| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 09:19:13 PM |
| Object: |
Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition |
The affidavit extracts below demonstrate the falsity of the old media's
erroneous allegation that 'no one is home' in Terri Schindler Schiavo.
Also, Terri can anticipate and feel pain.
A U.S. judiciary run amok and a shameless American Criminal Liberties
Union are intent on murdering via starvation an innocent/ guiltless and
defenseless woman.
Decency demands that this unjustified, court-imposed death sentence on
Terri Schindler Schiavo be stopped.
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
From
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
from the PDF "Affidavit of William Cheshire, Jr., MD 03-23-05":
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DUVALL
Before me this day personally appeared William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.,
who, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I, William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., have personal knowledge of the
facts stated in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could
and would testify competently thereto under oath. I declare as follows:
I am a neurologist practicing in the State of Florida and am certified
by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. In regard to my
educational background, I received an A.B. in biochemical sciences from
Princeton University, an M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International
University, and an M.D. from West Virginia University. I completed an
internship in internal medicine at West Virginia University, a residency
in neurology and a pain fellowship at the University of North Carolina.
I am also an appointed volunteer with the Florida Statewide Adult
Protective Services team, in which capacity I was called on March 1,
2005, to provide an independent and objective medical review of
allegations of possible abuse, neglect, or exploitation of Ms. Theresa
Marie Schiavo.
Although no one from the Department of Children and Families has
inquired about my personal views about treatment decisions in cases of
persistent vegetative state (PVS), I would like to disclose that I came
into this case with the belief that it can be ethically permissible to
discontinue artificially provided nutrition and hydration for patients
in a persistent vegetative state. Having now reviewed the relevant
facts, having met and observed Ms. Schiavo in person, and having
reflected deeply on the moral and ethical issues, I would like to
explain why I change my mind in regard to this particular case.
.....
Based on my review of extensive medical records documenting Terri's care
over the years, on my personal observation of Terri, and on my
observations of Terri's responses in the many hours of videotapes taken
in 2002, she demonstrates a number of behaviors I believe cast a
reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS. These include:
1. Her behavior is frequently context-specific. For example, her
facial expression brightens and she smiles in response to the voice of
familiar persons such as her parents or her nurse. Her agitation
subsides and her facial demeanor softens when quiet music is played.
When jubilant piano music is played, her face brightens, she lifts her
eyebrows, smiles, and even laughs. Her lateral gaze toward the tape
player is sustained for many minutes. Several times I witnessed Terri
briefly, albeit inconsistently, laugh in response to a humorous comment
someone in the room had made. I did not see her laugh in the absence of
someone else's laughter.
2. Although she does not seem to track or follow visual objects
consistently or for long periods of time, she does fixate her gaze on
colorful objects or human faces for some 15 seconds at a time and
occasionally follows with her eyes at least briefly as these objects
move from side to side. When I first walked into her room, she
immediately turned her head toward me and looked directly at my face.
There was a lot of curiosity or expectation in her expression, and she
maintained eye contact for about half a minute. Later, when she again
looked at me, she brought her lips together as if to pronounce the
letter "O," and although for a moment it appeared that she might be
making an intentional effort to speak, her face then fell blank, and no
words came out.
3. Although I did not hear Terri utter distinct words, she demonstrates
emotional expressivity by her use of a single syllable of vocalizations
such as "ah," making cooing sounds, or by expressing guttural sounds of
annoyance or moaning appropriate to the context of the situation. The
context-specific range and the variability of her vocalizations suggests
at least a reasonable probability of the processing of emotional thought
within her brain. There have been reports of Terri rarely using actual
words specific to her situational context. The July 25, 2003 affidavit
of the speech pathologist Sarah Green Mole, MS, on page 6, reads, "The
records of Mediplex reflect the fact that she has said 'stop' in
apparent response to a medical procedure being done to her." The Adult
Protective Services team has been unable to retrieve those original
medical records in this instance.
4. Although Terri has not consistently followed commands, there
appeared to be some notable exceptions. In the taped examination by Dr.
Hammesfahr from 2002, when asked to close her eyes she began to blink
repeatedly. Although it was unclear whether she squeezed her grip when
asked, she did appear to raise her right leg four times in succession
each time she was asked to do so. Rehabilitation notes from 1991
indicated that she tracked inconsistently, and although she did not
develop a yes/no communication system, did follow some commands
inconsistently and demonstrated good eye contact to family members.
5. There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3,
2002 examination by Dr. Hammesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the
time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turned Terri onto her right
side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of
wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well
after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a
comfortable position, he says to her parents, "So, we're going to have
to roll her over...." Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying
sound, "Ugh, ha, ha, ha," presses her eyebrows together, and sadly
grimaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no one is
touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to
comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr's comment and she signals her
_anticipation_ of pain. This response suggests some degree of language
processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It
also suggests that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be
explained by simple reflex withdrawal.
6. According to the definition of PVS published by the American Academy
of Neurology, "persistent vegetative state patients do not have the
capacity to experience pain or suffering. Pain and suffering are
attributes of consciousness requiring cerebral cortical functioning, and
patients who are permanently and completely unconscious cannot
experience these symptoms."^6 And yet, in my review of Terri's medical
records, pain issues keep surfacing. The nurses at Woodside Hospice
told us that she often has pain with menstrual cramps. Menstrual flow
is associated with agitation, repeated or sustained moaning, facial
grimacing, limb posturing, and facial flushing, all of which subside
once she is given ibuprofen. Some of the records document moaning,
crying, and other painful behavior in the setting of urinary tract
infections.
.....
7. To enter the room of Terri Schiavo is nothing like entering the room
of a patient who is comatose or brain-dead or in some neurological sense
no longer there. Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90
minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness,
or volitional behavior, yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the
presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of
some things around her.
As I looked at Terri, and she gazed directly back at me, I asked myself
whether, if I were her attending physician, I could in good conscience
withdraw nutrition and hydration. No, I could not. I could not
withdraw life support if I were asked. I could not withhold
life-sustaining nutrition and hydration from this beautiful lady whose
face brightens in the presence of others.
The neurologic signs are in many ways ambiguous. There is no guarantee
that more sophisticated testing would definitively resolve that
ambiguity to everyone's satisfaction. There would be value, I think, in
obtaining a functional MRI scan if that is possible.
This situation differs fundamentally from end-of-life scenarios where it
is appropriate to withdraw life-sustaining medical interventions that no
longer benefit or are burdensome to patients in the terminal stages of
illness. Terri's feeding tube is not a burden to her. It is not
painful, is not infected, is not eroding her stomach lining or causing
any medical complications. But for the decision to withdraw her feeding
tube, Terri cannot be considered medically terminal. But for the
withdrawal of food and water, she would not die [well, she would not die
now-- everybody dies eventually, sometimes sooner rather than later. We
never know when we will go to meet our Maker. -df].
In summary, Terri [Schindler] Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a
variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous
neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she
has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and
indicative of a cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful
neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent
vegetative state.
Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a
minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This
distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on
Terri's behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that
she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to
some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be
wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water.
At the time of this writing, Terri Schiavo, as the result of the
decisions based on what I have argued to be a faulty diagnosis of
persistent vegetative state, has been without food or water for 5 days.
She is thus at risk of death or serious injury unless the provision of
food and water can be restored. Terri Schiavo lacks the capacity to
consent to emergency protective services and must trust others to act on
her behalf. If she were to be transferred to another facility, it would
be medically necessary first to initiate hydration and ensure that her
serum electrolytes are within normal values.
How medicine and society choose to think about Terri [Schindler] Schiavo
will influence what kind of people we will be as we evaluate and respond
to the needs of the most vulnerable people among us. When serious
doubts exist as to whether a cognitively impaired person is or is not
consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved,
it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life.
Respectfully submitted,
William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., M.A., F.A.A.N.
[signature]
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this 23[rd] day of
March, 2005, by William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.
[notary stamp and signature]
======================================================================
articles: livelier ones are by Thomas Sowell and William Kristol. Eric
Cohen's is very thoughtful.
http://www.townhall.com
Cal Thomas: Schiavo case matters in symbol and substance
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adfseF68nkocU1%40individual.net
Justifications for taking of human life?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3aj33dF67kgcuU2%40individual.net
any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1%40individual.net
1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope slide from devaluing some
human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to mass killings
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
ACLU: Legal Terrorists
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/27/195402.shtml
Terri Schindler Schiavo Case
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/16/223430.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler and Haeckel parallel |
27 Jun 2005 09:00:56 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
maff wrote:
david ford wrote:
[...]
Are you admitting that you're a Christian fascist terrorist?
Or like the jewish fascist terrorist Goldbergs in Tampa? Or like the jewish fascist terrorist Irv
Rubin ex of California? Or the long dead jewish fascist terrorist Goldberg in Hebron?
Or all the jewish fascist terrorists in the IDF?
Don't forget the jewish fascist Eisberg terrorists that sank the
Titanic. <8^)
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler and Haeckel parallel |
28 Jun 2005 03:12:58 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
maff wrote:
david ford wrote:
[...]
Are you admitting that you're a Christian fascist terrorist?
Or like the jewish fascist terrorist Goldbergs in Tampa? Or like the jewish fascist terrorist Irv
Rubin ex of California? Or the long dead jewish fascist terrorist Goldberg in Hebron?
Or all the jewish fascist terrorists in the IDF?
Don't forget the jewish fascist Eisberg terrorists that sank the
Titanic. <8^)
Irv Rubin planned to murder a US congressman with a bomb. Is that not terrorism to you?
The Golbergs in Tampa had several bombs already built and plans to attack mosques. They also had
sniper rifles. Does that not sound like terrorism to you?
The Goldberg in Hebron in fact did break into a mosque and murder 27 Palestinians at prayer. Is
that not terrorism to you?
If those are not terrorism 99% of Israel's claims of terrorist attacks do not count as terrorism.
Are you ignorant of the facts or are you simply mindlessly defending Jews?
--
It is Orthodox Jews who teach the Shoah was punishment for
Jews turning away from God. They are the ones who say Jews
deserved what happened to them. That it was God's will.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3463
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
commentary http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml a5
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler and Haeckel parallel |
25 Jun 2005 11:07:59 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
maff wrote:
david ford wrote:
[...]
Are you admitting that you're a Christian fascist terrorist?
Or like the jewish fascist terrorist Goldbergs in Tampa? Or like the
jewish fascist terrorist Irv Rubin ex of California? Or the long dead
jewish fascist terrorist Goldberg in Hebron?
Or all the jewish fascist terrorists in the IDF?
As I said to maff (but with perhaps more emphasis) - if you've nothing
intelligent to contribute, GFAM.
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler and Haeckel parallel |
26 Jun 2005 11:28:44 PM |
|
|
"Matt Giwer" <matt@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a9Lve.125432$VH2.92413@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
<snip>
Blacks in the American South had it better a century ago
than non-Jews have it in Israel today.
A century ago, blacks in the American South couldn't vote,
and non-Jews in Israel have always been able to do so.
Go figure.
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler and Haeckel parallel |
27 Jun 2005 01:50:59 PM |
|
|
Deadrat wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <matt@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a9Lve.125432$VH2.92413@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
<snip>
Blacks in the American South had it better a century ago
than non-Jews have it in Israel today.
A century ago, blacks in the American South couldn't vote,
and non-Jews in Israel have always been able to do so.
Go figure.
"A century ago, blacks in the American South couldn't vote"
In Nazi Germany, it was noted that the American Medical Association
wouldn't let blacks become members.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler and Haeckel parallel |
28 Jun 2005 03:08:37 AM |
|
|
Deadrat wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <matt@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a9Lve.125432$VH2.92413@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
<snip>
Blacks in the American South had it better a century ago
than non-Jews have it in Israel today.
A century ago, blacks in the American South couldn't vote,
and non-Jews in Israel have always been able to do so.
Go figure.
As for those non-Jews who are Israeli citizens who can vote, it is illegal for anyone standing for
office or for anyone who holds office in Israel to advocate equal rights for all citizens of Israel.
So while it is techncally correct they can vote they cannot vote for anything substantive that would
benefit them. None of their politicians can even advocate equal rights for them and hold any
political office. You know, they cannot advocate a democracy of all of its citizens.
The South could have tried such laws and let them all vote with no more problem than in Israel. A
right to vote for anything but equal rights, just like Israel.
And in Israel they could not vote until there was a sustantial Jewish majority, 1957 I think it
was. And then it was predicated upon preventing residents from returning to their homes in Israel
which started in 1948, murdering those who tried to return to their homes. And as Segev and Morris
among others have documented from Israeli records the Palestinian story of murder and expulsions is
the correct version preventing them from returning first permitting the Jews to steal their property
and also to prevent them from voting against the theft.
Blacks had it MUCH better in the South a century ago. The reality of Israel was more like Tulsa and
Rosewood.
--
Hey, Mister Taliban, Tally me da bombings.
Hussein gone and me wanna go home.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3459
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler and Haeckel parallel |
28 Jun 2005 10:54:50 AM |
|
|
"Matt Giwer" <matt@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9A7we.169225$IO.116898@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Deadrat wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <matt@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a9Lve.125432$VH2.92413@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
<snip>
Blacks in the American South had it better a century ago
than non-Jews have it in Israel today.
A century ago, blacks in the American South couldn't vote,
and non-Jews in Israel have always been able to do so.
Go figure.
As for those non-Jews who are Israeli citizens who can vote, it is illegal
for anyone standing for
office or for anyone who holds office in Israel to advocate equal rights
for all citizens of Israel.
So you were lying when said that blacks in the American South "had it
better" than non-Jews
in Israel today. Non-Jews can vote; blacks couldn't. And you're lying
about it being illegal
to advocate equal rights for all citizens of Israel -- the law requires that
Knesset members not
support the destruction of the state. I guess you're also against the
Presidential oath of office
that requires the President to support the Constitution.
Oh, yeah. Guess which state allows Arab women to vote and always has?
It's quite true that Israeli Arabs don't control Israeli politics -- they're
only 20% of the population,
but small parties in closely divided Knessets often had more power than
their numbers would
suggest since they and other smaller parties held the balance in coalitions.
So while it is techncally correct they can vote they cannot vote for
anything substantive that would
benefit them. None of their politicians can even advocate equal rights for
them and hold any
political office. You know, they cannot advocate a democracy of all of its
citizens.
If by "all of its citizens" you're including Palestinians, remember that
Palestinians are not Israeli
citizens, and most of them have no desire to be so.
The South could have tried such laws and let them all vote with no more
problem than in Israel. A
right to vote for anything but equal rights, just like Israel.
I can't even parse this sentence. Sorry.
And in Israel they could not vote until there was a sustantial Jewish
majority, 1957 I think it
was.
Another lie. Arab parties have held seats in the Knesset since the
beginning of the state. And
Jews have been a substantial majority since 1948.
<anti-Israeli nonsense snipped>
One can easily write volumes of valid criticism of Israeli policies over the
course of almost
70 years. I've read books in which *Israelis* have lamented the results of
the occupation
of the West Bank. Israeli Arabs have valid complaints about discrimination
against them.
You could discuss any of these things truthfully and rationally.
So why make up nonsense?
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler and Haeckel parallel |
29 Jun 2005 12:21:33 PM |
|
|
"Matt Giwer" <matt@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aWwwe.171864$IO.30329@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Deadrat wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <matt@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9A7we.169225$IO.116898@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Deadrat wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <matt@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a9Lve.125432$VH2.92413@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
<snip>
Blacks in the American South had it better a century ago
than non-Jews have it in Israel today.
A century ago, blacks in the American South couldn't vote,
and non-Jews in Israel have always been able to do so.
Go figure.
As for those non-Jews who are Israeli citizens who can vote, it is
illegal for anyone standing for
office or for anyone who holds office in Israel to advocate equal rights
for all citizens of Israel.
So you were lying when said that blacks in the American South "had it
better" than non-Jews
in Israel today. Non-Jews can vote; blacks couldn't.
As I said they can vote but on nothing substantive which would give them
equal rights.
You're still lying. Non-Jews votes in elections; non-Jewish Knesset members
vote on all bills that come before it.
And you're lying
about it being illegal
to advocate equal rights for all citizens of Israel -- the law requires
that
Knesset members not
support the destruction of the state.
Actually it says change the Jewish (White) character of the state.
Actually it says nothing of the sort. And Jews, including Jewish Israelsis,
come in all colors. It's quite true that the majority of Israel is against
Israel
losing its Jewish character, but so what?
It also means they cannot
advocate breaking "jewish only" discriminatory land ownership policies
because Jews own all the land
because they wrote a book saying god gave it to them and non-Jewish
ownership would be changing
the jewish nature of the government.
You're lying. Opponents of any law in Israel can advocate anything they
want.
Non-Jews own land in Israel. If you want to whine about the fact that
Israel is a
state for Jews, fine. If you want to bemoan Israeli land policy on the West
Bank,
fine. Just quit lying.
I guess you're also against the
Presidential oath of office
that requires the President to support the Constitution.
And that means it is illegal to advocate all citizens have the right of
family reunification.
Stop lying. It is not illegal in Israel to advocate for the reunification
of Palestinian
families. If you want to whine about the fact that the Israelis haven't
*done* this
to your satisfaction, fine.
It means only some Israelis have the right to have family members become
citizens. In fact it is now
nearly impossible for a non-jewish Israeli to have a spouse even live in
Israel not even talking
about citizenship. And can they live in the West Bank squatter towns? No.
They are segregated jewish
only as is most of Israel. Try reading www.haaretzdaily.com and learn what
is going on.
Do you suppose that during World War II Americans of German or Japanese
descent
had trouble "reuniting" with their relatives from those countries?
But even as you say it, I am certain the South could have phrased it that
way, to undermine the
White character of the state.
I'm sorry, but I can't follow this. Even as "you" say it? Does that refer
to me? This comes
after one of *your* paragraphs, so what is "it" that's being said. The
South could have phrased
what? Something to undermine the white character of the state? Is this a
reference to Jim
Crow?
Oh, yeah. Guess which state allows Arab women to vote and always has?
Not until there was a Jewish majority, i.e. until it was safe to do so.
That would be 1948. There was always a Jewish majority in Israel. I know
that pisses
you off, but there you are.
But I don't see an issue of
women voting as a century ago in the US most white women could not vote
while most black men could.
My dig was at Arab states, which to this day, don't allow women to vote.
It is odd you are arguing Israel is no worse than the US South a century
ago.
Sorry. You're the one aruging that Israel *is* worse than the US South a
centry ago.
I'm saying that's a lie. One can level plenty of valid criticism at Israeli
policies
without lying.
It's quite true that Israeli Arabs don't control Israeli politics --
they're
only 20% of the population,
but small parties in closely divided Knessets often had more power than
their numbers would
suggest since they and other smaller parties held the balance in
coalitions.
As I have shown, it is illegal for them to advocate equal rights for
themselves.
Stop lying. You've shown nothing. Israeli-Arab delegates to the Knesset
routinely complain about what they see as discrimination and unfairness.
If you want to whine about Israeli actions, do so without lying about
nonexistent
suppression of speech.
So while it is techncally correct they can vote they cannot vote for
anything substantive that would
benefit them. None of their politicians can even advocate equal rights
for them and hold any
political office. You know, they cannot advocate a democracy of all of
its citizens.
If by "all of its citizens" you're including Palestinians, remember that
Palestinians are not Israeli
citizens, and most of them have no desire to be so.
I said all citizens and that is what I meant.
It's actually very hard to follow your posts. And many of your claims are
lies.
If you meant by Israeli citizens those defined as citizens by that state
(Jews, Arabs, Druze),
then your claim about "advocating" is a lie.
I did not bring up the millions of Palestinians ruled
by Israel and not permitted any say in the selection of their rulers. Get
back to their lawful,
recognized borders if they want a moral position. Leave the squatters to
be good citizens of
Palestine or suggest they make Aliya.
I'm sorry. I can't parse this. Who's supposed to get back? If "they" want a
moral position?
Are you telling *me* to leave squatters? How do you leave someone to be a
good citizen?
And the alternative is a suggestion that "they" make aliya. Who?
The South could have tried such laws and let them all vote with no more
problem than in Israel. A
right to vote for anything but equal rights, just like Israel.
I can't even parse this sentence. Sorry.
I did not assume you had english langauge skills.
Do you mean that you assumed that my English language skills were deficient?
Then why aren't you being clearer for someone who is struggling? I'm not
trying
to insult you, but I sometimes cannot follow your posts.
And in Israel they could not vote until there was a sustantial Jewish
majority, 1957 I think it
was.
Another lie. Arab parties have held seats in the Knesset since the
beginning of the state. And
Jews have been a substantial majority since 1948.
So all anyone need do is use google to determine which is the lie.
<anti-Israeli nonsense snipped>
Unpleasant facts are always cut.
There are many unpleasant facts in the history of Israel. The Israelis have
their share
of the responsibillity. Unfortunately, you haven't discussed that. You've
just made
things up.
And as Segev and Morris
among others have documented from Israeli records the Palestinian story of
murder and expulsions is
the correct version preventing them from returning first permitting the
Jews to steal their property
and also to prevent them from voting against the theft.
If you want to talk about Israeli transgressions against the Arab
population, that's fine.
Even the Israelis are starting to talk and write on this subject. I'm just
commenting on
the nonsense part of your posts.
Those are facts which can also be confirmed by trivial google searches.
Oh, like your 1957 date?
One can easily write volumes of valid criticism of Israeli policies over
the course of almost
70 years. I've read books in which *Israelis* have lamented the results
of the occupation
of the West Bank. Israeli Arabs have valid complaints about
discrimination against them.
You could discuss any of these things truthfully and rationally.
And the Palestinian recitation of 1948 is the correct one as shown by
jewish Israelis using
Israel's own records. I have not mistated one thing but if so a google
search will show it. I invite
independent research into what I post. You would rather not have it. You
should invite people to
verify your statements. I require links be posted. So should you.
I'm not interested in debating Arab-Israeli history with someone who makes
things up.
You've lied consistently about the rights of the minority in Israel and
voting records.
So why make up nonsense?
Why would you care in the least about a foreign country?
Why would you care in the least about what I care about?
Who but a jewish Israeli would give a damn if it is true or not?
What's the antecedent to "it"?
They are only foreigners.
What's the antecedent to "They"?
No
better than the French.
Who's no better than the French? How did the French get into this?
(And don't get me started on the French. I haven't forgiven them for
Dreyfus, let alone Algeria or their collaboration in World War II.)
Man is a human animal some place between the angels and the Israelis.
What does this mean? The Israelis aren't human?
If it
is a joke for French not for Israelis?
What is the antecedent to "it"? What joke?
What make them better than the French?
What's the antecedent to "them"?
When Israel was called "a shitty little country" it was not the shitty
that bothered them. They are
proud of that. It was the little that bothered them.
And you know this, how? Talked to many Israelis lately?
The shittier they are the more they can shout
antisemitism and get away with even more murders.
Like that time an Israeli blew himself up in a pizza parlor
full of teenagers. Oh, wait. I might have got that wrong.
Deadrat
--
A jewish mother tells her son she is going to commit suicide
and sticks her head in an oven. The son says, "Don't worry.
It's electric." deleted scene from the movie Bye Bye Birdie
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3465
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
commentary http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml a5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler and Haeckel parallel |
30 Jun 2005 05:57:48 AM |
|
|
Deadrat wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <matt@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aWwwe.171864$IO.30329@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Deadrat wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <matt@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9A7we.169225$IO.116898@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Deadrat wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <matt@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a9Lve.125432$VH2.92413@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
<snip>
Blacks in the American South had it better a century ago
than non-Jews have it in Israel today.
A century ago, blacks in the American South couldn't vote,
and non-Jews in Israel have always been able to do so.
Go figure.
As for those non-Jews who are Israeli citizens who can vote, it is illegal for anyone standing for
office or for anyone who holds office in Israel to advocate equal rights for all citizens of Israel.
So you were lying when said that blacks in the American South "had it
better" than non-Jews
in Israel today. Non-Jews can vote; blacks couldn't.
As I said they can vote but on nothing substantive which would give them equal rights.
You're still lying. Non-Jews votes in elections; non-Jewish Knesset members
vote on all bills that come before it.
I said they can vote. How was I lying? I simply stated what they cannot vote for, equal rights.
That is also a true statement.
And you're lying
about it being illegal
to advocate equal rights for all citizens of Israel -- the law requires that
Knesset members not
support the destruction of the state.
Actually it says change the Jewish (White) character of the state.
Actually it says nothing of the sort. And Jews, including Jewish Israelsis,
come in all colors. It's quite true that the majority of Israel is against Israel
losing its Jewish character, but so what?
At one time the majority of Germans were against losing the Aryan nature of their country. There is
no difference between the two.
It also means they cannot
advocate breaking "jewish only" discriminatory land ownership policies because Jews own all the land
because they wrote a book saying god gave it to them and non-Jewish ownership would be changing
the jewish nature of the government.
You're lying. Opponents of any law in Israel can advocate anything they want.
Non-Jews own land in Israel. If you want to whine about the fact that Israel is a
state for Jews, fine. If you want to bemoan Israeli land policy on the West Bank,
fine. Just quit lying.
If it is a state for Jews I don't see why there was a problem when Germany was declared a state for
Germans.
If you wish to defend land policies IN ISRAEL that are criminal in every civilized country in the
world that is also your business but what I said is a fact.
If you defend crimes in the West Bank which were found to be hanging offenses at Nuremberg I think
you are on the wrong side of the argument.
In any event I wrote specifically of equal rights for all citizens. That you are against equal
rights for all citizens it is again your problem.
I guess you're also against the
Presidential oath of office
that requires the President to support the Constitution.
And that means it is illegal to advocate all citizens have the right of family reunification.
Stop lying. It is not illegal in Israel to advocate for the reunification of Palestinian
families. If you want to whine about the fact that the Israelis haven't *done* this
to your satisfaction, fine.
I gave it only as an example of the lack of equal rights for all citizens which as a principle is
illegal to advocate. This leaves it legitimate to challenge every discriminatory law individually.
Each takes years to an uncertain outcome and new ones are passed in the mean time. It was done in
the old South to the same effect. That is why it is illegal to advocate a true democracy in Israel.
It means only some Israelis have the right to have family members become citizens. In fact it is now
nearly impossible for a non-jewish Israeli to have a spouse even live in Israel not even talking
about citizenship. And can they live in the West Bank squatter towns? No. They are segregated jewish
only as is most of Israel. Try reading www.haaretzdaily.com and learn what is going on.
Do you suppose that during World War II Americans of German or Japanese descent
had trouble "reuniting" with their relatives from those countries?
As there is no declared state of war with Palestinians I don't see your point.
But even as you say it, I am certain the South could have phrased it that way, to undermine the
White character of the state.
I'm sorry, but I can't follow this. Even as "you" say it? Does that refer to me? This comes
after one of *your* paragraphs, so what is "it" that's being said. The South could have phrased
what? Something to undermine the white character of the state? Is this a reference to Jim Crow?
It could have phrased laws to mimic the prohibition in Israel. Illegal to undermine the
jewish/white character of the state. Advocating equal rights would be on of the things prohibited by
that.
--
Israel announced it would withdraw from Gaza. We are nearer the
second anniversary than the first and still nothing has happened.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3443
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler and Haeckel parallel |
30 Jun 2005 12:42:27 PM |
|
|
"Matt Giwer" <matt@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MeQwe.191821$w15.55494@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Deadrat wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <matt@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aWwwe.171864$IO.30329@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Deadrat wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <matt@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9A7we.169225$IO.116898@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Deadrat wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <matt@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a9Lve.125432$VH2.92413@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
<snip>
Blacks in the American South had it better a century ago
than non-Jews have it in Israel today.
A century ago, blacks in the American South couldn't vote,
and non-Jews in Israel have always been able to do so.
Go figure.
As for those non-Jews who are Israeli citizens who can vote, it is
illegal for anyone standing for
office or for anyone who holds office in Israel to advocate equal
rights for all citizens of Israel.
So you were lying when said that blacks in the American South "had it
better" than non-Jews
in Israel today. Non-Jews can vote; blacks couldn't.
As I said they can vote but on nothing substantive which would give them
equal rights.
You're still lying. Non-Jews votes in elections; non-Jewish Knesset
members
vote on all bills that come before it.
I said they can vote. How was I lying? I simply stated what they cannot
vote for, equal rights.
That is also a true statement.
That is also a false statement. It's not entirely clear what you mean by
"equal rights,"
but all Knesset members get to vote on all bills before the Knesset. That
would include
any bills affecting citizens' rights.
And you're lying
about it being illegal
to advocate equal rights for all citizens of Israel -- the law requires
that
Knesset members not
support the destruction of the state.
Actually it says change the Jewish (White) character of the state.
Actually it says nothing of the sort. And Jews, including Jewish
Israelsis,
come in all colors. It's quite true that the majority of Israel is
against Israel
losing its Jewish character, but so what?
At one time the majority of Germans were against losing the Aryan nature
of their country. There is
no difference between the two.
Please tell me whether you're being a troll, an ignoramus, or just
deliberately offensive.
The difference is that there is no such thing as "Aryan." This is simply a
made-up term
of the racial purity movement. Therewas no problem with Germans wanting to
retain
the Germanic nature of their country. The problem was that they tried (and
to a large part
succeeded in) exterminating people they didn't think were German enough.
(If you think
the Israelis have exterminated the Palestinians, then you should check the
census figures.)
But you really knew all this, didn't you?
It also means they cannot
advocate breaking "jewish only" discriminatory land ownership policies
because Jews own all the land
because they wrote a book saying god gave it to them and non-Jewish
ownership would be changing
the jewish nature of the government.
You're lying. Opponents of any law in Israel can advocate anything they
want.
Non-Jews own land in Israel. If you want to whine about the fact that
Israel is a
state for Jews, fine. If you want to bemoan Israeli land policy on the
West Bank,
fine. Just quit lying.
If it is a state for Jews I don't see why there was a problem when Germany
was declared a state for
Germans.
The problem wasn't that Germany was a state for Germans. It was that it was
a state *only* for
(certain) Germans, and the rest were to be killed. But you already knew
that, didn't you?
If you wish to defend land policies IN ISRAEL that are criminal in every
civilized country in the
world that is also your business but what I said is a fact.
Please submit some evidence that land policies today IN ISRAEL proper are
criminal. If you wish
to debate whether the creation of the state of Israel was proper, then
you'll have to talk to yourself.
If you defend crimes in the West Bank which were found to be hanging
offenses at Nuremberg I think
you are on the wrong side of the argument.
I do not wish to defend Israeli policies on the West Bank. I oppose some of
them. That's not
what started this subthread. It was your false and ignorant statement that
Israeli Arabs are no
better off than American blacks a century ago.
In any event I wrote specifically of equal rights for all citizens. That
you are against equal
rights for all citizens it is again your problem.
You have provided no evidence that equal rights are not afforded to all
Israeli citizens.
That includes the right to vote, the right to free expression, and the right
to free exercsise
of religion. You ignore the fact that Israel is the only country in the
region to provide
these rights to all its citizens. That doesn't make Israel the perfect
society, and it doesn't
make you "against equal rights for all citizens." It just makes you wrong.
I guess you're also against the
Presidential oath of office
that requires the President to support the Constitution.
And that means it is illegal to advocate all citizens have the right of
family reunification.
Stop lying. It is not illegal in Israel to advocate for the
reunification of Palestinian
families. If you want to whine about the fact that the Israelis haven't
*done* this
to your satisfaction, fine.
I gave it only as an example of the lack of equal rights for all citizens
which as a principle is
illegal to advocate. This leaves it legitimate to challenge every
discriminatory law individually.
Each takes years to an uncertain outcome and new ones are passed in the
mean time. It was done in
the old South to the same effect. That is why it is illegal to advocate a
true democracy in Israel.
Slowly, slowly you back away from your ignorant statements. OK, every
Israeli gets to vote, but
now *you* don't think their vote is important. OK, every Israeli gets to
challenge discrminatory
laws, but now *you* think that takes too long. Are you kidding me?
It means only some Israelis have the right to have family members become
citizens. In fact it is now
nearly impossible for a non-jewish Israeli to have a spouse even live in
Israel not even talking
about citizenship. And can they live in the West Bank squatter towns?
No. They are segregated jewish
only as is most of Israel. Try reading www.haaretzdaily.com and learn
what is going on.
Do you suppose that during World War II Americans of German or Japanese
descent
had trouble "reuniting" with their relatives from those countries?
As there is no declared state of war with Palestinians I don't see your
point.
Oh, I see. The intifada didn't have an official declaration. So I guess
it's not a war.
Are you kidding me?
But even as you say it, I am certain the South could have phrased it
that way, to undermine the
White character of the state.
I'm sorry, but I can't follow this. Even as "you" say it? Does that
refer to me? This comes
after one of *your* paragraphs, so what is "it" that's being said. The
South could have phrased
what? Something to undermine the white character of the state? Is this
a reference to Jim Crow?
It could have phrased laws to mimic the prohibition in Israel. Illegal to
undermine the
jewish/white character of the state. Advocating equal rights would be on
of the things prohibited by
that.
Stop lying. White has nothing to do with the character of Israel. Please
cite the Israeli law that makes
it illegal to *advocate* equal rights. While you're at it, please tell me
what "rights" you're talking
about. That might help.
--
Israel announced it would withdraw from Gaza. We are nearer the
second anniversary than the first and still nothing has happened.
Israel announced it would withdraw from Sinai. We are near the twenty-third
anniversary..., but, ooops! You don't want to hear that.
Deadrat
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3443
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler and Haeckel parallel |
29 Jun 2005 07:58:46 AM |
|
|
Deadrat wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <matt@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9A7we.169225$IO.116898@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Deadrat wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <matt@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a9Lve.125432$VH2.92413@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
<snip>
Blacks in the American South had it better a century ago
than non-Jews have it in Israel today.
A century ago, blacks in the American South couldn't vote,
and non-Jews in Israel have always been able to do so.
Go figure.
As for those non-Jews who are Israeli citizens who can vote, it is illegal for anyone standing for
office or for anyone who holds office in Israel to advocate equal rights for all citizens of Israel.
So you were lying when said that blacks in the American South "had it
better" than non-Jews
in Israel today. Non-Jews can vote; blacks couldn't.
As I said they can vote but on nothing substantive which would give them equal rights.
And you're lying
about it being illegal
to advocate equal rights for all citizens of Israel -- the law requires that
Knesset members not
support the destruction of the state.
Actually it says change the Jewish (White) character of the state. It also means they cannot
advocate breaking "jewish only" discriminatory land ownership policies because Jews own all the land
because they wrote a book saying god gave it to them and non-Jewish ownership would be changing
the jewish nature of the government.
I guess you're also against the
Presidential oath of office
that requires the President to support the Constitution.
And that means it is illegal to advocate all citizens have the right of family reunification. It
means only some Israelis have the right to have family members become citizens. In fact it is now
nearly impossible for a non-jewish Israeli to have a spouse even live in Israel not even talking
about citizenship. And can they live in the West Bank squatter towns? No. They are segregated jewish
only as is most of Israel. Try reading www.haaretzdaily.com and learn what is going on.
But even as you say it, I am certain the South could have phrased it that way, to undermine the
White character of the state.
Oh, yeah. Guess which state allows Arab women to vote and always has?
Not until there was a Jewish majority, i.e. until it was safe to do so. But I don't see an issue of
women voting as a century ago in the US most white women could not vote while most black men could.
It is odd you are arguing Israel is no worse than the US South a century ago.
It's quite true that Israeli Arabs don't control Israeli politics -- they're
only 20% of the population,
but small parties in closely divided Knessets often had more power than
their numbers would
suggest since they and other smaller parties held the balance in coalitions.
As I have shown, it is illegal for them to advocate equal rights for themselves.
So while it is techncally correct they can vote they cannot vote for anything substantive that would
benefit them. None of their politicians can even advocate equal rights for them and hold any
political office. You know, they cannot advocate a democracy of all of its citizens.
If by "all of its citizens" you're including Palestinians, remember that Palestinians are not Israeli
citizens, and most of them have no desire to be so.
I said all citizens and that is what I meant. I did not bring up the millions of Palestinians ruled
by Israel and not permitted any say in the selection of their rulers. Get back to their lawful,
recognized borders if they want a moral position. Leave the squatters to be good citizens of
Palestine or suggest they make Aliya.
The South could have tried such laws and let them all vote with no more problem than in Israel. A
right to vote for anything but equal rights, just like Israel.
I can't even parse this sentence. Sorry.
I did not assume you had english langauge skills.
And in Israel they could not vote until there was a sustantial Jewish majority, 1957 I think it
was.
Another lie. Arab parties have held seats in the Knesset since the beginning of the state. And
Jews have been a substantial majority since 1948.
So all anyone need do is use google to determine which is the lie.
<anti-Israeli nonsense snipped>
Unpleasant facts are always cut.
And as Segev and Morris
among others have documented from Israeli records the Palestinian story of murder and expulsions is
the correct version preventing them from returning first permitting the Jews to steal their property
and also to prevent them from voting against the theft.
Those are facts which can also be confirmed by trivial google searches.
One can easily write volumes of valid criticism of Israeli policies over the course of almost
70 years. I've read books in which *Israelis* have lamented the results of the occupation
of the West Bank. Israeli Arabs have valid complaints about discrimination against them.
You could discuss any of these things truthfully and rationally.
And the Palestinian recitation of 1948 is the correct one as shown by jewish Israelis using
Israel's own records. I have not mistated one thing but if so a google search will show it. I invite
independent research into what I post. You would rather not have it. You should invite people to
verify your statements. I require links be posted. So should you.
So why make up nonsense?
Why would you care in the least about a foreign country?
Who but a jewish Israeli would give a damn if it is true or not? They are only foreigners. No
better than the French. Man is a human animal some place between the angels and the Israelis. If it
is a joke for French not for Israelis? What make them better than the French?
When Israel was called "a shitty little country" it was not the shitty that bothered them. They are
proud of that. It was the little that bothered them. The shittier they are the more they can shout
antisemitism and get away with even more murders.
--
A jewish mother tells her son she is going to commit suicide
and sticks her head in an oven. The son says, "Don't worry.
It's electric." deleted scene from the movie Bye Bye Birdie
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3465
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
commentary http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml a5
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler and Haeckel parallel |
30 Jun 2005 05:03:41 PM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
Robin Levett wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
maff wrote:
david ford wrote:
[...]
Are you admitting that you're a Christian fascist terrorist?
Or like the jewish fascist terrorist Goldbergs in Tampa? Or like the
jewish fascist terrorist Irv Rubin ex of California? Or the long dead
jewish fascist terrorist Goldberg in Hebron?
Or all the jewish fascist terrorists in the IDF?
As I said to maff (but with perhaps more emphasis) - if you've nothing
intelligent to contribute, GFAM.
In Tampa, bombs ready to use with plans to bomb mosques and a stash of
sniper rifles and such.
In the IDF?
In California, preparing to bomb a US congressman, Christian but of
Lebanese origin.
The IDF?
In Hebron murdering 27 Muslim in a mosque at prayer services, revered as a
saint by tens of thousands of his fellow fascists.
Condemned as a murderer by millions of Jews and Israelis.
Soune like fascist terrorists to me. It is terrorism without question.
Perhaps you would prefer calling them bolsheviks or anarchists but the
behavior is indistinguishable.
None of the above were actions of the IDF; I don't seek to apologise for any
of them.
The crimes of the IDF are too numerous to begin to list. Regarding Hebron,
greenlighting mobs of fascist squatters to riot, murder and injure
non-Jews, and widespread property destruction while killing any non-Jew
who fights back.
You missed out Sabra and Chatila and Sharon's role in them; an issue which
I've raised here before.
Sounds like everything but the brown shirts to me.
You have a tin ear.
What would you call it? Nice jewish boys on a lark?
I am on record as opposing a number of the actions of Israel and of
Israelis; unlike you, however, I am able to distinguish between the
individual and the "race".
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler and Haeckel parallel |
01 Jul 2005 01:49:27 PM |
|
|
Robin Levett wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Robin Levett wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
maff wrote:
david ford wrote:
[...]
Are you admitting that you're a Christian fascist terrorist?
Or like the jewish fascist terrorist Goldbergs in Tampa? Or like the
jewish fascist terrorist Irv Rubin ex of California? Or the long dead
jewish fascist terrorist Goldberg in Hebron?
Or all the jewish fascist terrorists in the IDF?
As I said to maff (but with perhaps more emphasis) - if you've nothing
intelligent to contribute, GFAM.
In Tampa, bombs ready to use with plans to bomb mosques and a stash of
sniper rifles and such.
In the IDF?
In California, preparing to bomb a US congressman, Christian but of
Lebanese origin.
The IDF?
The IDF is a terrorist organization for its actions in the occupied territories. Such as dropping a
one ton bomb into an apartment building at night to kill one suspect, declared a successful
operation by Sharon. It is as much a terrorist act and a bomb only killing one IDF member and taking
out 16 civilians. Collateral damage is collateral damage in both cases or in neither case. It is
terrorism in both cases or in neither case.
You are aware members of the IDF are lawful targets as an occupying military force? You are aware
it applies to on or off duty, active or reserve? For a country with universal military service it is
hard to imagine a ratio as low as 1:17 against Israelis.
In Hebron murdering 27 Muslim in a mosque at prayer services, revered as a
saint by tens of thousands of his fellow fascists.
Condemned as a murderer by millions of Jews and Israelis.
And revered as a saint as I said. I took years to get the "shrine" at his grave officiall removed.
Soune like fascist terrorists to me. It is terrorism without question.
Perhaps you would prefer calling them bolsheviks or anarchists but the
behavior is indistinguishable.
None of the above were actions of the IDF; I don't seek to apologise for any
of them.
I asked no one to apologize for them. I simply identified them for what they are, terrorists.
The crimes of the IDF are too numerous to begin to list. Regarding Hebron,
greenlighting mobs of fascist squatters to riot, murder and injure
non-Jews, and widespread property destruction while killing any non-Jew
who fights back.
You missed out Sabra and Chatila and Sharon's role in them; an issue which
I've raised here before.
Ancient news. Israeli terrorism continues to this day. Sniping children, death by a single bullet
to the head. That is cold blooded murder.
Sounds like everything but the brown shirts to me.
You have a tin ear.
Technically brown shirts are facists not Nazis but it is common for those of the marxist persuasion
to call both fascists. What they did in their own country is the business of their country. What
they did in occupied terroritories is the interest of the world. That means what Israelis do in East
Jerusalem, Gaza, the West Bank and occupied Syria.
What would you call it? Nice jewish boys on a lark?
I am on record as opposing a number of the actions of Israel and of
Israelis; unlike you, however, I am able to distinguish between the
individual and the "race".
The issue was raised as _christian_ fascist terrorists. I posted regarding jewish fascist
terrorists. It is a religion in both cases. I was no more discriminatory than the post to which I
responded. Jews are not a race. Caucasian and Negroid are examples of races.
Are there any other questions?
--
We can see the direction and ultimate conclusion of the principles
stated by the Bush administration. It is not prudent to wait until
a full blown dictatorship arrives to take action. In fact it is
damned stupid to wait.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3466
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10
.
|
|
| | | |
