the age" is a different thing from "The spirit of age".  "The Age" might even be a good name for a newspaper.)

You don't need me to put labels on people Justin. You're rather good at that yourself.  Make up your own mind,  For what it's worth.

Working definition of antisemitism.

Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to: 

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

   

• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

   

• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

   

• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g., gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

   

• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

   

• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

   

  Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.…

   

• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

   

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

   

• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

   

• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded in itself as anti-Semitic.

After you have done that you might care to take a close look at some of the things you have said here, and some of those sites you have linked, and look into your soul.

In answer to Justin's questions:

Are these "Jews" antisemites?

Hajo Meyer?

Yes. I was a little doubtful at first but when I saw he was a member of the Dutch Green/Left Party that sealed it.

Miko Peled?

Don't know. I have taken no interest in the man and couldn't be bothered listening to a 30 minute tape to find out. Probably, judging from the company he keeps.

Illan Pappe? 

Yes. Absolutely. No question.

Men in Hats? 

Let me be absolutely clear about something, Justin, if only for the record. 

My issue, for what its worth (and its not much), is not with "Men in Hats".  I don't wear a hat but you can be certain I have relatives and friends who do.

All of these links that you and the racist anti-Australian left just love tossing around the internet like confetti are to a splinter faction of a tiny sect within the Chassidic community known in Israel as the Neturei Karta. Worldwide they number less than 0. 001% of the Jewish population. Probably less than a thousand people. They are insignificant except as their propaganda value for antisemites.

These people are opposed to Zionism, not out of some dickhead leftist notions about Palestinians or whatever, but because they believe as a religious compulsion that the formation of the Jewish nation and state before the coming of the Messiah is an affront to God (or as they would say, G-d).

That's fine. That's religion and people are entitled to their religion if they think it helps and they don't rub it in other people's faces. But this tiny splinter of an already tiny sect goes further. They embrace and encourage the enemies of Israel and make themselves available for use by the haters of the Jews. That puts them outside Jewishness.

As far as I was aware their rabbis were excommunicated from Judaism by the Chassids after they showed up at one of Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denying hatefests and kissed the man.

Are they Jewish antisemites? They aren't even Jews. They are of no importance except to people like you. I don't hate them. They aren't worth hating. They appear to be well funded, which is suspicious given that none of them believe in an honest day's work, but I guess that is to be expected. 

Because these people live in liberal democracies like Israel and the US they are free to say and do what they like without any risk or threat at all apart from a pretty severe excommunication service. At the beginning of the 20th century 90% of the world's Jews lived in autocratic Christian monarchies in Europe or Russia or as dhimmis of the Ottomans or other Muslim theocracies. They were all subject to antisemitc restrictions and laws of varying intensity and periodic pogroms and massacres.

Now 99.99% live in liberal democracies, or in the case of Russia, at least in a place where they have the  full rights of all other citizens. That's called Zionism, Justin. If you seriously think you can persuade the Jews to abandon it then you may as well try talking the Afro-Americans into going back to being slaves on southern plantations so as to relieve racial tensions.

Once again bullshit. I'm anti Labor, which of course is a political movement - does that make me anti-Australian? I'm also anti-Liberal and anti-Green, same question.

Yes Justin, I strongly suspect you are anti-Australian. You're anti-American and anti-Israel. You have no respect for the hard won liberties of people in  the West. You have no sympathy at all for people living under brutal totalitarian theocracies with none of these liberties. You are constantly looking for odious little tidbits on the internet to draw some foul and spurious equivalence between the liberal democracies and some of the most vile and inhumane tyrannies in all of history. Why wouldn't you be?

Of course you are anti-Australian. 

Somewhere else I came up with a definition of the left in the heat of an argument with some Israel bashing piece of filth. On reflection I thought it was not bad so I kept it.

1. How's this for a definition of the "left". Ignorant arseholes who think it's appropriate to enter an alliance with other totalitarian arseholes abroad, and most especially with the horrors of militant Islamism, because they hate their own societies more than they respect any concept of human rights. They are prepared to believe and retail any lie to hold this pathology even while they suck liberties and material wealth never dreamed of even a generation ago.

 I did not read the rest of your post, Justin. I don't like extremists. Unlike you I don't cease to dislike them just because they happen to be Jewish.

That's because I'm not an antisemite. 

Thanks, Michael Talbot Wilson, you appear to have a very strong grasp of history, indeed.

Geoff Pahoff's most recent comment concerns the Gillard Rudd event. 

It showed to me that Geoff has way too much emotional baggage invested in Israel, to the point of,  "Israel, right or wrong". 

By contrast, his posting on Rudd Gillard, some thing he is a step further back from, is exponentially more interesting  and objective, if still somewhat curmudgeonly and conservative.

 But there is a difference.

Geoff, on things mid eastern, your emotions cloud your judgement. Try to see the forest for the trees. 

Back to Michael's comment re Homs, it seems this sort of access to information backgrounding and capacity to nuance that is well absent from popular media. Have you considered a career as a journalist?

I can't stop contrasting your comments to the sort of rubbish someone like Greg Sheridan would write.

Typical example would be the observation of racist Eurocentrism re the treatment of the unfortunate Marie Colvin's death. Colvin had only hours before herself reported on the slow ugly death of a child with its innards blown out. No one would have really known about the child, had not Colvin herself later been destroyed. 

 Colvin herself merits only praise, she died a heroine's death, I think. People like her and Ginny Steins are worth a billion Sheridans. But I agree with Michael, Edward Said would be spinning in his grave. 

The point re the monotonously reinforced double standard is cruelly true, a sort of taunt emanating from media managers.

 At present I can't follow links to videos.  I go to the sites and am prompted to download software, but I can't afford to pay a lawyer for a month to go through each licensing agreement.  If it's not bundled with the OS it's not on my system.  I realise that I'm out of date, that no-one needs to write any more, and I did regret not being able to view Noam Chomsky's latest, which seem to be all videos, very numerous, but there it is.

So I can't respond directly to  Geoff Pahoff's latest, but will make some general comments on recent news from Syria.

As a preliminary, the Rudd - Gillard stoush has provided information about back then that we never knew back then, when all concerned were concerned to move on, not gratuitously shout public insults.  Now,they are not gratuitous, and we are hearing what we didn't back then.

Back then, we were quick to express our own outrage against one camp of the other, but we did it without inside knowledge, and without understanding.

Turning to Syria, the death of Marie Colvin was horrible.  And the death of the Syrian in the next house was horrible, and all deaths and injuries being caused by the shelling of Homs are horrible.

War is horrible.

The huge outpouring of outrage over the death of Marie Colvin suggests an element of racism and imperialism.  A white woman was killed and that is particularly bad.  Well, it is not, particularly.  It is a tragedy for her friends, but there is nothing special about it.

The reports I heard on the radio (no video, remember) giving news of Colvin's death also gave some description of the situation in Homs.  One fact was that the rebels controlled the perimeter of the city, preventing government forces from entering.

In one incident, government forces, both infantry and tanks, attempted to enter the city at one point on its perimeter, but rebels lightly armed with AK-47s drove them back.

Perhaps that signifies great heroism and magnificent marksmanship on the part of the defenders.  But just as likely, it indicates great restraint on the part of the attackers, that they withdrew when they had sufficient forces and munitions to obliterate the defenders.

So, why did they even attempt to enter a city in the hands of the rebels?  Why do they keep shelling it?  Why not seal it off, give it up for now, withdraw 10 km from the perimeter, let the rebels administer it?  Wouldn't that be harmless and civilized?  Couldn't the rest of Syria get on with it's business?

The fact is, we don't and can't know the inside story.  But the bombing of the peaceful city of Aleppo may hint at part of the reason.  Perhaps Syria is subject to continuous terrorism emanating from the rebels controlling Homs.

One story being promoted is that Homs is being subjected to "indiscriminate" shelling, targeting "civilian areas".  Such commentary is virtually meaningless.  We can be reasonable sure that the shelling is not indiscriminate, that it has a military purpose, but that shelling from outside the city may prove inaccurate or misdirected.  The claim that a particular house was being targeted specifically because there were journalists in it is intrinsically improbable.  If the forces outside the city could locate and target individuals so accurately the rebellion of Homs wouldn't have lasted this long.

A point that occurs to me as worth reflecting on is the degree to which the modern entertainment media have extended the conflict and greatly increased the death toll.  The real offence may not be that of Assad in trying to keep the media out.  The real cause of the high death toll may be that the media have gone in.  We hear spokesmen for the rebels demanding that the international community do something to save them.  They have this avenue, this contact with the outside, and this hope.

If none of that were present, if this were happening a couple of generations ago, all would have been silent as far as we were concerned.  But also are far as the rebels of Homs were concerned.  They would be surrounded by government forces, completely isolated, no hope of assistance, well-founded or not, and would long ago have negotiated their surrender.  The total number of deaths might have been a tenth what they are to date.  Maybe nine tenths of the deaths have been caused by  the media.

So, perhaps, the real villain is us, as usual.

Granted, Assad's father is reputed to have killed thousands in another such rebellion, but let's not engage is facile comparisons.  Again, we don't understand the inside stories of the two epochs,

Something to remember is that if Homs is a city of Sunnis waging war against Shiites it is not about democracy, it's not about freedom, it is murderous fanaticism, and murderous fanaticism would follow the deposition of Assad.

Something else to notice is that the rebels are as much to blame for the deaths of civilians in Homs as the government forces are.  They could throw away their weapons, go home, take up their normal employment, and the deaths of civilians would cease.

Lose, lose.

A negotiated end is possible, and the international media and goverments might then indeed have a productive role monitoring government vengeace and treason trials, ensuring moderation on the part of the government.

It's Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and the other Arab states that keep the Palestinians on display in cages like animals in a zoo and have for over sixty years.

Why do you think they do that, Justin? 

Anti-Zionism is nothing more than a particularly nasty form of antisemitism. It seeks to rob the Jews not only of their right of self determination but also of all of their civil and political rights for no other reason than they are Jews. It seeks to rob them of their land and property and hand it over to life hating, xenophobic theocrats and war hungry autocrats who treat their own populations worse than they treat foreigners. In its most honest and frank forms it demands the genocide of the Jews not only in Israel but worldwide. 

No one has the right not to know this anymore.  Anti-Zionism is the racism of the left and is a hate crime. In a civilised society it would be regarded as at the same level as the rants of the Ku Klux Klan. Probably it should be illegal.

Resolution 242 and its successors calls for the withdrawal from "lands" (not all the land) occupied as a consequence of the war in return for peace.

Read it. The ugly antisemitic left always leave that last bit out.

I'm fucking sick of hearing that Israel was established on Muslim, Palestinian or Arab land. It's a fucking lie and if that is all  you've got to say it would be better for the world if people like you just shut the fuck up. The Israelis are not going to give up their state without a fight to the death. Get used to it and stop demanding a dangerous war.

Israel has more "grunt" than you give it credit for. Iran is never going to have nuclear weapons. Get used to that fact as well. 

Warning: graphic violence. 

Don't be too easily taken in by the bad guys in their reaction to the current bloodshed in Syria.  Understand what is going on before you rush to condemn Assad. --  Michael Talbot-Wilson 

Let his own words condemn him.

Why containment will not work on a nuclear Iran.

As concerns grow that diplomacy and sanctions—including the recent European oil ban—may not stop Iran’s nuclear program, it is becoming popular to invoke the Cold War, when the policy of containment managed to avoid all-out war with a nuclear Soviet Union. But the analogy fails on several grounds, and simply accepting the previously unacceptable is not a policy option.

First, the fact that we survived the previous nuclear standoff is hardly evidence that deterrence was bound to succeed. On more than one occasion during the West’s struggle with Communism, the threat of mutually assured destruction did not prevent the two sides from stepping right to the brink, most famously during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

It would be a deadly game to try to replay MAD with Iran, in an international environment lacking many of the necessary conditions that helped keep the Cold War from unraveling into chaos. This is not just because mutually assured destruction might be more of an incentive than a deterrent for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and those around him. Even assuming Tehran will act “rationally,” MAD would still be too dangerous to contemplate.

 

Crucially, a nuclear standoff with Iran would lack a key component that helped keep the Cold War from turning hot: a modicum of mutual trust. Although they were ideological enemies, the Soviet Union and the U.S. had full diplomatic relations and clear channels of communication. Remember those famous red telephones?

 

Nothing of this sort exists between the U.S. and Israel on one side and Iran on the other. Even in promising to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, Tehran can’t even bring itself to so much as call the country by its proper name, referring to it as the “Zionist entity.” The absence of direct contacts raises the chance of either side misreading its opponent’s intentions.

...

But will any country rely on Western promises to protect them from a nuclear Iran after the same promises failed to curtail a conventionally armed Iran? Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey would seek their own nuclear bombs, greatly complicating the game of deterrence. Back in 2008, the International Institute for Strategic Studies reported that at least 13 countries in the greater Middle East had announced new or revived plans to explore civilian nuclear energy. With so many nuclear actors, any of the region’s several unresolved conflicts could suddenly become the trigger for a nuclear exchange.

Not to mention that the Iranian regime can circumvent the logic of MAD by passing on a nuclear device to terrorists. Following an atomic attack against a Western city, it would take investigators weeks if not months to determine the culprits, who may never be identified beyond reasonable doubt. It is hard to imagine any Western leader ordering a retaliatory nuclear strike, and thus the deaths of untold numbers of Iranian civilians, on the basis of inconclusive evidence months after the initial attack. Tehran would be quite rational to count on Western scruples in such a case.

"What, the United States doesn't have "a defensive unit to deal with possible radioactive contamination"?   Iran is being aggressive and endangering the world in foreseeing the need for defence, something no other country has every done?"

Fair dinkum Richard.  

You publish a lump of incoherent, meaningless blatherskite like this without comment and then you accuse me of strawmanism?

Next thing he will be citing  the Book of Joshua as an insight into  modern Jewish nationhood. Perhaps he can order the sun to stand still?

Or even worse, quote the discredited Schlomo Sand, who just loves inventing people, as authority for the proposition that the Jews are Nazis.

Hang on ...

Some Christians can say and do anything I suppose. Anything at all.

Bad news Geoff, got chucked out of Iran; something about a stolen camel. But the good news is they dumped me in Israel. You can bomb the crap out of Iran now, them guys got no sense of humour; especially the police chief, who owned the bloody camel. Oh well, what can you do?

Israel's great, and the chics are gorgeous, not unlike the Iranian chics. As a matter of fact I had lunch with an Israeli chic just now, and exactly like my Iranian lunch mate-ess she insisted that sex was off the menu. It's amazing how women all over the world can be so similar, as my experiences always prove.

Anyway Israel is cool, so cool I'm enjoy free digs on a kaputz, all I have to do is chuck a few rocks at Palestinians every now again, easy, but I'm a rotten shot.

Time to mosey on down to the King David and sink a few cold ones with Father Park, if he's not otherwise engaged. Enjoy the war Geoff, and let's hope it all works out in the long run.

Here's looking at you kid.

How would you know what I am "by religion"? I am not a communist or other hard left crackpot so I don't feel the urge to shove my religion in other people's faces.

I will grant you that Antony Loewenstein is no more Jewish than you. 

Read every word have you?  Sure you have. Just you like you read every word of Giles MacDonogh's book.

 ----- Original Message -----

From: Giles MacDonogh

To: Geoff Pahoff

Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 3:28 AM

Subject: RE: After The Reich

Dear Mr Pahoff,

I have had e.mails from this woman.

I have said nothing of the sort! My point about Nuremberg is that the defence of 'nulle pene sine lege' is right - legally speaking - they were not committing crimes on the German statute book, on the other hand I have not said that they did not deserve punishment, just that the Allies were occasionally hypocritical and had committed the same crimes themselves. The Germans were not charged with killing the Jews, and the main British case was the killing of 50 airmen who escaped from Stalag Luft. 

The Germans were not charged with bombing civilians. The Allies were rather better at that. The Russians thought they had missed a trick.

As for the charges being drafted to please the Jews, that is quite wrong - the Jews were given precious little credence at the time, and although the concentration camps provided useful fodder for punishing the Germans, the only prominent role played by the Jews at the time was as interpreters and Nazi hunters: in many cases they could speak German. Unfortunately some Jews were a little too excited during the interrogations of SS men and beat them up.

Such things are understandable but not excusable.

Hope this helps. GM

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Pahoff [mailto:gpahoff@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: 22 August 2008 03:42
To: giles@macdonogh.co.uk
Subject: After The Reich

Dear Mr Macdonogh,

I am a commenter on an Australian blog, Webdiary, established by  prominent journalist, Margo Kingston.

http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2459#comment-83378

This morning another commenter made this observation about your book and its impact on her.

"Submitted by Marilyn Shepherd on August 22, 2008 - 3:54am."

"Reading Giles MacDonogh's "After the Reich" convinced me that the Nuremberg trials were an utter farce because at the time of the "crimes" they were not crimes.   They were made up after the events to satisfy the jews who led the charge."

May I ask do you have any comment about this and in particular is this a response to your book that you welcome or even anticipated?

If you do wish to comment please feel free to reply to me, and in the absence of a direction otherwise, I will post it on the site. Alternatively of course you can post it direct to the site.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Geoff Pahoff

Richard: Toto, I don't think we're at 84 Charing Cross Road anymore.. Geoff I remember this passage well, but this unenightened reader has to wonder if the argument hasn't gone a bit "straw man" (?)  Never been fond of wicker since the Woodward..

Geoff, I had to bail out of the Gog attack mate, decided it was not worth the effort. Not enough targets. But don't worry, I'm no piker, I decided to go to Iran and take care of all their evil people, at least 25,000 I was told.

Anyway, after I did me training (load a shit if you ask me) I traded my weapon (the gold coin) for a trip on 27th class with that airline that never had sex. I reckoned in Iran there would be enough crazies to assist with the slaughter of the evil bastards, at least that's what everybody reckons.

Landed in Iran in no time flat (I think Caz and her magical clock had a lot to do with that), dived out of the wheel housing, jumped on the nearest camel, and fronted up at the Boss of Crazies abode, then tabled my grand plan to slaughter the 25,000 evil people of Iran: which was simply a matter of 80 odd million people wiping a mere 25,000 off the map; great odds don't ya reckon. All I planned to do was take pics and urinate on dead bodies.

But you know what the Boss of Crazies said to me (in no uncertain terms)? "Fuck off you lunatic" (methinks BOC went to the Marylin School of Diplomacy - but his abruptness did save us both a lot of time). And such language coming from a man of the cloth!!! You have been correct all along Geoff - these guys are crazy.

Anyway this is what I found:

There are 25,000+ Jews living in Iran. When Israel backed a plan to pay Iranian Jewish families $60,000 to settle in Israel, Society of Iranian Jews met the announcement with scorn, issuing this statement: "The identity of Iranian Jews is not tradable for any amount of money. Iranian Jews are among the most ancient Iranians. Iran's Jews love their Iranian identity and their culture, so threats and this immature political enticement will not achieve their aim of wiping out the identity of Iranian Jews

Sorry Geoff, this appears to be a case of: what if they gave a war and nobody came. Mate, I have no idea who CMWEP is but I suspect he spends far too much time stroking his fantasies and far too little time paying attention.

You see, if Iran is a radical nation pregnant with crazies intent on killing all Jews, one would expect they would simply go ahead and do it; pick the low fruit, wipe out the home team - but they don't. 

Somethig doesn't add up mate.

Anyway I'm fucked, got no cash, and no way home (you didn't plan it like this did you Geoff?). But never fear I have been looking around and you know what? Iranian chics are fantastic, enjoyed lunch with one today, and she didn't even want me to have sex with her afterwards, she insisted in fact - so considerate don't you think?

Anyway I off to have a look at the land of the crazy bastards, if it's anything like the chics then you may not see me for some time.

BTW, if CMWEP decides to bomb the shit out of Iran would it be too much to ask to wait until I have found my way home again. Ta.

Here's looking at you kid.

You really do need to take a close look at that video that this analyst has helpfully translated as well as read the article. Here's an earlier article by the same analyst on the prevailing ideology in Tehran.  It's about 28 minutes but I suggest you find the time to see it through to the end.

Please do not respond by linking some crackpot comment by some Christian, Hindu or other clergy or delving into the juicy bits of 3000 year old religious texts.  If you do you have lost the argument and you have confirmed you are part of the problem. We are talking about the official ideology of a modern totalitarian state. There is nothing like this in the West. If you feel the urge to quote Numbers then you may as well quote the Mayan Calendar for all the good you are.

There is of course the usual blood curdling genocidal antisemitism that does not trouble the left at all and hasn't for decades.  Water off a duck's back. Soon it will be water off a cooked duck's back. That in itself sends a message to Tehran loud and clear especially when it magnified and echo chambered across Europe and the West. Everyone hates the Jews. Their eradication will be welcomed in the West..

It should not come as a surprise either how crude the antisemitism is. Straight out of The Protocols of Zion. It could be a product of Goebbels. The destruction of the "Jews" (no mealy mouth, politically correct, leftist euphemism there) is essential to herald the coming of the Mahdi; and the coming is imminent. The Jews are the enemies of God. Even the Christians agree. Jesus will also appear at Armageddon and convert to Islam.

But you should also note the range and depth of the hate list. The tape spends more time on Saudi Arabia than on Israel. Anyone who successfully kills King Abdullah (who is some kind of antichrist) will immediately trigger the coming of the Mahdi. Wouldn't you love to be the devout young Shiite who pulled that one off?

It goes on of course. The US is even more hated than Israel. Europe. The Yemeni government fighting a Shiite insurgency. Well all Sunnis really. Women who abandon hijab. Rock musicians. The Lions club. Rotary. The Freemasons.

Especially the Freemasons. They really really hate the Freemasons. They spend more time on doing in the Freemasons they do the Jews.

Above all there is the apocalyptic central theme which is imminent and is core to the whole horrible warped life hating ideology. God demands the destruction of the world as the prelude to the coming of the Mahdi to herald an Islamic paradise across the planet.

So what should we do? I know. Let these guys build all the nukes they can. That sounds like a good idea.  

The Iran regime is something more than a particularly ugly example of a militaristic totalitarian state viciously oppressing its own population. It can't be dissuaded by MAD. To them MAD is a good idea preordained by God. That is something new in modern times. Hitler wanted to take Germany down with him but that was at the end when he knew he had lost. He did not set out to destroy Germany. The Iranian regime does want to see the destruction of Iran. They are too insane for MAD.

This is nothing more than one gigantic doomsday death cult with the lives of hundreds of millions in its grip and that's before they get the bomb. Jonestown with missiles. Waco with nukes.  Iran is trying to turn itself into the mother of all suicide bombers and they seem determined to build the mother of all suicide vests.

No one wants a war wth lunatics like this. With a lot of luck hopefully it will implode. In the meantime, if there is a chance of avoiding the war, it  comes only with the world standing together and saying no way.

Instead what do the left do? The Iranian tyrants look to the West and they see their own thoughts and words bounce back. Just knock off a few rough edges and substitute a few weasel word  ("Zionists" for "Jews" etc) and they know they are on track.

Idiots. Do you really think this is helping?

Geoff, your business plan for the left is Amazing, totally agree, but I'm a wee bit nervous about our business plan, you know, me and you waging holy war, rape, pillage and doing weird stuff to our evil victims.

Now if I am correct your plan, no doubt the one created by CMWEP (you know who he is) requires that I front up (without my lotus to support me)  at the Sephardi Synagogue with a gold coin. I thought this was our war Geoff, but I suppose if you don't want to come along then I can't make you. I'll have to wage war on me pat '-(

OK, I went and bought a gold coin on eBay. There was no way I could afford even the cheapest coin up for auction: but I managed to nad a 1/20 troy ounce lunar dragon for $100. I had to borrow $63 from the Muslim guy next door (now I feel like Greece), let's hope I can cover the loan before this Sunday night's over.

BTW, I've got no idea how I'm gunna murder my targets with 1.55 grams of gold, but I'll Google it, I'll find something. Actually it might have been easier if I took a handful of double bungers, but that might annoy the cops; best stick with the CMWEP's plan.

Anyway got a lot of training to do, the Muslim guy next door said he could assist with that, probably just wants to make sure he get's his cash back, but he seems to know a lot about the extermination game, especially BBQing poor little sheep.

Won't waste any more time, I'll miss you Geoff,  just think, we could have crossed swords, over a body or two, maybe next time. Oh, best take me camera, I'll send you a few snaps when it's all over. 

Here's looking at you kid.

Want to help Justin to avoid a particularly ugly and dangerous war?

Here's a business plan for the left.

Pull your heads out of your bums. 

Don't forget to spend some time Sunday night taking in a movie, Justin, and a few personal accounts. You might learn something.

7.30 pm at the Sephardi Synagogue 40-44 Fletcher St, Bondi Junction. Gold coin donation.

Not that I would expect to see any leading lights of the left there (and not just because I won't actually be there myself -- living 1000 kilometres away).  Or even minor, tiny, almost invisible, follower lights of the left. The left cares even less for these people than they do for Afghans or Palestinians.

OK Geoff, I'm in, you've finally convinced me. Let's eradicate this world of them evil bastards.

We'll have to kill them all, every fucking last one of them, literally, wise they might return like an aggressive cancer - that means we'll have to kill all them evil women and girls - if we let them breed we'll have to do this all over again in another generation, or sooner.

That means, we'll have to do a far better job of it than Hitler I'm afraid. He only managed 6 million, we'll have to murder 100's of millions.

Now, let's get down to business - just how do you intend that we go about this extermination process? I trust the logistics have been well thought through, by a very clever man - with an enormous penis.

Oh, and when will we get our chance to piss on a few dead bodies, you know, like real men. I'm already practising on dead cockroaches, they don't seem to give a shit.

Finally, when it's all over, and every last one of them evil bastards have been exterminated, what can we expect?

And what can we expect if we don't manage to kill every last one of them evil anti-semitic bastards?

Let's all pray that our holy war goes to plan (whatever the plan is), so we can smite the enemy (totally) and then bask in the glory of our own self righteousness, and powerfulness.

Do take a look at that video that analyst  has helpfully translated.

You are looking into the core of pure evil. This is what a psychopathic regime looks like. A group of men who are capable of anything.

There is nothing remotely like that in Israel, the US and the rest of the West. The left needs to wake up to itself.

Something we have been hearing a lot of recently is the threat that the Internet poses to traditional media.  If a private blog has just as large a readership as a major newspaper, costs the reader no more than newspapers, and in most cases (e.g. Webdiary) is free, like listening to a radio broadcast, and better yet, the reader can post a reply on the same blog site, what is left for traditional media?  Haven't they been rendered totally obsolete?

Well, a reply that has been pushed by the print media is the greater reliability and higher quality of the information they publish.  They have professional journalists directly interviewing the major players, whereas bloggers only collect and re-circulate information second-hand, and that information is unsubstantiated. 

There are a few problems with this.  First, it is almost proverbial that you shouldn't believe everything you read in the newspapers.

Then there is the systematic misrepresentation that has occurred to encourage and justify military interventions in Libya and Syria.  In the latter case we have seen a switch in terminology: where the word "terrorist" was formerly employed we are reading "activist", indicating that the media have switched sides, joined the terrorists.

We see the unrelenting portrayal of Assad as a monstrous villain, responsible for all the bloodshed in Syria, when the truth is very different, and we can learn the truth by reading the news on independent blog sites (such as those Justin Obodie has referred us to) where the information has been systematically collected, examined and assembled.

What we see on those sites has on its face high credibility.  What we read in the newspapers has on its face, that is, manifestly, very little credibility.

For example, one newspaper blames all the violence and bloodshed in Syria, including the Aleppo bombings on Assad.  Manifestly, very little credibility can attach to such a newspaper,

Part of the cause may be the vice of sensationalism that has been so characteristic of journalism.  There needs to be one monster, regardless of the facts. and the media go into a frenzy over that monster for no reason other than that it makes a sensational story, nice and simple, no reasons required, just an evil man.  Says it all.  Regardless of the facts.

So, if we want reliable news, let's dismiss as nonsense the pretence of the traditional media that they provide it.  The very opposite is true.  Let's look for bloggers who provide substantial information, look at the substance, and work out for ourselves what is going on.

 The internet is full of Jewish morality philosophers of one sort or another, Justin. Why shouldn't it be? The world is.

I say again  you need to take a close look at what we are dealing with here as repugnant as it is. If it helps to bring some clarity try taking Israel out of the equation.

 I know this subject disgusts good and decent people everywhere because it requires confronting things that rational people would prefer to avoid. 

The problem is totalitarian lunatic political cultures and it is hardly confined to some Muslims or Arabs. Pretty much every "religion" "people", "nation", "race", ... on the planet has fallen to it at one time or another, or some primitive equivalent. 

Iran,  for example, is hardly the only source of this insanity in the ME and it may not even the most virulent. But there is something strange and scary about what the ruling clique believes. They believe that the destruction of their cities is a good thing if it is in the cause of the eradication of the infidel because it will bring forth an Imam who will herald the end of days and the final triumph of Islam over the world.

This is the ruling clique in Tehran at prayer.  It's well documented. This link to an independent US  news site is a good source but there is plenty of information  on it. This means MAD does not work with these people. To them MAD is a good idea. That's something new. Pretty soon they will have missiles that will reach as far as northern Europe, Russia and China. They have blueprints for missiles that can reach North America. Would you trust such people with nukes?

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ayatollah-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel/

Since when has any benefit of clergy extended to such people? Why should any benefit of clergy extend to anybody?

It is simply not good enough  to link to some nasty death porn of a dead Palestinian child in Gaza in the face of this and blame Israel or neocons or Christian rightwingers or whatever. There are dangerous lunatics everywhere as you say and hateful clergy and crackpot extremists are hardly confined to Muslims but there is nothing like this in Israel or the West and it is specious of the left, and others, to suggest otherwise.

Justin, it really should not come as a surprise to you that soldiers in combat will behave like soldiers in combat.  

I should really go bone up on the history of Islam, but sufficient to say that the various Sunni and Shia factions have evolved over a long history as the new religion adapted to changing political and cultural landscapes as the political centre of Islamic empire from time to time changed location, from Arabia, to the Levant and through Persia and elsewhere. 

The conflicts are like Christian theological conflicts, (or maybe a bit like some of the conflicts of  the Jewish Maccabee era), as to the relative weight caried by metaphyics down through theology and mysticism against practical reason, law and administration, mediated through political imperatives.

Eg better an infallible Pope, or a synod or comittee, or even the laity running things? Should the religious leader, preoccupied with his theology, also be an emperor and what purpose or role, the rest of society?

The first factions derived from events shortly after Mohammed's death and involve confusion and conflict to as whether the Caliph was a Pope or Emperor or some thing else again and involved the split within Mohammed''s family as to who would succeed Mohammed. Initially Ali ruled, but was driven out by the founders of Sunni Islam who rejected his dynastic and familial claims, as the empire acheived military domination of its region, with the Sunnis the dominant faction. The blood shed led to the Shiites becoming more martyr oriented and more mystical, or at least informed of a different sensibility to the Sunni, as indeed has been the case between Protestants  Orthodox and Catholic, and Christianity and Jewry, because the underlying metaphysics, truth claims etc, is both fundamental and to varying degrees unproveable, this side of the grave.

As with Christianity and the Virgin birth, or Moses parting of the Red Sea, your reading can be literal or or you accept much of what is written in a holy book as allegorical and the background for underlying theological and philosophical arguments depending on how you reconcile things like faith and reason.

Now to Syria.

Yes, the Yanks are sabre-rattling again and the Israelis are in the thick of it also, given their fear of Iran and desire to see an international power structure more favourable to Israeli interests operative in the region. So are the Turks and Russians, and many others are also keeping watch, because it's all actually about who controls the oil and the supply lines that currently lead away from places like China and Russia and to the US, which now seeks complete hegemony throughout the region.

Jewish Self-Interest and Jewish Morality

...the ultimate and overriding moral injunction is to preserve the state of Israel. All other considerations, if they obtain at all in this "unfortunate world in which we must exist," are secondary.

Is Israel's conduct in East Jerusalemt bad, or merely bad for peace?

It is indeed bad for peace, but more importantly, it is just bad..

That's called Jewish morality, or just morality. 

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. 

Please do not misunderstand me, Richard. Of course it's a valid opinion, probably widely held among a certain type and I would not for a second suggest that it offended any "moderation" policy or otherwise should be suppressed. It's just disgusting is all. It offends any acceptable standard of morality in any culture.

There are a number of reasons to have left this alone. Marilyn is an angry woman and I know from experience that it is a serious mistake to attempt to comprehend, let alone engage such a person. Even to make eye contact.  

We are talking about the deaths of Australian soldiers murdered in cold blood in a most despiccable way while doing their duty. That in itself should give a centred person reason for pause whatever she or he might think of the cause their country is fighting.

But it gets worse. The murderer then gloats publicly about the murders. As if murder is a good thing. You and the dickhead left can bleat as much as you like about moral equivalence but that is because the left is morally depraved. In the US, Israel and the West there is nothing like the Taliban, or that hideous butcher in Damascus currently deploying snipers and battle tanks against his own population just like his dear old dad and currently being lionised or excused by moral degenerates every where including right here.

Or that child raping doomsday sect in Tehran right now threatening the world in the name of some warped religion and I don't mean the Christian Brothers.

I don't even mean the Church of England.

It gets worse still. The murderer whose foul act is  being celebrated has killed in a cause that no one has a right not to know. They are open about it.. It includes the oppression of the Afghan people, and especially the women and kids, in a life of horror that is simply beyond the intellectual reach of the modern left and many others. Therefore to join in the gloating at this horrible crime is to betray the Afghan people and especially the women and girls.

I could go on. I've done my best to understand the left  that was consistent with the principles of good faith at least , if not good will. I understand that it is possible to hold directly opposing opinions in one's head at the same time and that the left is the political manifestation of this quirky anomaly of human psychology. But even allowing for that I gave up expecting good faith from the left long ago.

Look again at  what has been written here. I do not believe it is possible for a person to sincerely care about the plight of asylum seekers and at the same time have such a callous disregard about that from which they are seeking asylum.

I do not believe that people who think like this are in good faith about what happens to Afghan people either in Afghanistan or in detention here. I don't think they care. Just like they don't care about the Syrians. Or the Palestinians.

It's about something else entirely and it certainly has nothing to do with morality. 

I've quoted before from this article in the "The Australian" for 11 Feb 2011 (page 11), but the last paragraph deserves quoting in full.

The conflict in Syria has grown increasingly violent in recent weeks as the rebels' loose-knit umbrella army, the Free Syrian Army, has grown and obtained more potent arms.

For all the blaming of Assad, he is doing just what an Australian Prime Minister woulld do in equivalent circumstances.  There could be no question of the Prime Minister resigning in the face of military attack.