On Being Angry and Dangerous 892

I learn the interesting news that David Aaronovitch tweeted to Joan Smith and Jenny Jones that I am:

“an angry and dangerous man who could as easily be on the far right as the far left”.

I had no idea I was on the far left, though I suppose it is a matter of perspective, and from where Mr Aaronovitch stands I, and a great many others, look awfully far away to the left. I don’t believe you should bomb people for their own good, I don’t believe the people of Palestine should be crushed, I don’t believe the profit motive should dominate the NHS, I think utilities and railways were better in public ownership, I think education should be free. I guess that makes me Joseph Stalin.

But actually I am very flattered. Apparently I am not just angry – since the invasion of Iraq and the banker bailouts everybody should be angry – but “dangerous”. If I can be a danger to the interests represented by a Rupert Murdoch employee like Aaronovitch, I must have done something right in my life. I fear he sadly overrates me; but it does make me feel a little bit warmer, and hold my head that little bit higher.

892 thoughts on “On Being Angry and Dangerous

1 26 27 28 29 30
  • Steve Cook


    “Steve Cook

    You really worked hard to find those “wise” bits and now are awaiting the answers from the Muslims too?

    Why don’t you just spit on them and be over and done with it?

    You seem to wish to win at any cost, regardless of the divisive and half arsed propositions you have forwarded…..”

    I will ignore the disgraceful impugining of my intentions toward Muslims or anyone else by your outrageous comment in this post.

    I take it you do not dispute the existence of those calls to action in the Quran. That being the case, if you are muslim yourself, do you subscribe literally to them or do you accept that they are merely a piece of history, written by mere men and born of the time they were written, like so much other violent and intolerant language that can be equally found in the bible, and so should not be taken literally.

    If you are not a muslim, why don’t you let one answer for him/herself?

  • technicolour

    Passerby: “What the fuck has Jewish got to do with anything? Why should it be the basis for separation from the rest of the humanity? How come you are insistent on “there are good Jewish people”, and not “good people”?

    Because, as you may not have noticed, there are regular attacks on Jewish people in this country, there have been and still are anti-Jewish movements in this country and Jewish people have been victimised and penalised and murdered just for being of a certain tribe and religion for centuries. You class all the Jewish people living in Israel, whether they were born there, and did not choose to live there, or are trying to fight for a peaceful transition and to stop the killings as the same, do you not? That is reductive, absurd nonsense and potentially displays the same attitude as the blackshirts.

    And no, I am not Jon, or his secretary, or part of a tag team, just another blog reader. I would appreciate an answer to my point about a ‘peaceful transition; and the fact that the last poll found the majority of Israelis in favour of dialogue with Hamas.


  • technicolour

    Steve, in fact the Koran is not clear about apostasy, or what the punishment for apostasy is.

  • technicolour

    But how on earth did this board get from immigrants to Jewish people to Muslim people? I don’t feel happy about this.

  • CE

    Wow, passerby is taking irrational, tribal, anger to new heights. Seriously I don’t know why some of you try and reason with people like that.

    I admire you chutzpah in attempting to smear others as divisive. Irony overload. 😆

  • Steve Cook

    I have a friend who is an apostate, Technicolor, which is why I used it as an example. This person has shown me the relevant texts describing how apostates are to be put to death. There is no ambiguity from what I have seen. There is no ambiguity in this person’s mind either, they were forced to leave their own community as they genuinely feared for their life. They may be typical, they may not. They have assured me, though, that a muslim leaving the faith is extremely rare because of a fear of complete rejection from their community at the very least and downright physical threats and actual physical harm done at worst. For a muslim woman to leave the faith is quite simply unthinkable. This is what I have been told.

    This person also, I should say, defines themself as utterly Muslim. Movingly so, I am bound to say, given the treatment they have suffered. They have told me all about the wonderful aspects of the muslim culture. Much that those of us of European cultural descent, particularly British cultural descent, seem have lost along the way. Mainly centred around family ties and bonds.

    Anyway, you’ll be pleased to know Technicolor, that’s enough of me (for the moment) criticising fundamentalist Islam.

    Next on the agenda, right-wing redneck US fundamentalism. Thing is, though, they’re too damned easy….

    The question I would like you to sincerely ask yourself, though, Technicolor, is this:

    Will you feel less, more, or equally uncomfortable when I have a go at US Christian fundamentalist, than when having a go at Muslim fundamentalists?

    I’d be very interested in your honest answer which I know you’ll give.

  • technicolour

    Thanks, Steve, I know someone here who’s left Islam too, and it has been scary at times, because of the occasional crackpot, but now they’re blossoming, thank goodness. I know of women, too.

    Yes, I’d feel far happier at you having a go at US Christian fundamentalists, since they’re not an oppressed minority there; they’re not the subject of anti-Christian press hysteria and they’re not frequently the target of right-wing hate groups….In any case, I didn’t think your earlier post was directed solely at fundamentalists/extremists – I am quite happy to subject them to merciless analysis – but at religious adherents in general?

    Re apostasy: I’ve looked at a few scholars by the way, and only just at wiki, but it sums up the issues pretty well:

    Mahmud Shaltut, the late Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University argued that a worldly punishment for apostasy was not mentioned in the Qur’an and whenever it mentions apostasy it speaks about a punishment in the hereafter

    S. A. Rahman, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty for apostasy in the Qur’an.

    W. Heffening states that in Qur’an “the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only,” adding that Shafi’is interpret verse [Quran 2:217] as adducing the main evidence for the death penalty in the Qur’an.

    Wael Hallaq holds that “nothing in the law governing apostate and apostasy derives from the letter of the holy text.”

    The late dissenting Shia jurist Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, a significant Shi’a religious authority, stated that the Quranic verses do not prescribe an earthly penalty for apostasy.

    And so on. Hurrah, I say.

  • nuid

    Sorry, folks, I didn’t know the above hassle was going on. I’ve been driving south, incommunicado, and am now ensconsed on the south-east coast.

    I can be impulsive at times (“FFS, Passerby, stop dodging”). But I was indeed interested in what answers Passerby would offer to Jon’s questions (assuming he ever offered any).

    Since Passerby has no time for diplomacy apparently, and likes to tarnish all Israelis (or is it Jews?) with the same brush, I am left to conclude that his response to the problems of Palestine would be the same as that of which he accuses Zionists themselves – guns, bombs, bullets, helicopter gunships, white phosphorus, etc. Would that be correct, Passerby?

    I know who’s engaging in a “pitiful fandango” here and it’s not Jon.

    By the way, I didn’t even know that the next thread existed, but I’ve now sent out all useful links from it – especially Craig’s video obviously – on Twitter this evening. For which many thanks to all.

  • technicolour

    Nuid: I just don’t know how diplomatic I would be if my family were being slowly starved and bombed to pieces; if I were living under a regime which was clearly intent on extirpation. I think, not at all. I am very aware that I am typing from the safety net of a de facto ally of the aggressor.

    Nextus is right; this board can move opinions on. Am thinking we should all be shouting ‘fuckwits’ to the skies.

  • nuid

    “I am very aware that I am typing from the safety net of a de facto ally of the aggressor.”

    Yes, that kind of thing hits me too, Tech. I’m typing from the safety of a little country that doesn’t matter very much to anyone (although we’ve been finding oil and gas off our west coast …)

    But it’s not a far cry from shouting ‘fuckwits’ to throwing petrol bombs, as we know from Northern Ireland, and then you’re into guns and semtex.

    In the end, only talking stopped the bloodshed in the North. The weapons had to be put beyond use.

  • technicolour

    Agreed, but here we ll sit, in the bloodless safety. A (Passerby, note) Jewish friend of mine agrees with him:

    “Keeping the Israeli movement so tame was the chilling effect of the patriotic, state-loyalist discourses that have reached unprecedented prominence in Israeli society in the past few years. Indeed, the movement is best understood as an all-too-brief interlude in Israel’s ongoing move away from democracy… Movement participants avoided at all costs being perceived as “Leftists”—a term which in Israel these days is all-but synonymous with “traitors”—and created deliberate self-censorship that not only silenced any engagement with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also defused confrontation on socio-economic grounds”…

    And the grief in such Israeli movements that Rachel Corrie is remembered (not that they are diminishing her) while countless Palestinian victims are ignored, is counted in tears.

  • Steve Cook


    But it’s not a far cry from shouting ‘fuckwits’ to throwing petrol bombs, as we know from Northern Ireland, and then you’re into guns and semtex.

    In the end, only talking stopped the bloodshed in the North. The weapons has to be put beyond use….”

    It wasn’t talking that stopped the violence. It was a practical realisation by the British authorities that they were never going to “win” coupled with lots of money being thrown at the province in the form of various infrastructure investment. That and the illusory windfall of debt based growth that has afflicted all of us and for which we are all now paying a heavy economic price.

    The “talking” was an after the fact effect, not a before the fact cause. Now that the wealth pot is beginning to run empty due to the global economic downturn, all the old tribal enmities are resurfacing because, of course, they never really went away.

  • technicolour

    Steve: you are right, in a way, having been there. There was a deliberate policy from the UK government during the 90’s to move people in N Ireland from the political to the consumer. The rationale was that if people had Marks and Spencers, and the ability to buy from M&S (and Debenhams etc) they would be far less likely to want to throw bombs.

    This sort of worked, actually, because it is a truth. People would far rather be shopping &, than killing, or supporting killing. It is more agreeable, and fun. And the divisions, which had earlier been promulgated by the very same oppressors, were revealed to be nonsense. We all want smoked salmon fishcakes! We all want a sloganised t-shirt.

    Simultaneously, of course, there was the opening up of education, and the ending of segregation; at least in the colleges, and to a certain extent in the schools. All this led to what Nuid, rightly, calls ‘talking’.

    It was all, also, certainly helped by Mo Mowlam, who, as so few politicans do, reflected, at the ‘top’ of the hierarchy, what the rest of the people were feeling.

    There is no doubt that, as recession bites, people in N Ireland are beginning to get worried again. But it is the gangsters and opportunists who worry them. I think the country has come far enough for it not to fall again for a religious divide, or a political one, or a racial one.

  • technicolour

    hmm, think I’ve just made a (temporary) case for plastic consumerism. now all we have to do is substitute a global hemp economy and we’re on our way.

  • Jon

    @Passerby, okay, so we’re at an impasse. I will welcome your answers to these questions at any point in the future, but for the time being you won’t answer them, even if you insist that you have. You’ve written reams in response, but they were substantial dances around those questions. They were, of course, trivial questions.

    How come you are insistent on “there are good Jewish people”, and not “good people”?

    Good question. My motivation for asking this is to test whether you are willing to agree that there is good and bad in people of all religions and races. To prove you agree with such a statement you should be happy to agree that there are some good Jewish people who are committed to peace, but you can’t (yet) bring yourself to say it.

    FWIW, I haven’t elevated Jewishness as more important than other creeds at all – that’s just a technique you’re using to avoid the question. I think people of all faiths and none (and of all colours) are equally important.

    I’m saddened by this state of affairs, since it means I’m failing to persuade you of the case for even-handed anti-racism. I think at present you’d refuse to support a Jewish group in the quest for peace, even if that meant the possibility of extending Palestinian suffering as a result.

  • Jon


    Nuid: I just don’t know how diplomatic I would be if my family were being slowly starved and bombed to pieces; if I were living under a regime which was clearly intent on extirpation. I think, not at all.

    Oh yes, I do agree with that. I think the psychological pressure of such a situation can easily drive people to desperation (indeed, imo some Israeli policy is predicated on instantiating such a response).

    I am not advising Palestinians or their supporters not to be angry. What I’ve been trying to persuade people of – and especially those of us who type from a position of safety – is that wanting peace and justice for the peoples of both sides will win more ordinary people than the one-sided language of hatred, which I think can perpetuate the situation.

  • nuid

    “It was a practical realisation by the British authorities that they were never going to “win” coupled with lots of money being thrown at the province in the form of various infrastructure investment.”

    So peace was “imposed” from London? You’ve taken the IRA out of the equation, Steve. And the Protestant paramilitaries. If the IRA leadership hadn’t persuaded the grassroots members to put their guns down and leave them down, while the leadership got around a table with the British and the Unionists, they’d have carried on fighting, eventually. As you know, there are dissidents up there now who feel they were let down by Gerry Adams & Co and who would continue the fight today.

    My point is simple: the talking has to happen eventually, or the bloodshed continues. Throwing money at people who are prepared to starve themselves to death for a cause, doesn’t work. Without a power-sharing agreement in the North, things wouldn’t be where they are today. Infrastructure or no infrastructure.

    Anyway, I’m opting out of this thread now, I’m on mini-holiday.

  • technicolour

    Nuid (when you come back, hope you enjoy!) and all – yes, it was silly to try and sum it up like that. The peace process was about far more, including the majority who had always wanted it, represented by people like the amazing Mairead Maguire (formerly Corrigan), who’s now active in the Gaza movement. It was about talking to each other. Martin McGuiness now refers to Protestants as his ‘brothers and sisters’; unthinkable 20 years ago.

  • Fedup

    The most surprising comments have come form Technicolour showing that he/she understands the pernicious mantra of death and destruction that is wreaked upon the Palestinians and the extirpation of the enemies of zionism has finally dawned on him/her.

    Northern Ireland is nothing like the problem of the Occupied Palestine. In northern Ireland, British ‘soldiers never went into the Catholics’ homes and farms and kick them out so that the Protestants could take these over without a penny paid for any of the assets, they had just acquired.

    The sad fact however remains that his/her only objective comment then is drowned in a sea of subjective and crass unconscious drivel of others opining the usual uninformed, almost bordering illiteracy of the facts on the ground in that benighted occupied lands.

    History shall judge harshly, those who collaborated in the ghastly enterprise of extirpation of the Palestinians from their homelands, for no other reason than ziofuckwits coveting the lands and resources of Palestine.

    I concur the language of dissent has been hijacked. As it is seen in this thread, there only exists a one sided and subjective view of the actualities in the occupied Palestine that is biased and favours the ziofuckwits more than any other side engaged in their struggle for their very existence.

    However I must commend Craig Murray, for his integrity and his bravery in tolerating the levels of dissent that has been recorded on the subject form various “offenders” like I, and others.

  • technicolour

    Passerby, thank you. Of course it is understandable. When I was much younger, I was firmly of the opinion that, should my family be killed by terrorists, I would hunt them down and kill them back. Experiencing the reality of murderous violence changed me. Examples of people thinking beyond violence, and finding peace, not only for themselves, but for the wider community changed me. Realising the futility of unending retribution changed me. Someone, no matter how much they suffer, has to say ‘no’ to violence. Or it will be endless.

    The Catholics in Ireland were indeed starved to death, murdered or thrown out of their houses to die by Protestant settlers. Their language and religion was banned. Northern Ireland is built on this history. The peace which has been built has been built because people talked to each other and said ‘no’.

    I don’t know whether you have relatives in Palestine. I don’t know whether you’ve even been there. I don’t know whether your fury comes from personal experience or helplessness at reading about the situation. Either way, I’ve mentioned it before on this thread, but the documentary ‘To Shoot an Elephant’, where the film makers were embedded with a Gazan ambulance crew, might give you some peace. The attitude of the crew is humbling, human and beautiful in its simple desire for the fighting to stop.

    I would appreciate you addressing my points about the majority of Israelis wanting dialogue with Hamas, and the fact that you seem to be classing all people who were born in Israel, and all people who are Jewish, with the minority elected murderers in power. Are you? If so, and if you live in the UK, would it be fair to judge you as Tutu judges Blair?

  • Steve Cook

    I am bound to say, that history does not show that peaceful attempts at negotiations, particularly by the underdog in any conflict, offer any significant degree of success.

    Firstly, aggression, if perpetrated by a sufficiently powerful party, usually pays off. Nearly every nation-state in the world was born on the back of an aggressive imposition. Rarely were they formed on the back of negotiations. Where negotiations take place, it is usually because one or both parties have been forced to the negotiation table due to their not being able to win. And so, yes, negotiation does sometime occur. But only if force does not work first. Even then, such “negotiations” are nothing of the sort. They are terms set by one party and accepted (because they have no choice) by another party.

    It’s a cruel, broken and unfair world and most aggressors only stop their aggression because they are afraid of the consequences, or because they have suffered the consequences.

    The cold, hard, brutal truth is that Israelis (not all of them, of course and certainly not all Jews)) will not stop taking lands that are not theirs nor they will not give back lands they have already taken unless they become sufficiently scared of the consequences or because they have been made to face the consequences.

  • Fedup


    I join with you in thanking Passerby for having stripped the usual language surrounding the issues of the mid east, for us to begin to start some kind of a meaningful dialogue.

    However, I am not sure if your last response is addressed to me or to Passerby?

    Notwithstanding any of the falsity that have come to plague any kind of debate or resolution of the protracted problems in the mid east, let us take a stock of the situation.

    On one side we have a bunch of natives (Palestinians) whom have been stripped off of any means of; defending themselves, feeding themselves, and healing themselves. On the other side we have a bunch of media savvy, politically connected group of operatives whom have joined to aid the new wannabe natives (colonialists/isrealis) with all manner of weapons, ordnance, funds, and above all political cover for their relentless expansionist and aggressive stance on all matters relating to the mid east.

    The sad fact that natives (Palestinians) of the occupied lands have been dehumanised to the extent which even their right to resist the occupation is no longer recognised, as is evident in the responses that have been published to the contentions of Passerby. This erosion of the right to resist invasion and occupation has in turn gone viral, to he extent of threatening the very notions of “sovereignty”, “self determination”, and the right to defend one’s; self, interests, lands, and country.

    This pantographs the disempowerment of we the people, that now the citizen turned into consumers in fact expect some kind of “police” action on the planetary and global levels. This pernicious loss of status from an autonomous and responsible citizen into a dependent and in need of protection consumer is the crowning achievement of the scoundrels and carpetbaggers posing as our political leadership.

    The fact that any Palestinian, Iraqi, Afghan, whom rise up to defend their lands and country, the act of their resistance (their right under Geneva convention) turns these into “terrorists” by default, and thereafter these are not recognised as prisoners of war, and instead they are treated as murdering criminals whom ought to be put to death! In fact Don Rumslfed classified these “illegal combatants” and sent them to Gitmo. Further even debating these issues will put us (here and now) in the cross hairs of the SIS for “encouragement” of “terrorist”.

    These ludicrous notion are the extent of the work of imperialist who find the very notion of anyone rising in self defence ought to be dealt with so harshly that none would dare to follow is the kind of transaction Caligula would have been engaged in the dark ages, and not any political operative in the 21st century. Alas that is the situation we are faced with. However the resultant powder keg that has been created is catered for by ever increasing harsher and more invasive security arrangements set in place along with ever more draconian laws passed into the statute, to sustain the increased security regiment

    The abhorrence of those in arming the Palestinians as good as the isrealis is not based on any other contention than a sinister and pernicious racism/chauvinism/tribalism gone main stream. Seventy years of carnage, and destruction on a defenceless and forgotten people have not yielded any kind of resolve, other than the perverse desire for finishing the job that was started; quicker extirpation of the Palestinians as a whole. This same group will of course baulk at the thoughts of compelling the israleis to disarm to the levels of the Palestinians too. (catch 22)

    There is not a day goes by that “isrealis security arrangements” are not mentioned in our MSM and not referred to as the “gold standards” of security industry practices. The fact that isrealis are only fighting a bunch of unarmed, untrained, ill fed, and ill equipped foe, who have lost any right to self defence by the overarching umbrella of the label of “terrorism” is not mentioned alongside the praise of the “golden standards of security”, and none encouraged to question and or ask any such questions.(new order)

    You have also mentioned the Jewish sources who are on record about the ineffective dissent or any kind of resistance to such an iniquitous state of affairs among the isrealis themselves. The dissidents in isreal have been left to their own devices and they are marginalised by the international community as a whole, because when it comes to isreal, everyone sings from the same hymn sheet, isreal right or wrong is of no importance.

    I have gone on record before, and I do so again, we all are Palestinians now. The emotional bilge that is regurgitated on daily basis is proof of the extent of damage to our rights regardless of our proximity to that shitty strip of land.

    Vanunu was the forerunner of the current batch of whistle-blowers; Assange, fresh faced young man Manning, the eleven years old Taliban, etc. Poor Vanunu is ending his days in some church having renounced his Jewish faith spent most of his live in solitary confinement, and in jail to be released with no rights of communication with the outside world and any deviations soon put him back into isreali jails.

    Vanunu took the brave step of outing the nuclear weapons in ownership of a bunch of fuckwits with a very sketchy record and plenty examples of recourse to use of excessive force. However to find that instead of his kind of dissident getting debated, or helped we are debating to encourage the ongoing charade by helping a bunch of tame operatives giving the impression of “dissent” in the face of the ever increasing recourse of the ziofuckwits to application of copious force.

    This is the height of hypocrisy to find the “rebels” in Syria getting help from all and sundry including the promises of direct intervention by the NATO, yet any notion of arming the Palestinians somehow generates a huge number of indignant replies, and direct intervention in case of helping the Palestinians is to appoint the most corrupt bastard coming down the chute as the boss/manager/envoy who handles their allocated funds.

    What say you Technicolour?

  • Jon


    The most surprising comments have come form Technicolour showing that … the extirpation of the enemies of zionism has finally dawned on him/her.

    It is interesting to discuss with you here, but I think you should have been called out on this. Tech has demonstrated a keen awareness of the cruelty of the occupation for at least as long as she has been posting here, and I’d wager much longer than these last few years. There has been no “sudden dawning” of Israeli cruelty upon her.

    Like Passerby, you have managed to write many paragraphs restating what we already know, and very little indeed on what you would do to solve the situation. However, eagle-eyed readers will spot a couple of clues: a sentence about “rising in self defence” and your complaint about “the abhorrence of … arming the Palestinians”. Why beat about the bush if this is what you believe?

    Perhaps I would be right in assuming that Passerby takes the same view? Again, fine; I think it is politically impossible given the US position, but okay.

    With that (I think) established, what would be the military objective? How would money and arms be obtained? How would they be delivered to militants? Would you wait for the US position to change first, so that a quietly US-approved Israeli carpet-bombing of Gaza was not be the end result? Do you imagine that Iran would get dragged in? Should they? How would you discourage Israel from using their nuclear weapons as a last-stab retaliatory action?

    It seems to be that you need the (US) political wind to completely reverse in order for your approach to be worth considering, but then if they did change (with the genuine isolation of Israel outside the international community) then imo peace would take its course without the violence I think you are recommending.

  • Jon

    Addendum – in asking what the military objective would be, I should clarify: 1967 lines, 1948 lines, or the expulsion of Israel entirely? I’d appreciate a unequivocal response if you wouldn’t mind – there is no point in you stating your views if your position remains unclear afterwards.

  • Steve Cook

    I think Israel should, at the very least, be forced back to the 67 borders and, ideally, be forced back to the 48 borders.

    However, as long as the USA calls the global shots in that area it isn’t going to happen. And so the Palestinians will continue to suffer and that part of the world will continue to be an open sore on the world of humans.

    What we can at least do, though, is call a spade a spade and admit that the Palestinians are suffering an appalling crime against them, that we are helpless to do anything about it and that they will continue to suffer.

    What I find unbearable, though, is when we Western, comfortable liberals speak of things like “peace” and “negotiations” and how such concepts are the only solution. It seems to me, these concepts are trotted out as means of salving our consciences in the absence of actually being able to DO anything useful. Similarly, the labelling of Palestinians who refuse to “negotiate” and who fight back, however futile the attempt, as being terrorists is an outrage. Again, though, this is part of the internal logic of cognitive dissonance resolution by bleeding heart liberals and it just needs to stop.

    The hard and inescapable truth is that successive Israeli authorities have committed ethnic cleansing and a slow-motion genocide for 70 odd years on the Palestinians and will continue to do so as long as the USA remains a globally powerful player and continues to have an interest in propping up Israel.

    And there is absolutely nothing we can do about it short of storming parliament since our political establishment is committed to supporting the Yanks come what may.

  • Passerby

    Recollecting that the language of dissent itself has been hijacked.

    Evidently before anyone can engage in a debate concerning the ziofuckwits, there is a necessity for the individuals to pass the test of ; stating where they stand with respect to the issues arising from the ziofuckwits making. I am glad that I have not been the only one singled out to affirm or deny my stance alone, and there are others who are invited to do same too.

    Can anyone else discern the Kafkaesque undertone of this modality of debate?

    Or is that in my head too?

    Although there are those who would contend this is a legitimate mode of debate, but the rhetorical question arising remains; should all debate regards the seventy odd years and still current fuckwit farrago in that shitty strip of land ought to be limited only to this singular mode of debate?

    However, given that it appears our debate has come to an impasse, which is a logical event, because not all debates need to be concluded in some kind of agreement or resolution. Although every debate ought to be used as a means of exchange of views and ideas, therefore, it behoves us all not to discourage the discourse underway by objections at the lengthy comments, given the fact that not everyone is endowed with a sixth sense of knowing what others know or do not know about this particular ongoing fuckwit farrago.

    This uncertainty could be attributed to the “limited and tolerated” boundary of the domain of discourse to have become so obtuse/narrow/sensitive, that some even go so far as refusing to enter any kind of debate about it as in the case of Simon Jenkins (Journalist of the Year, Columnist of the Year and has won the Edgar Wallace and David Watt awards.) whom openly shuns any kind of debate on this subject. Is this a healthy outcome of such rigorous policing of the boundaries of the subject matter? On the other hand is this the final effrontery of the ziofuckwits that have cowed the planet from even entering any debate on their ghastly conduct and endless aggression in pursuit of land theft and plunder?

    Taking you forwarded points; (not addressed to me, but in the spirit of discourse)

    Do you imagine that Iran would get dragged in? Should they? How would you discourage Israel from using their nuclear weapons as a last-stab retaliatory action?

    These are moot points, ziofuckwits have been threatening Iran with war for the last few years (soon as Iraq war was started), and of late their shrill rhetoric has been given column inches in the various “media” that any day now they will attack Iran with or without the US sanctions. Further given the fact that nuclear ziofuckwitstan is intent on attacking a non nuclear nation, which is not even in its immediate neighbourhood but in the general vicinity, is of no consequence to any of the articles that wax lyrical about the impending attacks on “nuclear Iran”. Fact that you have pointed out the nuclear attack scenario only further highlights the extent of the brutality of a regime that has no red lines in its make up, and is prepared to commit untold carnage in the way of hanging onto its supremacy. Do you seriously think there would exist among these crazed zealots enough resistance to change its maniacal course of conduct? (talk about the gift that never stops giving.)

    Also you ask;

    Would you wait for the US position to change first, so that a quietly US-approved Israeli carpet-bombing of Gaza was not be the end result?

    The recycling of the US tax dollars via (AIPAC) for the benefit of the US amen corner (Capitol Hill to the rest of us) residents, will make it highly improbable to kill off their golden goose, for the sake of ; “crappy Justice for some shitty sand niggers”. Therefore US changing its stance is akin to awaiting for the hell to freeze over too. Furthermore, given the plight of Gazza residents; facing a constant state of hunger, thirst, with almost half of the children showing advanced signs of malnutrition, cooped up in an open air concentration camp, without much electricity, sewerage, oil and gas, leading miserable lives, perhaps a quick and speedy death would be a welcome change after all.

    Fact is ziofuckwits have have shown time and again their unbounded capacity for cruelty and mass murder, whether it is Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians, Lebanese, or nuking Iranians. Is it not time for us in the wider world to start making a stance and change the language of dissent, and the course of public opinion? Are we to be cowed for ever by letting the hijacked language of dissent to limit our debate to the current levels of inane drivel whilst real human blood is being split and real lives shattered, and real victims’ screams are not heard, or real victims’ blood, shit and piss mix is not smelt?

    As was the case with that infamous war criminal, whom commands huge sums for his speaking engagements these days. The language of dissent had been hijacked by the very moles of the establishment set as ordinary people; paraded on the current affairs on the telly and asked; “do you believe Tony Blair knowingly mislead the parliament?” the mandatory answer to which was; “no I do not!”, however blah, blah, blah….. History shall judge everyone of these as war enablers, and lackeys who took the silver pieces to let the dogs of war to wreak havoc on Iraq, and Iraqis. Fact is Afghan war was not the end, Iraq war was not the end, then there was Libya, currently Syria, and the talks of war in Iran has never left the current affairs programs without any length of absence.

    Therefore to expect that Iran is the end game is only the product of inane naivety, because after that there is Turkey, Pakistan, Russia, and China, shaping the world as per the myopically zealot operatives whom have no empathy for any group other than their own little clique.

    Enough of self censorship and fear, and intimidation, let us all shout wrong is wrong regardless of the credentials of those whom commit the wrong and their standing. Because Doctor Peter Bartlett the Royal Ascot Dr was a wife beater somehow Queen ought not be offended if the world at large shuns him and calls him for what he was; a low life wife beater.

    No more speaking in code and dancing around the issues, the genocide in Palestine is wrong, the ongoing expectations of a peaceful outcome are only the product of the sick imaginations that is designed to buy more time for the ziofuckwits to accomplish their mandated mission: extirpation of all Palestinians.

  • Jon


    there is a necessity for the individuals to … [state] where they stand with respect to the issues… every debate ought to be used as a means of exchange of views and ideas … no more speaking in code and dancing around the issues

    Indeed. But not only have you avoided my last set of questions to you, you have produced another metric tonne of verbiage in which you “address” my new questions and then fail to give any clear answers to them too. Impressive and frustrating.

  • Steve Cook

    Passersby, you make much noise but say not very much. Distilled, what you are saying is:

    * Israelis are fuckwits

    * Israelis are bad

    * Israelis are murdering, pillaging and plundering Palestinian’s lands

    * what the Israelis are doing is wrong

    * We should not give the Israelis any more excuses for their behaviour. Nor should we have given them any in the first place.

    Well, no shit Sherlock. It may surprise you to know that quite a few people here, myself included, agree with all of that. The problem I have with you, though, is that is all you are saying.

    Ever more rabidly expressed repetition does not advance an argument, it does not advance the truth as you see it in the minds of others.

    It is pointless, literally.

  • Steve Cook

    Having said the above, if you, yourself, are a Palestinian you may be forgiven any amount of rabid repitition.

    Are you a Palestinian?

  • technicolour

    Passerby, Fedup, I think – does it matter what I think? I think that you are right and that we should make a much louder noise about Palestine, and about USUK slaughter in general: as Hunter S Thompson put it: ‘I piss down the throats of these Nazis’. But then, of course, he shot himself.

    I do not live in Gaza. Nor will they let me visit. In reality, I loved the women surrounding the IDF, and disempowering them. I love anything which sticks two fingers up at this deathly dialogue you summarise so clearly. I still think that the way forward is to reach over the walls, join hands, and tear them down.

1 26 27 28 29 30

Comments are closed.