Rick Reuben wrote: ...because Zionists and Jews lie about their power in banking and attack everyone who points it out.

Don't ya get it, shit for brains? This is the blanket statement that proves you to be an anti-semite. No different than throwing a blanket statement at any race or religion. So you're an anti-semite. Good for you. I could really give 2 shits if you are anti-jew or not. Doesn't affect me in the least. I just want to make it abundantly clear to anyone who reads your shit who you really are.

Now explain to me how the Protocols of Tom are any different than the Protocols of Zion.

And since you glossed over this one.....

Unblinking Eye wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote: based on one attack allegedly perpetrated by 19 Muslim hijackers

Oooh, is this the part where you tell us where the guys that are accused of the hijackings are actually still alive? I fucking love this one.

...and back to the dancing.

Bob has firmly crossed the line into racism.

Rick Reuben wrote: ...because Zionists and Jews lie about their power in banking and attack everyone who points it out.

Unblinking Eye wrote:Don't ya get it, shit for brains? This is the blanket statement that proves you to be an anti-semite.

Didn't you think for a minute, any banker would lie about their power if pressed to explain? Whether it be Jew, Italian, English, Arab, what have you.
I'm not even here to defend anyone, but this flame inducing shit has to stop.

If you read any of the numerous threads about Banking, Federal Reserve, etc. there's nothing remotely anti-semitic in any of the posts. There's massive condemnation of the banking system, obviously, but there's nothing against a particular ethnicity.

Skronk, look at your post above. Look at the first line you quoted, and then your reply.

Isn't that an anti-Semitic thing to say, to generalize like that?

Alone, out of context, it is anti-semitic. But, if you look at all previous posts by Clocker, like:

Rick Reuben wrote: If fanatical Muslim haters are able to sell the world on a War On Terror based on one attack allegedly perpetrated by 19 Muslim hijackers, then I will point to other criminal organizations ( namely the Federal Reserve and other central banks ) and to the Jewish/Zionist overrepresentation in top roles in banking as prime evidence of why Zionists are dangerous.

It's obvious Clocker is against Zionism, not the Jewish ethnicity.

Rick Reuben wrote: It's not a vast Jewish conspiracy, you idiot, it's a vast banking conspiracy- I condemn everyone who participates in it.

Now Bob is Milton Friedman, Art Bell and David Irving rolled into one.

Jews and Zionists, Jews and Zionists, Jews and Zionists. Taxi for Rick Reuben.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Unblinking Eye wrote:Yet you only mention the religions of the Jews.

The religion is money. That's the only religion I criticize. I point out how many Zionists and Jews hold power in banking because Zionists and Jews lie about their power in banking and attack everyone who points it out.

... snip ...

Someday, if Jews and Zionists hold only 2.5% of the jobs in the evil worlds of banking and finance and speculative markets and corporate insurance, I will no longer have to point out their aberrant involvement in those worlds.

A number of times including the above Bob, I mean Rick, uses the phrase "Jews and Zionists." So it's *not* just about Zionists for him...it really is about Jews.

The oldest paranoia/bigotry in the books.

Moving on to the personal...

I learned a long time ago that people tend to project faults in other people that they secretly see in themselves. And the deeper the problem is in them, the more shrill they become as they accuse others.

So when people like Bob, I mean Rick, screech obviously false accusations at me with such venom...my being a liar or a racist for example...I'm pretty sure I know what that really means.

Rick Reuben wrote: If 9/11 is to be used as proof that Muslims are dangerous and that they are infected with malicious intent, then I will cite central banking and the war crimes of the IDF as proof that Jews and Zionists are dangerous and infected with malicious intent.

Except most reasonable people *don't* say 9/11 is proof of *anything* having to do with Muslims. I certainly don't.

What it does demonstrate, however, is that fanatics like al Qaeda are dangerous and infected with malicious intent.

I would no more pass judgement on Muslims based on al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks than I would pass judgement on Christians based on Timothy McVay's attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma.

Earwicker, I'm doing this quickly and it's a bit hard to pull your signal out of the noise here...

I understand why you still think invasion of Iraq/removal of Saddam was a good thing but it seems to neglect one important fact which is why Rick has taken to writing in big bold letters like his cousin.

The fact is this - you cannot separate the action from the intent. No matter how much you might like to.

If the question is "Did George Bush make the right decision regarding Iraq" I would have to consider his intentions.

If the question is "Was invading Iraq the right thing to do?" then I would have to consider whether there was any way such an action could be justified by anyone.

Bush haters want to focus on the first, and I understand that.

I'm talking about the second question, and I wish that was better understood.

In terms of combative contemporary politics the first might seem to be more important.

In terms of an ethical analysis, or simply learning a lesson that goes beyond the critique of a single (admittedly powerful) man, the second is more important.

Shifting to the gist of what I think your other question is...

There is no doubt that what is happening now in Iraq is a tragedy. But it's not clear that the alternative, leaving Saddam and Sons in power for another 50 years, and *then* having the Iraqi people work out their tribal demons, would have been better.

If the Iraqi people had to have a brutal civil war before they could pass into a brighter future, better to get it over with sooner than later.

I'm hard pressed to think of a free country today that didn't have to go through something similar on the way to getting there.

galanter wrote:If the Iraqi people had to have a brutal civil war before they could pass into a brighter future, better to get it over with sooner than later.

I'm hard pressed to think of a free country today that didn't have to go through something similar on the way to getting there.

The first distinction that needs drawing out is that this transition was forced upon Iraq by external parties fueled by a combination of ideology and national self-interest.

You may wish to debate the latter motivation, but the plethora of equally murderous and destructive administrations that still exist unimpeded (and often supported by our governments) in countries without such economic resources and strategic importance destroy the moral argument, in my eyes.

Our governments have been somewhat useless on Darfur, North Korea, Pakistan, etc etc. Given the draconian human rights curtailments that our governments have pursued (which have had very real everyday consequences, as at least a couple of this forum's very good-natured and sound members could testify), I harbour doubts that any unsympathetic countries would attribute any moral currency to our fine words about democracy and fairness, anyway.

The only argument that worked for me at the time of the invasion was the WMD/UN defiance point, for which I will always feel an idiot for accepting in the run-up and immediate aftermath of the war.

Back to the distinction: who were we to dictate to the Iraqi people the timing of violent usurpation and the form the replacement should take?

The second distinction is that the "who's-to-know-it-wouldn't-have-been-worse-without-the-invasion" argument is flimsy. This is largely because it is a poor excuse for current horror. Furthermore, honestly speaking I cannot think of any mean-minded future dictator having handled a violent transition worse. The overnight dissolution of Iraq's civil, legal and security institutions was beyond hamfisted; it was catastrophic.