3quarksdaily

« another age | Main | Victorian novels helped us evolve into better people »

January 14, 2009

Bomb a ghetto, raise a cheer

Pro-Israel demonstration in New York City, January 11, 2009:

Posted by Abbas Raza at 09:29 AM | Permalink

Comments

I'd like to see Max Blumenthal go to a Pro-Palestinian Rally. I'm sure that in stark comparison, none of them would cite religion as a reason for the never ending Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. And i'm sure that they would all agree that Hamas fired rockets are meant for IDF soldiers, not children.

Posted by: jak | Jan 14, 2009 10:26:55 AM

Thanks Max. Sadly, I see no difference between the Warsaw and the Gaza ghettos, and none between the people you interviewed here and those who cheered the assault against another Uprising in January, 1943. Well, maybe one difference: today's Nazis have a much better Lobby and an even better propaganda machine.

Posted by: rod | Jan 14, 2009 12:34:57 PM

I won't get involved in yet another pro/anti comment, but would simply note that today's video by none other than Ben Ladin, ademanding the destruction of Israel by good Muslims will not help the cause of those taking an anti-Israel stance.

Posted by: fred lapides | Jan 14, 2009 1:26:47 PM

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=i08L09V0_sg&eurl

Posted by: stuart Philler | Jan 14, 2009 1:33:56 PM

Nor will Olmert's recent video bragging about blatantly controlling Bush do much for those taking the pro-Likud stance. Injustice breeds hate, and they're just sewing the wind.

Posted by: rod | Jan 14, 2009 2:03:17 PM

The IDF is now firing phosphorus bombs into Gaza that have completely burned at least one child's face off. Think about that Fred -- you (and I mean you, personally, since you see fit to support this disgusting massacre) are burning off children's faces. But I guess it's just Arab children, so what do you care? I love how you try to justify your pathetic racism with shouts of Bin Laden! Bin Laden! Do you honestly think the rest of us don't see you for what you really are? A racist, though and through.

Posted by: Celeste | Jan 14, 2009 2:13:54 PM

The Arabs have no one to blame but themselves and their continuing devotion to the death cult of suicide bombers and terrorism for their problems. For 60 years, there have been ample opportunities for genuine peace, but the sad reality is that the Arab/Muslim world has invented and promoted the idea of a unique "Palestinian" nationality solely as a means to destroy Israel and wipe out Jews. If the Arabs would stop suicide bombings and terrorism, there would be no need for walls or border searches, etc. The Arabs in the West Bank had better lives between 1967 and 1993 than they did at any time before or since. The so-called Palestinian Authority is a kleptocratic thugocracy that has turned done nothing to improve the lives of its people. Per capita GDP in the West bank is now less than half what it was between 1967 and 1993. The larger Arab/Muslim world itsefl doesn't care about "Palestinian", they just use them as toys in their ongoing game to destroy Israel and kill Jews.

It is obvious to any thinking person that Gaza and the Arab portions of the West Bank are not a viable nation-state. The only real solution is for Gaza to be absorbeded into Egypt, and the Arab portions of the West Bank to be absorbed into Jordan. After all, Jordan was itself created by the British in violation of the Mandate Agreement, and consists of some 75% of the land of Mandatory Palestine. The fact is, there has already been a so-called two-state solution in Palestine. Jordan is Palestine, even though it is ruled by the British imported Hasehmite clan of Mecca. But, ask yourself, why do Egypt, Jordan, and the rest of the Arab Muslim world oppose this solution, why have they done nothing to alleviate the situation of Palestinian Arabs for over 60 years? Because , if they did that it would take away the tool they use to hammer Israel!

Posted by: Dennis | Jan 14, 2009 2:20:26 PM

As for the comments above regarding claims of children being burned and the number of alleged deaths of civilians. Keep in mind where these numbers are coming from. We know from the past that vastly exaggerating casualty numbers and manipulating the deaths of children (see. Jenin and Muhammad al-Dura). Until there is independent, outside verification from neutral sources, all claims coming from Arabs/Hamas withing Gaza need to be treated with skepticism.

Posted by: Dennis | Jan 14, 2009 2:25:49 PM

Yeah, just like the Native Americans had nobody to blame but themselves for refusing to be wiped out and have their land stolen by the colonists driven by their genocidal expansionism. How dare the Palestinians refuse to go without a fight? Don't they know that God Himself gave the land to the Jews?

Posted by: Pepito | Jan 14, 2009 2:38:38 PM

The idea of "genocide"being applicable to American Indians is simply laguhable. Throughout history people have migrated, expanded, conquered, warred with others, etc. The vast majority of Indians were killed by diseases that they lacked immunty from (much as many colinists died from diseases native to the Americas. The Indians weren't "genocided", they simply lost the wars in which they were engaged to a superior force and superior culture.

As for the "Palestinians" your obviously lack of historical understanding shows in calling Israel a land established by "colonists" who "stole" land. The most reliable census data indicates that in the mid-1850s Jews were nearly 60% of the population of Jerusalem, muslims/Arabs only 25%? Are you still going to try to tell me that Jerusalem is "Arab" and belongs by right to Muslims, and that the Jews have not had a continuing presecnce in the ancient lands of Israel, Judea, and Samaria for thousands of years? The reality is that most current Arab inhabitants of the Palestinian lands were themselves recent immigrants from other Arabs land in the lat 1800s and early 1900s, not long-standing member of some "Palestinian" nation whith a unique claim to the land.

As for "refusing to go without a fight", the only reason there is a fight is becuase of Arab/Muslim intransigence against Israel, and their unwillingness to live in peace with Jews. If the Arabs would give up terrorism, suicice-bomobing, and stop shelling Israeli civilians, the Israelis would likewise stop military operations in Gaza. Israel has no desire to wipe Arabs off the face of the earth; sadly the Arabs do desire wiping Israel and the Jews off the face of the earth, and therein lies the key to the conflict.

Posted by: Dennis | Jan 14, 2009 3:08:29 PM

Dear C--
You are way out f line when you call me a racist.Phosphorous bombs are legal. Yes. I feel for the elderly, the not elderly, the children. And yes: I have 4 kids of my own. And yes: I have been in two wars. And I mention Bin Laden merely to suggest that the Palestinian cause and its sympathizers are not well served when they maniac tells the Muslim world to destroy Israel. I merely pointed out that having his voice on one's side was not very helpful...thus, you misread what I have said. Calling me names simply reflects badly on you. Only my wife is allowed to call me names.

Posted by: fred.lapides | Jan 14, 2009 3:14:51 PM

Yawn. People on both sides say many stupid things. And this is nothing new. Showing people on one side saying stupid things is even more boring.

How about a serious conversation on the appropriate, civilized, non-apeasing response to an opponent firing rockets at your civilian population from schoolyards?

Posted by: Riffer | Jan 14, 2009 3:32:10 PM

Google the Book of Joshua to understand waht the State of Isael and the mindset of the people in this video is all about. I tried to post the links here but my comment doesn't get accepted.

Posted by: maniza | Jan 14, 2009 4:01:51 PM

Dennis:

In the 1850s the population of Palestine was roughly 85% Muslim and only 4% Jewish. Jerusalem itself had twice as many Muslim households as Jewish ones. You seem to be getting your data from Joan Peters' fraudulent work.

As for the American Indians, although it is true that a large majority of them died of diseases for which they didn't have immunity, many were also intentionally wiped out by colonists hell-bent on taking their land. The fact that nature helped the latter doesn't change the point that the land was forcefully taken by them. That there was an intention to wipe the Indians out is exemplified by the fact that the British gave them smallpox-infested blankets during what Americans call the French and Indian War. Saying that they "simply lost the wars" does not change the fact that the colonists were the aggressors and took their land by force, just like the Israelis have done.

As for the "Arab/Muslim intransigence against Israel", most of the Muslim World has accepted Israel's "right to exist" (which is ludicrous in itself because, as far as I know, no state has ever had a 'right to exist'), and even Hamas itself offered Israel a long ceasefire and a de facto acceptance of its statehood if it agreed to return to its legal borders. Only 20% percent of Palestinians want to reclaim the whole of Palestine, according to a poll by the University of Maryland, while more than 70% want a two-state solution using the 1967 borders. For the last 40 years Israel has been violating international law by refusing to return to its legal borders.

I'm thoroughly disgusted by your bigoted and dismissive use of quotation marks to refer to the Palestinian nationality. The Israelis, of course, deserve to have a country of their own while Gaza, on the other hand, should be absorbed into Egypt and the "Arab parts"(I assume you're referring to only those parts that haven't yet been stolen by the Israeli colonists) of the West Bank should be absorbed into Jordan, because a Palestinian nation is not 'viable', by virtue of Israel's superior firepower. Everybody knows by now what this thorough dehumanization of another group of people can do. It's terrible that the descendants of those who were repeatedly victimized in the past have only learned how to be the victimizers.

Posted by: Pepito | Jan 14, 2009 4:24:35 PM

Lapides:

Recurring to legal terminology is probably the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Cluster bombs are legal too, yet their use heavily contradict Israel's claim that they want to spare civilians. Slavery and a host of other evils have also been legal during history. Using phosphorus bombs on a civilian population is plainly an act of enormous depravity, even worse than most things that are labeled of 'terrorism' nowadays.

Posted by: Pepito | Jan 14, 2009 4:36:19 PM

"And I mention Bin Laden merely to suggest that the Palestinian cause and its sympathizers are not well served when they maniac tells the Muslim world to destroy Israel."

Yes, guilt by association. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Pepito | Jan 14, 2009 4:38:18 PM

Probably the only good thing about this is that now people in the 'Western World' and particularly the USA are becoming more vocal in their criticism and are starting to see Israel as the criminal state that it actually is. Enough bullshit.

Posted by: Pepito | Jan 14, 2009 4:46:05 PM

Jordan=Palestine

other than that, there has never in history been any indepedent political entity or nationality called "Palestine" or "Palestinians". Before 1948 the world "Palestinian" was used to refer to both Arabs and Jews, and was simply a geographic designation. The idea that there is a "Palestinian" nationality/ethnicity is simply Arab/Muslim PR as part of its campaign against Israel.

Posted by: Dennis | Jan 14, 2009 4:49:21 PM

Wow, what a shocking video. I understand the need for a community and the comforts of group identity. But when it means placing a greater value upon the lives of those from one's tribe over and above the lives of others, then it's no longer cute and lovely.

If group solidarity means disregarding the lives of innocent people, then the hell with group solidarity.

I have to say, I'm unimpressed by pro-Israeli apologetics. It's about as unpersuasive and unconvincing as apologetics in favour of the rankest forms of Islamic fundamentalism.

Posted by: Sign of Saturn | Jan 14, 2009 5:16:49 PM

Pepito:

I really don't understand what your point is in bringing up the Native Americans. Though their predicament shares some similar aspects (emphasis on some), it really is an ambiguous comparison that serves no real purpose other than to demonize Israel by arousing feelings from an unrelated episode of history. Especially considering the fact that the majority of Native American tribes didn't even believe in the concept of "owning" land.

Which leads to the real problem: The Palestinians have never been able to define their "struggle" in their own terms, they just take terms with strong connotations (e.g. "Holocaust", "Apartheid") and use those labels to define themselves as victims. As many have done, it is categorically incorrect to somehow crazily imply that the latest bombing and incursion into Gaza is comparable to the Holocaust or Genoicide. If Israel had killed every Palestinian (which they never would do), that would be a Holocaust, that would be Genocide. But aiming specifically for terrorists and having unfavorably killed civilians is in no way a Holocaust!

How come is it that the group that is the upstanding authority on knowing what "proportionality" is fails to even frame their plight in an accurate and proportional manner? Maybe the route to peace is in finding suitable semantics?

Posted by: jak | Jan 14, 2009 6:05:30 PM

If phosporous bombs are accepted when used for certain purposes--and they are--then you are shifting the arguement that they are used against innocent civilians. Is shooting rocikets randomly into Israel ok then?

I am simply suggesting that the world accepts certain war materials as "ok" and others as not. Flame throwers, used so often in WWII no longer are accepted.

Reaching back into history and digging up Slavery is just a silly thing. Many things done in the past are no longer accepted today in many societies..
Pepito: it is not guilt by association. If The world's biggest and best known terrorist calls upon Palestinians and all Muslims to destroy Israel, then they (the Muslims ) can denounce him...I am merely suggesting that a bad man associating himself with a cause does a cause little good. Now I hope you can understand that. It is put in very simple terms. It is not "guilt by association" unless you want to align your thinking with him; if not, then so be it. Many Arabs clearly see little wisdom in making the destruction of Israel a life's work.

Posted by: FRED LAPIDES | Jan 14, 2009 6:31:59 PM

Jak
the reason Native Americans didn't believe in the concept of "owning" land--was because they didn't have to---the land was for all of them---They had no idea that a group would arrive to force them off their land--limit their access to it, stick a wall around the land or put up a fence and shoot to kill them the Indians as trespassers by calling that land private property with a monetary value and justify it all by simply pointing out that the earth itself all of it was promised to them by God specifically because of their white race. And then systematically proceed in a process of eradicating them-by all means necessary.

As to that point about the Palestinians not being able to define their struggle. The word "Struggle" for most of the humane world is synonmous with Palestine and Palestinians.

As for your stupid point about the Holocaust I recently read an article about 8 Jews that died in the Balkans war 6 in Sarajevo and 2 in Banja Luka- About 250,000 people died in that war--but the death of these 8 is described by a person interviewed in the article as a second Holocaust.
Here is that article:

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/features/15718/

Proportionality? No, no one can match what we can see clearly in the comments here and elsewhere the sense of victimhood, sheer cold heartedness and self righteousness that Israelis and their supporters attach to themselves.

Posted by: maniza | Jan 14, 2009 7:07:56 PM

Children the lot of them. Planet would be better off without both sides and their pathetic, short-sighted, human-centred, truth-fearing, ignorant fairytales. Excise the region and send it hurtling into space with both sides onboard. Should give them plenty of time to re-evaluate what's important...

Posted by: MattInOz | Jan 14, 2009 8:20:07 PM

What a bunch of small-minded dumb humans were assembled at this demonstration! It is one thing if you turn into a brainless extremist when growing up in poverty and despair in the 3rd world, but for these folks, in the US, there is no excuse.
How can you dance to celebrate the bombing of fellow human beings? Even if I was in favor of this Israeli massacre, I would not be so vocal and publicly happy about it.

Posted by: Klausi | Jan 14, 2009 8:47:44 PM

It's ridiculous to assume that just because the Palestinians don't have a good PR department and haven't been able to coin a catchy word for their struggle then their cause isn't just. Jak's point is one of the stupidest I've read in quite some time. Do you really think it's just a matter of semantics? The word Holocaust as a synonym of the Nazi crimes against the Jews in WWII just came to be widely used in the 1950s. Before that it was a word used in reference to many genocidal acts through history. Such was the success of the campaign of victimhood that the surviving Jews waged that it has become a word only to used to describe their plight at the hands of the Nazis. Many Jewish organizations still defend the 'uniqueness' of their suffering and still in this century angrily denounce any argument that find similarities between it and what several other ethnic groups have gone through during history. The PR campaign seems to have worked very well because we keep hearing from those who equate any criticism of the state of Israel with Anti-Semitism.

Arguing that it would be a Holocaust or a genocide only if the Israelis were to wipe out all the Palestinians is ridiculous. By that measure then there was no Holocaust in WWII just because some Jews survived.

Claiming that "aiming specifically for terrorists and having unfavorably killed civilians is in no way a Holocaust" is a ridiculous self-serving argument. The killing is deliberate no matter what excuses Israel comes up with. At the very moment that you're weighing the decision to strike a heavily populated area to wipe out 'terrorists' and decide to do so anyways, it is DELIBERATE. You're still deciding to kill those people and no euphemism you use would change the situation (this incidentally goes also to the Americans that decided to bomb Fallujah, Afghan and Pakistani towns, etc: there is NO difference between those actions and terrorism. You wouldn't have bombed if the 'terrorists' had been hiding in, say, Miami, would you?).

Posted by: Pepito | Jan 14, 2009 9:45:35 PM

Pepito:

I somehow disagree with your notion that "the land was for all of them." I'm not an expert on the Native Americans, but I know enough to know that they didn't just happily romp around the wilds of America and have Pow-Wows. In fact, this thinking is revisionist and is a stereotype derived from the very white colonialist society which you are trying to condemn. As my understanding goes (as i said, i only have a basic knowledge, but its enough to suffice), many Native American tribes were very war-like people that consistently fought among one another. I'd say that empires like the Aztecs (using the word "tribe" would not be accurate, hence "empire" (EMPIRE!)) were some of the most brutal and militaristic societies that have ever existed, even more so than some colonial powers that came and destroyed them (they just had guns). Many Native Americans believe that the Earth is supreme and that land cannot be partitioned, but that does not make them immune from battle and being human.

But you just fell into the trap Pepito. You are taking one episode of history with basic keywords (colonialism, land) and changing everything else about it to fit your metaphor that delightedly aligns with the story of the Palestinians and the terrible outrage and suppression that they have faced at the hands of the Israeli's. The truth is that it is really not that simple, and neither side is the sole victim nor the sole predator.

Blumenthal can film footage of Jewish Protestors dancing and singing "od avinu chai" ("our father still lives"), a song about Israel's struggle for existence, and place it alongside interviews from American Jews that believe that Hamas needs to be destroyed to make you believe that they are singing and rejoicing at the death of Palestinians. Klausi seems to have fallen into this trap. But this doesn't fit with reality, it's just an agenda driven video.

I do hope that Abbas, for all his intellectual worth, stops being so biased and emotionally charged in his links.

Posted by: jak | Jan 14, 2009 10:14:21 PM

Lapides:

"Is shooting rocikets randomly into Israel ok then?"

Of course it's not ok. But it's even worse to keep a population oppressed for 60 years and living in terribly awful conditions, with no control over their destiny, under what amounts to a foreign military dictatorship. If I were Palestinian I would probably be fighting Israel too, and I have no doubt most people in the World, including you, would probably do the same. Unfortunately for you, there is no symmetry between the oppressor and the oppressed. Palestinian violent acts are deplorable, but Israel is much more to blame because they started this hell by driving the Palestinians off their land and leaving the rest in a ghetto. You wouldn't ask the slaves to behave nicely to the slavemasters, I'm sure (and yes, the slavery reference is totally valid. Some issues unfortunately haven't changed much in substance). That's phrased in very simple way, so hopefully you would have no problem understanding it either.

As for the white phosphorus: it seems to be a weapon that causes terrible suffering, yes, probably equivalent to napalm. And in my opinion the concern for civilians that might be exposed to it is justified. That the U.S. and its accomplice Israel have refused to be bound by treaties banning its use (it is, after all, an incendiary device) just tells me more about the nature of their policies and regimes than about the 'legality' of its use.

Lastly, I fail to see your point in invoking bin Laden. The fact that a well-know terrorist agrees with their cause in this case doesn't diminish at all its validity. Moreover, before denouncing bin Laden's verbal support for the Palestinian cause, I think they have more important issues to take care of, like surviving.

Posted by: Pepito | Jan 14, 2009 10:16:52 PM

Come on Pepito. Now you're just sounding foolish. So if somebody is killed, deliberately or not, that's considered a holocaust? That's crazy.

What i'm saying is that there is a clear distinction of what the Nazi's did, of what the Khmer Rouge did, of what the Tutsi's did, or what has presently been going on in Darfur. Those are all holocausts. A Holocaust, a genocide, is destruction and violence on such a large scale that it is terrible even to think about. What is happening in Gaza right now is not a holocaust. What Hamas vouches for, the destruction of Israel, would be a holocaust.

Posted by: jak | Jan 14, 2009 10:31:30 PM

Jak:

I'm delighted to know you think I fell into your 'trap'. But your idea that I see the American Indians as 'noble savages' living in total harmony among tribes and with their environment in a pristine, earthly paradise is, inaccurate, to say the least. Yes they had 'Empires', yes (ooh, you just discovered a big secret!). Yes, many of them were warlike. Etc, etc. That doesn't detract at all from any of the things I said. Or Maniza (I think the other person you might be referring to). The facts are still there. Europeans came and took the land they used and sometimes owned too (some basic form of 'private property' existed in some tribes and more still in the more advanced societies throughout the American continent). They killed many of them and put them in reservations (in North America) or in the infamous feudal system known as 'encomiendas' (in South America). It was a group (Europeans) that overtook the other, weaker group, DELIBERATELY. I am a descendant of both groups, so I have no reason to paint one of them as 'good' and the other one as 'evil'. The similarity with Israel and Palestine, although not perfect, is evident. I'm not arguing the Palestinians are perfect angels and the Israelis terrible shits. I know all this issues are not totally black and white. Still, it is evident than Israeli crimes against the Palestinians are much larger. Accept it and move on.

Posted by: Pepito | Jan 14, 2009 10:39:31 PM

Jak:

It is a matter of what might 'reasonably' be expected to happen. If there's reason to believe you'll kill civilians, then it still a deliberate choice. It is still terrorism.

And pretty much everything could be a holocaust, except if Israel does it? What is it? Are they by definition not capable of committing genocide? They already committed ethnic cleansing.

By the way, look at Hamas. Saddam also promised he would 'wipe out' the Americans, but it was evident he was never going to deliver. It's more likely that Israel ends up driving the Palestinians to the sea (and if you look at the changes in the maps of the area during the last 60 years, that's what seems to be slowly happening) than the other way around.

Posted by: Pepito | Jan 14, 2009 10:52:07 PM

What's going on in Gaza has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong." It has to do with the unremitting and irrevocable determination of Hamas and other barbaric religious fanatics to destroy Israel, kill all the Jews, and inflict their primitive theocratic society on everyone they can.

It is tragic for the innocent, but the real killers of the innocent on both sides is Hamas.

Posted by: punditius | Jan 14, 2009 11:24:09 PM

"of what the Tutsi's did..."

You mean Hutu.

Posted by: Robin | Jan 14, 2009 11:34:39 PM

Pepit:

I didn't lay the trap, it's just there already for anybody who likes to make connections that don't exist.

Anyway, don't try to cover for your ignorance about the Native Americans. You already said that "land was for all of them," which is clearly not the case.

And speaking of "deliberately," i'm pretty sure that the approximately 2000 mortar and qassam rocket attacks from Hamas in 2008 were meant to kill at least 2000 Israeli civilians, if not more.

Posted by: jak | Jan 14, 2009 11:54:12 PM

Robin you're right. My mistake.

Posted by: jak | Jan 14, 2009 11:57:05 PM

Just to clarify, the phrase "land was for all of them" never came from me.

In any case, this doesn't have anything to do with the intention of the Europeans to steal lands that were clearly not theirs and drive the native population out. You seem to be willingly obtuse.

Posted by: Pepito | Jan 15, 2009 12:44:42 AM

Oh damn, you're right. Sorry.

It's true that the Europeans did steal lands from indigenous Americans, that is undeniable. But my whole point was that that situation bears no resemblance to the plight of the Palestinians. It's not a perfect allegory as you originally implied.

Posted by: jak | Jan 15, 2009 1:11:17 AM

Pepito:

Good job; I'm glad you're doing it. I no longer have the stomach to argue with people about whether 1+1 really equals 2, or about when it's "legal" to burn the faces off children.

Posted by: Steven Augustine | Jan 15, 2009 4:03:37 AM

Steven:

Believe me, I'm trying to do my best to overcome my disgust while arguing, but it's getting pretty hard.

Posted by: Pepito | Jan 15, 2009 10:24:58 AM

Bravo Dennis, I agree whole-heartedly with you. The caption Abbas Raza has placed over the video is worthy of the work of that other master
propagandist, Joseph Goebbels.I would like to bring to your attention "A.B.Yehoshua/ An open letter to Gideon Levy" from "Haaretz" Jan 16. You wont find it posted on 3 Quarks because Abbas Raza only includes venomous anti Israeli diatribes.

Posted by: Leon Levinsky | Jan 15, 2009 10:03:52 PM

Pepito:

Congratulations on your well founded arguments. Only a fool would be blind to the Israeli atrocities in Gaza. This is not to say that what Hamas is doing is in any way morally right -- it is not. People seem to ignore the fact that they wouldn't be so happily dancing on the grave of thousands, calling it a moral victory, if the graves belonged to their own loved ones. Sure, there are terrorists making bombs in schools; sure, they are killing innocents in shopping malls and movie theaters, but I bet these war-mongerers wouldn't be so trigger-happy if the terrorists were hiding in a school they send their own kids to.

This whole thing reeks of such disgusting bigotry that it makes my head reel.

People, get some education! Defending Palestinians does NOT automatically mean attacking Israel (and vice versa)! We are talking about saving the innocents from this political melee. You are talking about killing terrorists. Where is the conflict? Oh yes, I know where the conflict is: you are willing to sacrifice a few innocents in the process. But.. you are willing only so far as those innocents are just images on the TV tube, photographs in a book, a news reel at 7pm.

What a shame. What a shame indeed.

Posted by: Hemant | Jan 16, 2009 11:32:25 PM

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

January 14, 2009

Bomb a ghetto, raise a cheer

Comments

Post a comment

3QD Science Prize

Iran Twitter News

Andrew Covers Iran

The Lede on Iran

HuffPo Liveblogging

Help 3 Quarks Daily

3QD on Twitter

Search Using Lijit

Bookmark This Page

3QD FEED FOR GOOGLE

3QD ADVERTISING

Compare prices

Recent Comments

Acclaim For 3QD