13 comments posted · 15 followers · following 0

11 years ago @ Original A... - The Bloodlust of Walte... · 1 reply · +2 points

There is also a Jewish community of around 28,000 in Iran according to this article: which is interesting in its own right. They are protected under the Iranian constitution and have one seat in the Iranian parliament. Compare this with the situation in Saudi Arabia where according to Wikipedia: "There is virtually no Jewish activity in Saudi Arabia in the beginning of the 21st century. Jewish (as well as Christian and other non-Muslim) religious services are prohibited from being held on Saudi Arabian soil".

12 years ago @ News From - Officials: Britain Mul... · 0 replies · +8 points

That's our stupid and arrogant leaders including the so called 'loyal opposition' who're "cruisin' for a brusin'". Unfortunately it's the rest of us who'll get it.

12 years ago @ Original A... - We Interrupt This Colu... · 0 replies · 0 points

Antiwar is a good daily round up of news and I look at it regularly together with other sources such as Democracy Now, RT, Press TV and Alex Jones, for their different perspectives. I don't think we can dispute that Antiwar has value; it's a question of increasing that value. What I get from Justin saying that Antiwar is losing support is that it is losing appeal, for whatever reason, if so then there is a case for reviewing the product.

12 years ago @ Original A... - We Interrupt This Colu... · 1 reply · +4 points

I agree with most of what Gerry says nevertheless I've made a small contribution because of the value this site still has for me, even if that value is largely one of familiarity. I have noticed little on this site that challenges the narrative that Gaddafi was completely rotten and while I am agnostic about 9/11 acknowledgement that there are reasons to be sceptical about the official story is important. Justin rightly points to the longevity of Antiwar but there are now a large number of sites that are alternatives to the msm. Antiwar is an iconic brand and could perhaps better use that status; I propose that Justin initiates a discussion on how that can be done.

12 years ago @ Original A... - Heroes and Villains · 0 replies · +14 points

I agree with Chris Hayes and with Justin that the use of the term 'heroes' for soldiers engaged in an unjust war is inappropriate. The term 'hero' denotes someone who has made a choice to do something of moral worth despite considerable difficulty or danger. Calling the soldiers 'heroes' clearly implies and is intended to imply that that the NATO occupation has moral worth. As to 'villains' , there are undoubtedly many of these in their ranks but most soldiers are, perhaps, victims of the corruption of their leaders and the ignorance and apathy of their fellow citizens.

12 years ago @ Original A... - What Now? · 1 reply · +1 points

I wasn't talking about 'coddling from cradle to grave' what I'm saying is that, in common with most countries, the US has a status quo where politicians at state and national level are effectively owned by an oligarchy who buy favours. I'm not hearing how Paul would change that. There seems to be a more complete and definitely more participative dialogue coming out of OWS. The fact that 'other swine' look worse than Paul might be a clue that it's time to look beyond the pig sty.

12 years ago @ Original A... - What Now? · 3 replies · -4 points

Webster Tarpley gives a devastating critique of Ron Paul's program here: Even if you don't agree with Tarpley it's worth looking in detail at the possible consequences of what RP proposes. Additionally Paul's libertarianism would most likely result in less liberty for individuals since his belief in states rights and unrestricted capitalism would give greater power to illiberal states and exploitative corporations. Paul does not emphasise the obligation of the state to protect the liberty of its citizens as opposed to staying out of their way under the assumption that they will be able to cope with already massively empowered predators. Ron Paul's anti-war stance is no more than common sense

12 years ago @ Original A... - Iraq in Retrospect · 0 replies · +4 points

Nobody like being invaded by a foreign power even one that does some good but the answer to the question 'What have the Americans ever done for us" is exactly the opposite of the answer to "what have the Romans ever done for us" .. at least as given here:

12 years ago @ News From - US to Announce New San... · 0 replies · +1 points

The subtitle of this article is "IAEA Resolution Calls on Iran to Address 'Increasing Concern'", what does that mean? Is there a list of questions that Iran needs to answer to address this concern? What are the assertions that are being made by the IAEA and how can these be verified/falsified? I would be grateful if someone could point me in the right direction.

12 years ago @ News From - US Moves to Overturn B... · 0 replies · +3 points

The US, Britain and Israel an Axis of Evil? It looks that way. The evidence of moral depravity appears overwhelming but the majority decent people in these countries and their allies seem unaware or unconcerned.

The phrase the 'banality of evil' comes to mind:

And also the quote "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" see:

I'm not sure what sanctions can be imposed against the troika, in any case that is their tool, but there is a need for all of us to conscientise ourselves our families and friends so that we remove the moral sanction from our leadership and eventually remove that leadership.