Hitler, Pol-Pot and Stalin were LIghtweights...
Letters in The Age under the headline "Soldiers lose their humanity" damn America:
Update: Letters in The Australian are far more practical. Except the one by Jew-hating military failure Adrian Jackson, who wrote:
MY response to the news of US troops appearing to urinate on the corpses of Taliban fighters (The Age, 13/1) is: Why be surprised? The one-eyed, animal behaviours which war requires of immature men are unlikely to permit any feelings of respect for the other party before or after death. Today's media expose the filth of war as it is.Funny how those who will immediately try, convict and condemn American soldiers based on early media reports, are often those demanding a 'fair trial' for some of the biggest scum on the planet.
Angela Were, Northcote
SOLDIERS urinating on dead Taliban. I'm not sure what the fuss is about. It's a neat metaphor for US foreign policy over the past 50 years.
Lloyd Jones, Box Hill
HILLARY Clinton says urinating on Taliban corpses is not in keeping with American values. No mention of how they came to be corpses. One can only presume that killing is an American value.
John Hackett, Wonthaggi
Update: Letters in The Australian are far more practical. Except the one by Jew-hating military failure Adrian Jackson, who wrote:
I would not piss on a US marine even if he was on fireI'm sure most soldiers would piss on a loser like Adrian even if he weren't on fire.
posted by Dan at 4:38 PM |
37 Comments:
Taliban behead live prisoners and execute women in soccer stadiums and upload the videos to the net.
US troops piss on dead ?Taliban who commit the above atrocities.
Have the letter writers gone mad?
No answer required.
So then, Lieutenant Dan, do you think that urinated on the corpses of dead antagonists is acceptable behaviour?
The argument you employ here sounds very much like whatever-we-do-they-have-done-worse. I'm not sure things are that simple. Perhaps the problem is that some think soldiers should be a civilising force as well as a military one, which in my view is an unreasonable expectation.
Also, on what evidential basis is this Adrian Jackson fellow a 'military failure'?
John what are you on about? now?
"foxy", read my last comment. If you can understand it, as I'm sure you can, then it should be self-evident.
Well I just read this. Comments around the 10th Feb 2011 are interesting. Particularly the one where a 'person' with a specific nic appears to speculate on dispatching pregnant Israeli women. It's beyond belief. The whole comments field is 'quite interesting'.
http://www.vexnews.com/2011/01/spinning-in-his-grave-dead-holocaust-denier-lavished-with-praise-by-sydney-morning-herald/
The urinated-upon corpse of a dead Talib scumbag is totally acceptable.
Ideal, in fact.
I find these events equally useful for bringing the bed-wetting, hyperventilating pantywaists among us, heaving from the woodwork.
"John",
I'm pleased you're not questioning whether Adrian Jackson is an antisemitic piece of shit. Merely querying my reference to his barely adequate military career.
An earlier anonymous commenter (who didn't pick a pseudonym as requested) linked to it, but have a read of comments over at Vexnews here. Some of my comments link in turn to other comments.
I have no problem with military bureaucracy or people who sign up and spend their careers at a desk. The military needs people behind the front line and I wouldn't criticise them. However Jackson would boast about his military experience to try and add credibility to his variously wrong, stupid, antisemitic or embarrassing arguments. If you read the way he banged on about it, including listing his service medals in signatures (mostly earned for hanging around long enough) you'd think he thought he was a Field Marshal.
However it was quickly established that a fat, pimply nineteen year old Israel girl would have more military experience after twelve months than Jackson ever acquired.
I'm pleased you're not questioning whether Adrian Jackson is an antisemitic piece of shit. Merely querying my reference to his barely adequate military career.
I'll be frank and say that I don't know who Adrian Jackson is and that I am not aware of his commenting habits. I'll need to take a look through that Vexnews link, when I have some more time, before forming a conclusion of my own.
However, given your baloney claim in a previous post that Loewenstein had subscribed to an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, I am inclined to think that you are making this crap up. I'll comment further once I've read Jackson's comments in full.
I have no problem with military bureaucracy or people who sign up and spend their careers at a desk.
Again, I don't know what Jackson has claimed about himself or his military career, so I'll reserve judgement. But again it sounds as if you are tearing the guy down because (a) he actually has military experience and you do not, and (b) he disagrees with you.
Maybe if they wrapped the carcasses in pig-hide shrouds and then pissed on them, the message might start getting through?
"so I'll reserve judgement"
oh dear I hope it's not too harsh.
ROFL, who the %$#@ do you think you are that anyone cares? Please John stop it, you'll have me in stitches. (hopefully not literally because you do sound very strong and powerful)
OK Dan, I've just wasted 10 minutes of my life trawling through that turgid link you provided. And while it's obvious that Adrian Jackson is anti-Zionist, anti-Israeli government, a blowhard and probably full of crap about his military career and/or wealth, I'm not sure he's the anti-Semite you claim. Not on that evidence anyway. I don't see any racial commentary or conspiracy theories.
Also, I don't think it's good form to attack ex-service personnel from the supply, support and admin sectors, just because their political views don't match yours. If this 'Adrian Jackson' was a right-wingnut defending himself from raving lefties, you'd be pointing to his military service as something to be commended, wouldn't you?
ROFL, who the %$#@ do you think you are that anyone cares?
And who the &@#* are you to question who I think I am or who might care?
Oh yes, you're "foxy". Knowing that makes all the difference.
"And who the &@#* are you to question who I think I am or who might care?"
Because you're a little Napolean with a self esteem problem trying to play the big man on the internet. When you're probably ignored in real life, just at a guess. Extrapolated from your pompous ass self important rantings of course.
Amusing online character development though, really enjoyed it. The constant double standards and huffy sneering were the funniest parts. Don't forget to favourite that dictionary link.
We await your next pronouncement of post suitability with hushed silence.
I do hope my commas are in the correct places. The approval of a high quality spanker such as yourself is what we crave after all.
All the best, your loyal admirer.
Are you finished ranting now, "foxy"? The asylum-keepers should be along soon with your bran and pureed fruit... don't want you to be late for breakfast.
Yeah, nice comeback little man. I'm sure there's a big day waiting for you out in the world. If you yell loud enough someone might notice you. Or not. Whatever.
(
And back on topic, the squealing fools rambling about this urinary 'war crime' might have watched Balibo last night for perspective as to what real war crimes look like. Even if it's half right.
Actually, "foxy", I'm on holidays and I'll be enjoying the afternoon with my family. Hopefully you will have a good day too, playing shoot-ems on your x-box or whatever it is you do.
With regard to Balibo, the real war crime was the US and Australian governments sitting on their hands while Suharto's thugs ran amok in Timor in 1975. That was a joint Whitlam-Fraser f**k-up, they were both culpable.
'John',
OK Dan, I've just wasted 10 minutes of my life trawling through that turgid link you provided.
Lest I waste too much time responding to you, suffice it to say that Adrian Jackson has never complained about being called an antisemite. Most antisemites do, insisting they don't hate Jews, merely countries full of them. Like Hamas, Jackson's honesty is refreshing. You can search his other comments (and mine) on Vexnews if so inclined but I stand by my comments. It's not an accusation I throw around lightly and he's earned it well and truly.
Also, I don't think it's good form to attack ex-service personnel from the supply, support and admin sectors, just because their political views don't match yours.
That's not why Jackson copped it at all. Nice try.
It's not an accusation I throw around lightly and he's earned it well and truly.
Maybe he has, I don't know. But as for you throwing that particular accusation around, well, you called Loewenstein an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist when he hadn't even mentioned the word "Jew". From what I know about Loewy, he's an overrated anti-Zionist tub-thumper, but he's no Jew-hater.
You could, of course, just back up your claims with links or citations. That's what most of us do when making allegations of this nature.
That's not why Jackson copped it at all. Nice try.
Nevertheless, the point remains. It's insulting to those who work in those sections of the military to see their service denigrated, all for the sake of some mud-slinging on a blog.
All you need to know about "Loewy" and Jew-hating:
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/nose_noticed/
Jews are often their own worst enemies. It also might help if Tayshus didn't look so much like those awful caricatures we know from the 1930s!
I'm not sure that suggesting a single person fits the mould of an ugly racial stereotype is anything more than downright offensive to the individual concerned. Loewenstein was attempting to slur Guttman and made a pig's ear of it. Just because he mentioned the Nazis doesn't mean he is one.
If that's 'all you need to know' about his 'Jew-hating', then it's not nearly enough.
you called Loewenstein an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist when he hadn't even mentioned the word "Jew".
So you're saying that as long as the word "Jew" isn't used, a comment can't possibly be antisemitic? How wonderfully convenient.
Swapping the word "Zionist" for "Jew" is a pretty transparent tactic and becoming something of a cliche, rather like prefacing a slur with "I'm not a racist, but..."
It's usually followed by a tired and dishonest argument that Jews run around calling everyone antisemites merely for criticising Israel.
Read this.
So you're saying that as long as the word "Jew" isn't used, a comment can't possibly be antisemitic? How wonderfully convenient.
No, I'm saying that the word "Jew" appears in 99 percent of anti-Semitic material, both then and now. It's pretty hard to slur a racial group without mentioning them.
Swapping the word "Zionist" for "Jew" is a pretty transparent tactic and becoming something of a cliche, rather like prefacing a slur with "I'm not a racist, but..."
Dan, you are talking utter garbage. Swapping the word 'Zionist' for 'Jew' utterly changes the meaning of whatever statement it appears in. It beats me why (a) you think the word is interchangeable (b) why you think you have the right to interpret one as the other, or (c) how you could possibly have knowledge than a writer meant one while using the other.
The meanings of these words are discrete and quite clear. Zionism is a idea or policy position, Jews are an ethno-religious group of people, and Israel is a nation-state. People like you do not have the right to take one to mean the other, just so you can scream wild accusations of racism and anti-Semitism. Though from my observations, this has been a common wingnut tactic for some time.
People are allowed to criticise the policies of the Israeli government, provided it does not use, mention or draw on stereotypes and racial assumptions.
"With regard to Balibo, the real war crime was the US and Australian governments sitting on their hands while Suharto's thugs ran amok in Timor in 1975. That was a joint Whitlam-Fraser f**k-up, they were both culpable."
In a somewhat disturbing confluence I completely agree with you.
Rest assured I'm sure that won't continue on other topics.
"Swapping the word 'Zionist' for 'Jew' utterly changes the meaning of whatever statement it appears in"
You're not as naive to make that statement in the context of Dan's argument surely?
Really? That's quite disappointing if you really believe that, seriously.
"Hopefully you will have a good day too, playing shoot-ems on your x-box"
At a guess you might be a little more experienced in that field. Maybe a 5th dan black belt in World of Warcraft? (inset other game name here)
Alas I'm too busy
'John',
Swapping the word 'Zionist' for 'Jew' utterly changes the meaning of whatever statement it appears in.
Sorry. Intent matters and it's undeniable that plenty of so-called "Anti-Zionists" purport to be against certain Israeli policies, yet have never uttered a peep about equivalent practices in any other country on Earth, except the world's only Jewish state. The fact is that plenty of people use anti-Zionism as a palatable veil for their Jew-hatred. Israel is the 'Jew among nations' and whilst it's still (albeit less) unacceptable to make outrageous claims about Jews, it passes in many circles as normal discourse to make completely outrageous claims about the Jewish state. Swapping the word "Jew" for "Zionist" is a big part of this strategy.
Intent matters.
As Thomas Freedman wrote: "“Criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction–out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle Eas –is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.”"
I'm saying that the word "Jew" appears in 99 percent of anti-Semitic material, both then and now.
I would suggest you do a bit more research on the subject but I'm not holding my breath.
Intent matters.
Yes, but intent needs to be proven with facts and evidence. This is something you have failed to do, both in the case of Adrian Jackson and Loewenstein. You rely on your own words to condemn them, when if they were truly anti-Semitic, their own words would be enough.
It's not enough to say that because a particular person or party concentrates on criticising Israeli policy, but apparently lacks balance because they don't criticise the policies of other nations, then they must be anti-Semitic. Trying to construct a case for anti-Semitism by discussing what people DON'T write about or criticise is a nonsense approach.
I would suggest you do a bit more research on the subject but I'm not holding my breath.
I know more about it than you would think. And unlike you I have actually been to Israel, though admittedly this was many years ago. Based on your irrational conduct on that Vexnews thread, I hardly think you are so well-versed in the subject that you can afford to be patronising.
You're not as naive to make that statement in the context of Dan's argument surely?
I have dealt with Dan's 'argument' in the comment above. I am waiting for Dan to provide some concrete evidence that these people are anti-Semitic, and all he can come up with is "Oh they only ever rubbish Israel - poor Israel!" It's the contemptuous logic of a child.
'John',
I know more about it than you would think. And unlike you I have actually been to Israel
Mazal Tov! You are now totally qualified to become a bestselling author.
By the way, exactly how do you come to a smug statement like that about me? Checked my passport? Rather interesting assumption, no? Any other assumptions you care to make? Mate, for all you know, right now I'm deeeeep in the Mossad headquarters.
John digs deeper:
I am waiting for Dan to provide some concrete evidence that these people are anti-Semitic, and all he can come up with is "Oh they only ever rubbish Israel - poor Israel!"
An interesting use of quotation marks. I'm pretty sure I didn't say that (or think it) but hey, thanks for attributing it to me.
Based on your naive remarks thus far, it would seem nothing short of a person wearing an "Antisemite and Proud" t-shirt would suffice as "proof".
However, having seen you make those two clangers in a single comment, I'd say I'm pretty sure I'll do fine without listening to your free advice on how I should go about proving an argument.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/allen-west-marines-incident-shut-your-mouth-war-hell_616699.html
Perhaps 5th columnists such as "John" can get some perspective by reading the linked newspaper article.
By the way, exactly how do you come to a smug statement like that about me? Checked my passport?
So are you correcting me and telling me you have been to Israel? If you have, I have some questions for you.
An interesting use of quotation marks. I'm pretty sure I didn't say that (or think it) but hey, thanks for attributing it to me.
The tone alone should make it obvious that I was being facetious, paraphrasing and ridiculing your previous stance.
Based on your naive remarks thus far, it would seem nothing short of a person wearing an "Antisemite and Proud" t-shirt would suffice as "proof".
You must be kidding, surely... I'm "anti-Semitic and proud" because I take issue with your wanton and unjustified labeling of others as racist? Get your head out of your arse, son. Just because you post this garbage here and it goes unchallenged 99 percent of the time doesn't mean you have the faintest inkling what you are talking about.
Perhaps 5th columnists such as "John" can get some perspective by reading the linked newspaper article.
I'm not a "fifth columnist" and your link is neither relevant to what is being discussed here, nor particularly enlightening or compelling.
Nice one John. Complete fail. Re-read that t-shirt sentence.
It's a "fail" because someone who uses a convincing nick like 'Lattecat' says it is?
You'll have to do better than that. A lot better.
No, "John". Because Dan did not call you an anti-semite. Let me copy the sentence for you:
"Based on your naive remarks thus far, it would seem nothing short of a person wearing an "Antisemite and Proud" t-shirt would suffice as "proof"."
He is not suggesting that you are wearing such a t-shirt. Only that the only person who you would describe as being an anti-semite was one that was completely blatant about it.
He is not suggesting that you are wearing such a t-shirt.
In that case, my apologies to Lieutenant Dan. I should have read his comment more closely. And perhaps not posted late at night.
Nevertheless his statement is baloney. He wants to indict and defame others as anti-Semitic on the basis of what they don't say, write or post. I say the evidence needs to be clearer than that. I did not say they need to self-identify as anti-Semites or wear t-shirts to that effect.
Not that Danny Boy is averse to attributing to others ideas or views that they have never openly expressed or supported. We're still waiting for him to produce evidence for his claim that Loewenstein supports an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about Jews controlling the world. And for my part, I intend reminding him of it until he either produces this evidence or retracts his allegation.
Post a Comment
<< Home