My Photo

From the
Fascist's Mouth

What I'm Reading


« Dec. 10 is National Gay the Day Away Day | Main | Book Review: Ann Bimbot Coulter's Guilty »


feelthelove's twin

Talk about being desperate to make a point! Accuse me of lying without proof, from the mariana trench no less! What is she on now, her fiftieth sock? Still can't address anything substantive but resorts to name if calling me a liar going to prove what? What do you hope to prove by calling me a liar, trenchmouth?

UN Doctor

Hamas rocket destroyed

Watch the launcher get destroyed. It is not clear if Israel fired or not...but note that the location of the launcher was at a SCHOOL, on the 8th of January, just a few days ago. Interesting that I was accused of lying, by people who are unware of the meaning of the word 'honest' and 'truth.' I am sure there are more videos proving my point.

Good night again, all.


That wouldn't be the IDF YouTube propaganda Channel
that '24' told you about, would it, Feelthelove??

LOL ... UN Doctor my ass ...


"Good night again, all."

G'night Cricket


For the record (a technical point) videos can be edited very easily by people who know what they are doing -- and have the technical resources that Israel has.
And, at "the Rott", they're making fun of a video where a 12-year-old boy was killed on the roof of his house in Gaza, by a rocket from an Israeli drone. In fact they're making filthy remarks about it. The Gaza video was made by a cameraman who was filming for Channel 4 in the UK and filmed his own 12 year old brother in the hospital before he died.

Just sayin' ..


Did someone accuse feelthelove's twin of being a liar?

(and who is mariana? do I know her?)


"but note that the location of the launcher was at a SCHOOL"
(UN Doctor)

How would you know it was a school if the IDF hadn't written all over the video?
Just wonderin'..

Intellectual Conservative

Um, they're making fun of the video because of the obvious telltales the video is fake. I'll cite just two, no, three of them (and yes I have seen the video)

1. The so called dried blood in fact dried red in the video. Real blood dries more of an off black.
2. The use of CPR in the video was also open to question, because the so called doctor in the video didnt even know how to administer CPR
3. The 'rocket attack' that the IDF did didn't even so much as knock over a lawn chair, but, presto, a little innocent kid gets killed. Let me give you a little scenario here .. Let's assume for a moment that the IDF did do AGM (air-ground munitions) on the site in question. You'd have a hell of a lot more damage than what was evident. Even for a small, 2.75 inch unguided rocket .. you'd have a nice gaping hole, etc. None of which was really evident from the video.

I could go on, with other items as to why a trained doctor would do CPR on someone who had already suffered brain death, when there were no advanced facilities around to provide follow on care, but the so called doctor not even knowing how to do CPR is a rather telltale sign there's fakery afoot. And you also have the dad showing little if any emotion right after the son died.

And as for propaganda, um, both sides are putting vids up on YouTube. Or are you unaware of this?



"Um, they're making fun of the video because of the obvious telltales the video is fake. I'll cite just two, no, three of them .." (IC-scammer)

Um, don't bother. I read it.
And as another poster at the Rott said, they're not "obvious".
Stay at the Rott, you lying fraud of an "IT Pro". It suits you.


Um, uh ... smirk, uh ...

UN Doctor

That wouldn't be the IDF YouTube propaganda Channel
that '24' told you about, would it, Feelthelove??

LOL ... UN Doctor my ass ...

Posted by: . | January 12, 2009 at 03:38 PM

No, it would not, as I got it in my email. You see, your assumptions are what makes you so undebate worthy. You are going to believe what you want regardless. This makes you dishonest and ignorant, which makes you want to and frequently accuse others of doing and being the same. Rather pathetic.

Un Doctor

It was not IDF, it was IAF, Israeli Air Force. I said I wasn't sure because when I clicked on the vid link, it skipped through the beginning, so I had to go to YouTube and watch it. Some observations here about my comment that I STATED was opinion and speculation; Hamas is, to all intents and purposes, launching missiles from schools and storing weapons in mosques. While I said Israel would not fire on those targets, apparently from the video they will. One then has to ask the question of WHY would Hamas store or fire weapons in mosques or from schools? Propaganda, perhaps? Was the school evacuated? No one has brought that up so if anyone can, and be TRUTHFUL (this means 24, dot, megapix need not respond. Nothing personal, but I seriously doubt you could EVER be objective) I would appreciate seeing it.

Intellectual Conservative

Um, moron, I've forgotten more about technology than you'll ever even learn.

As for your comment about tracking IPs, again, you change what I said to suit you. I never once said they don't track IPs here. What I DID say is you have to sign up for an account at The Rott, and they track it more formally there, so if someone wants to vomit there it's easy to block them. I also spelled out, in detail here, the way someone (legally) gets someone's information based on tracking. There are other less than legal ways to do it,, but to be perfectly honest, you aren't worth the grief that would cause.

And I find it amusing as hell you're actually looking at different points of view by going over to The Rott. One day, you may actually sprout a brain cell.



All you rethugs are missing the point. This whole thing is about forgiveness. We should be big-hearted enough to forgive Hamas for the destruction and death they've caused. We need to forgive terrorists who hide behind civilians so they can reap the PR benefits of casualties inflicted by retalitory strikes. Forgiveness, people. Try not to be such bloodthirsty a-holes. Try seeing through the right wingnut rhetoric. For Gaia's sake, break out of your radical right indoctrination.

Unless we're talking about conservative characatures, or anti-israeli propaganda, which are completely accurate and should be taken at face value. Forgive the US/Bushitler? Not on your life! I hope all you righties die horribly in a fire and then spend eternity in your own fictional hell roasting.

Compassionately yours,


African Moonbat

BBC News "What is the human and economic cost of the war?

The conflict has killed an estimated 70,000 people, displaced thousands more and held back the island's growth and economic development."

They are talking about the conflict that has the entire world riveted and has lead to mass demonstrations across the globe. (Sarc Off)

Why is it that when the Israelis and Hanas/Hezbollah have a go at each other, the entire world, droolers and non-droolers alike, get themselves into a froth?

Yet, on the island of Sri Lanka there is a war that has killed more people, led to incredible suffering and nobody seems to care less. Why is that?

Arctic Monkey

"Six-step guide to 'justifying atrocities'"

1. Why are you saying this? Always begin by questioning the motives of those who draw attention to unfortunate incidents such as the shelling of schools, the blocking of ambulances, the placing of bombs in restaurants, the firing of rockets into towns etc. They are anti-Semites, anti-Irish, anti-Islam – whatever. Even when you know the charge to be untrue, make them deny it.

If confronted with an obviously independent, respected and neutral organisation – the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, a UN agency – react more in sorrow than anger. Accept that they are acting for the best motives, but regret that they have been cynically manipulated by evil forces. This gives you a double whammy – the implication that your critics are stupid and another cynical abuse to chalk up against your enemies.

2. What about . . .? What about 800 years of oppression? What about Hamas’s charter? What about Cromwell? What about the Holocaust? What about the H-Blocks? What about the rockets? It is true, of course, that logic dictates that revulsion at one atrocity should apply to all others. Unless “we” are innately superior to “them” (we are, but let’s not go there), the same standards have to apply. But your job is not about logic – it’s about emotion and distraction. What-aboutery generates passionate indignation and, more importantly, means that you don’t have to actually address what you’ve done. This, remember, is your primary task – to fill the airwaves or the newspapers with everything except an actual engagement with the atrocities.

3. They did it themselves. Yes, we pulled the trigger, dropped the bomb, fired the shell, aimed the rocket, strapped on the explosives. But none of this would have happened if they hadn’t partitioned Ireland, refused to recognise the state of Israel, voted for Sinn Féin, voted for Hamas . . . and so on. Repeat the phrases “inevitable consequence” and “unavoidable tragedy”. Use them often enough and your actual human agency will completely disappear. Murder is really suicide.

4. We gave a warning. We left a coded message saying that the bombs were about to go off. We dropped leaflets from the sky telling civilians to evacuate the area. Maybe the warning was a little imprecise or a little late. Maybe, when they evacuated one side of the town, we exploded car bombs in the area they ran into. Maybe, when they sought refuge in schools flying the UN flag, we shelled those buildings too. But we gave a warning.

5. There is no morality, only “moralising”. Morality is an awkward bugger in these circumstances, not least because it can play hell with your own conscience. There is, thankfully, an almost magical solution – the beautiful word “moralising”. It transforms that nasty stuff about right and wrong into a contest between insufferable prigs (them) and clear-eyed realists (you). It shifts the ground from the atrocities you have committed or supported to the psychological flaws of those who get upset about them – all with the addition of five little letters. For advanced practitioners, “moralising” may be combined with “grandstanding” in a contemptuous sweep like “the throng of moralising grandstanders”, but it generally requires at least a university professorship to pull off such a comprehensive dismissal of international humanitarian law.

6. We are at war with them to save ourselves. We have to do it to them before they do it to us. Other neat formulations include: “Here, just as generally, humanity would amount to the greatest cruelty towards our own people”; “The only way to cope with them is to treat them with the necessary brutality. If you spare them, you’ll later be their victim”; and “If we didn’t fend them off, they would annihilate us.” These latter phrases, nicely turned though they are, need to be used with caution and not in front of historically literate audiences who might recognise their origins in early 1940s Germany. If anyone should point out such parallels, however, see point one.

Used in the right combination, these simple devices can generate a surprising amount of obfuscation, distraction and misinformation. Other devices, like controlling the flow of information by keeping journalists out and downright, barefaced lies, are useful but not strictly necessary.


Aronson's guide for the godless
A WSU prof contemplates America as a not-so-religious nation

By W. Kim Heron & Curt Guyette

Editor's note: Readers can discuss this interview and the questions it raises in the comment section at the end of this article. Author Ron Aronson will be checking our comment board for a dialogue with readers in the coming days.

It began seriously with publication of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, which became a best-seller for a previously obscure neuroscience grad student named Sam Harris. And it's grown into what Wayne State University professor Ron Aronson calls "a remarkable intellectual wave." What "it" is doesn't have a simple name, but involves questioning and sometimes attacking religion; it especially involves a questioning of the increasing role that religion has taken in American public life in recent decades. The wave includes philosopher Daniel C. Dennett calling for the scientific investigation of religion in Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. It includes the acerbic journo Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything) and the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion). Bill Maher recently added his two cents with the film Religulous.

Living Without God (Counterpoint), Aronson's contribution to the wave, was published late last year. It brooks no argument with religion as religion, but it challenges how the religious right has warped our politics in recent times. Mostly it considers how folks on the liberal left who aren't religious can nonetheless root their politics and passions in something larger themselves. It's a book that's won blurb-praise from both the activist-theologian Cornel West and the aforementioned Hitchens, as well as from author Barbara Ehrenreich.

Aronson is a distinguished professor of the history of ideas at Wayne State University and the author of books on Marxism, Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. When he recently dropped by the MT offices in downtown Detroit to talk about his book, he reminded us that, along with being an author, academic and activist, he'd been Metro Times' original restaurant critic, leading, he recalled, to an article — when his first book came out — headlined "From Sauces to Sartre."

MT: At Borders the other day we saw this little section of about a dozen books for atheism, agnosticism, etc., at the end of all the religious books. As best we could figure, it was less than 2 percent of the books about religion, but these were all books from the last 10 years or so. It seems like there's a movement — even if it doesn't have any name — and that your book is part of it. What exactly is it and why now?

RON ARONSON: It's not clear it's a movement yet, and it's interesting to watch it. You've got a few writers who are fed up with the religiosity of the last, really the last generation, going back to Reagan, going back to the religious right. We've had this generation of in-your-face religiosity and one of the things that I'm interested in and write about is the fact that secularists have become so timid.

You compare that with going back 125 years, with what Susan Jacoby calls the golden age of American free thought, where we had people like Robert Ingersoll traveling from city to city on trains, with thousands of people turning out to hear him. This is in the 1880s. Ingersoll would have become president had he not been an atheist. Well, he was actually an agnostic, but he had his reputation for attacking religion and promoting free thought. Those were the days of a real optimistic, self-confident view that religion was declining and the future was going to be a happy future because we were getting smarter. People were leaving religion behind. People were becoming more educated. Society was more democratic, more scientific and, for many of them, more socialist — that was an important part of the current. And all of that optimism gave nonbelievers a sense that the future was ours, believing, like Ingersoll himself said, that there is the angel of progress and we are riding on the wings of progress.

I grew up with that sense of progress, the sense that the world was getting better sort of by itself. All sorts of people, whether on the left or the right, believed the world was getting better, and part of the reason it was getting better was because we were becoming more secularist. In April 1966 you had a very stark Time magazine cover with the headline "Is God Dead?" and, a few years later, you had John Lennon singing "Imagine" — imagine a world without religion. The world was getting better, and part of what was propelling it was the idea that there was going to be no more religion.

MT: And now?

ARONSON: So now here we are after the turn of the next century and the world doesn't seem to have gotten better. In many respects it has gotten worse, and people's optimism about the future seems to have gone away. Part of the reason for that optimism for many sophisticated, educated, politically hip people was that religion was ending. But religion didn't end, the world didn't get better. And people like me, I think we became timid. Plus the religious right, starting with Reagan, spawned this sense of feverish certainty on the part of religious people. I just happened to be listening to a right-wing talk radio station yesterday, and they were talking about lesbian parents and their sinfulness, and there was this amazing sense of we are right. I don't know anybody from the center on over to the left who believes with that kind of certainty anymore.

I believe in science. I believe in history. I believe in logic. I believe in human beings, through discourse, getting to what's true. But I can't thunder down and pound my fists and say, "You guys are wrong." I just don't do that.

MT: One of the things you point out early in your book is that most people have a skewed perception of how religious America really is, and how many people really fall under the broad umbrella of secularism.

ARONSON: If you look at surveys done by the Gallup Organization, for example, you get that 92 percent of the people believe in God, 5 percent say they don't and 3 percent aren't sure. But I recently wrote an opinion piece for USA Today where I contended that nonbelievers are really a much larger share of the population.

In reality, and other polls show this, one-quarter to one-third of Americans are not religious. I'll give you a mind-boggling statistic that nobody has mentioned but me. In a massive Pew Poll, when people were asked, "Where do you primarily get your morality from" — and they are given a list of areas that includes religion, daily life experience, reasoning, philosophy, science to chose from — only 29 percent of Americans overall say they get their morality from religion. Only 29 percent! That's astounding. What it means is that more than two-thirds of Americans have a secular morality.

Now, if you are talking with friends and you say, "I don't believe in God," what's the first issue that comes up constantly? They ask, "How can you be sure you are moral without God?" It's a constant theme. I get that from my students all the time. Well, it turns out that most Americans don't get their morality from religion, and to me what that's saying is that most Americans are really secular despite the fact that some among us go to church, believe in God. I find that absolutely fascinating, because when people talk about the 92 percent who say they believe in God, I want to say, "Come on. What percent really say they are guided by God?"

MT: But our culture is such that, to move in public life, you have to assume that the 92 percent is a reality, and that you need to act like you are part of it.

ARONSON: Yes, you assume the 92 percent is real. So when you have Obama here on Labor Day, in a speech that was cut to nine minutes because of Hurricane Gustav, he mentions God and prayer six times in nine minutes. And he closes by asking everyone to join in silent prayer for the potential victims of the hurricane. There are 100,000 people in the audience. What percentage doesn't believe in God? But let's say 10,000 people — instead of saying, "Hey, why should we pray?" — just sort of quietly bow, because we're in this religiously correct culture.

Guided by God?

MT: You mentioned earlier the certainty of believers compared to what you see as timidity on the part of nonbelievers. On one side there is this authoritarian mind-set — these are our rules and everybody's going to follow them. Whereas liberals, in the broad sense of the word, have this attitude of live and let live.

ARONSON: So, are you going to go to the barricades with that outlook? That's our political issue. Actually, I talk about that in the last chapter of this book, and that stays with me, I think, into my next book. The question for us is, how do we have as much passion and strength of conviction and willingness to struggle? In terms of writing the book, I was convinced that a religious worldview does not give you any more powerful convictions than a secular one. It's just that, if we're secular, we're not supposed to be sure, and we agree with live and let live — but we're not supposed to feel as strongly and we're also supposed to be taken in a little by someone like Camus, who says that we're on our own as individuals, and that the world is absurd and we can't really make sense of it. Part of why I wrote the book was to say that's wrong. We don't have to believe in God to see the world as meaningful and coherent. We can be as committed, and our lives can be as powerfully directed, as anyone who has the most powerful belief in God.

MT: Because we can believe in the rightness of the cause?

ARONSON: Yes, we can believe we're doing right, but it's a different kind of right. It's not authority-based. And, secondly, we can believe that we're part of a historical process that gives the world its meaning, and we are part of that process. I want to write another book about the historical process and say, "Wait a second! Look at how much humans have created over time to make the world a better place. We don't have to figure out where we belong. The place is there waiting for us, and you just have to see it..." .... (more)


Pro-Israel Rally Attended by Big-Time NY Dems Descends into Calls for 'Wiping Out' Palestinians

Attendants of a rally attended by Sen. Chuck Schumer and Gov. David Paterson in support of Israel's attacks on Gaza went far beyond the pale

Watch Max Blumenthal's exlusive video of the rally on the right-hand side of the screen.

On January 11, an estimated 10,000 people rallied in front of the Israeli consulate in midtown New York in support of Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip. The rally, which was organized by UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York in cooperation with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, featured speeches by New York’s most senior lawmakers. While the crowd was riled to righteous anger by speeches about Hamas evildoers, the event was a festive affair that began and ended with singing and joyous dancing.

Sen. Chuck Schumer highlighted Israel’s supposed humanitarian methods of warfare by pointing to its text messaging of certain Gaza Strip residents urging them to vacate their homes before Israeli forces bombed them. “What other country would do that?” Schumer shouted from the podium. Gov. David Paterson appeared on stage wearing one of the red hats distributed to demonstrators as symbols of the red alerts some residents of Israel endure when Palestinian groups fire rockets their way. Paterson cited the many Qasam rockets that have fallen on Israel as a justification for the country’s operations in Gaza, a military assault that has resulted in over 800 casualties and thousands of injuries.

Then Paterson highlighted the anti-Semitism that has followed in the wake of Israel’s attack on Gaza, highlighting the beating of a teen-age girl in France. “This kind of anger and hatred spreads like a disease,” Paterson said, “and one thing I've always pointed out is there's no place for hate in the Empire State.”

But hatred was plentiful at the rally Paterson addressed. Right in front of the stage, a man held a banner reading, “Islam Is A Death Cult.” Rally attendees described the people of Gaza to me as a “cancer,” called for Israel to “wipe them all out,” insisting, “They are forcing us to kill their children in order to defend our own children.” A young woman told me, “Those who die are suffering God’s wrath.” “They are not distinguishing between civilians and military, so why should we?” said a member of the group of messianic Orthodox Jewish Chabad-Lubavitch group that flocked to the rally.

No one I spoke to could seem to find any circumstance in which they would begin to question Israel’s war. No number of civilian deaths, no displays of extreme suffering -- nothing could deter their enthusiasm for attacking one of the most vulnerable populations in the world with the world’s most advanced weaponry. There are no limits, no matter what Israel does, no matter how it does it.

The rally made me think of a passage in “The Holocaust Is Over, We Must Rise From Its Ashes,” a powerful new book by former Israeli Knesset speaker and Jewish National Fund chairman Avraham Burg:

“If you are a bad person, a whining enemy or a strong-arm occupier, you are not my brother, even if you are circumcised, observe the Sabbath, and do mitzvahs. If your scarf covers every hair on your head for modest, you give alms and do charity, but what is under your scarf is dedicated to the sanctity of Jewish land, taking precedence over the sanctity of human life, whosever life that is, then your are not my sister. You might be my enemy. A good Arab or a righteous gentile will be a brother or sister to me. A wicked man, even of Jewish descent, is my adversary, and I would stand on the other side of the barricade and fight him to the end.”

UN Doctor

So? Your point? The Holocaust is consigned to the history of the 20th century, but 'never again.' You watch to make sure it doesn't happen anyone. Not just Jews/Israelis, but people everywhere. When you see it happening, you nip it in the bud. Hamas has a stated declaration of 'no cease-fire possible' with Israel. In effect, stating that while the land designated as Israel/Palestine is not going away, Israel as an entity, a people and a government MUST go away because they said so. Not necessarily because of the UN Mandate. Or the Balfour Declaration. Why the hatred of the Jews? Not only that, there were pro-Hamas rallies in South Carolina.


the twit twitters ...

UN Doctor

I rest my case. The self-centered person can't be objective and is truly obsessed. Get some help.

Fist of Etiquette

Actor MICKEY ROURKE sympathises with U.S. President GEORGE W. BUSH - insisting he doesn't know how any politician could have successfully navigated America after the 9/11 attacks on New York.

The Hollywood tough-guy spoke out about his political views in a candid interview with Britain's GQ magazine, and admits he doesn't understand why so many people blame Bush for a string of world issues - including Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in the West.

And the actor, who claims he didn't follow last year's (08) historic U.S. election battle between Barack Obama and John McCain, urges the public to consider the tremendous pressure the controversial president was under following the terror attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.

He tells the publication, "President Bush was in the wrong place at the wrong time, I don't know how anyone could have handled this situation.

"I don't give a f**k who's in office, Bush or whoever, there is no simple solution to this problem... I'm not one of those who blames Bush for everything. This s**t between Christians and Muslims goes back to the Crusades, doesn't it.

"It's too easy to blame everything on one guy. These are unpredictable, dangerous times, and I don't think that anyone really knows quite what to do."

Rourke also confesses he was so angry after 9/11, he wanted to fight the war on terror himself.

He adds, "I'm not politically educated. But I do know that after 9/11 I wanted to go over there, you know what I'm saying?"

And the star is baffled by the U.K.'s approach to fundamentalists - insisting he was taken aback by the freedom of speech allowed in the U.K.

He explains, "I was in London recently and I couldn't believe all these hate-talking fanatics you have over here who are allowed to carry on doing their thing even when a bus full of women and children gets blown to pieces.

"I know you've deported one or two of them, but it seems crazy. I think there is worse to come, something terrible will happen to either America or the U.K., or France even. I don't think these fundamentalists should be allowed to talk all this crap, and brainwashing these young kids."




Or at least duct tape across his mouth. Who does he think he is? An American? A patriot? I recommend a course of shock therapy at the Gitmo Gulag.

manible claw

You leftards are pretty hung-up on the WMD thing, huh. Apart from the fact that plenty of them were, in fact, found in Iraq, and Baath admitted it shipped the rest out (and even told us where to find them), I guess you have a valid point. As valid as anything else you lot say, anyway. But you're so hung up on that one issue that you fail to notice all the other ones that were outlined quite clearly on the war declaration. Have you even ever seen it? Are you aware that one of the primary objectives outlined is achieving democracy? Why the selective outrage over only one objective, that you're trying to convince everyone was a false justification for war, when the other objectives have been stunningly well achieved? It seems almost like your whole intention is not an accurate or even handed assessment of the war at all, but merely a selective and contrived attempt to use it as a tool to oppose conservative politics.. But then you people would never do something like that, I mean.. Right??

mandible claw

Yerr... Israel are the ones known for video propaganda..

Google "Pallywood" you dumb fuck.

As for the Israel rally um, pro-Hamas rallies around the world have been featuring cute variations of the swastika and chants of "back to the ovens" .. And without even reading that article, does anyone really think that Democrat supporters are who the pro-Israel crowd are? Reeeeeal convincing lol..

FoE - check out Mickey Rourke's new film "The Wrestler," really good story and gritty as hell.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Fair Trade
Gift Shop

  • fairtradelogo.jpg

Sites I'm Banned From