You lied and you got banned. Oh, and Hostage cleaned your clock every time, including the debate about the Hanagak\h's irrefutable involvement in the Deir Yassin massacre.

Time to move on.

BTW. I'm sure Amos would love to hear the phoney story you concocted about being an Arab Muslim who saw the light after reading Bernard Lewis.

I know you fell inadequate, pretending to be a Marine and all - when in reality you're unemployed.

As for the Free Syrian Army, they are nothign more than the Sunni merenaries (jhadists) that have been shipped over from Lybia by the Arab League. They are endorsed by al Qaeda, so unless you share the same idelogy as Al Qaeda, you might want to get up to speed.

>> Oh, that would go against your creed of whitewashing the deeds of Arab tyrants and muslim dictators.

You mean the Arab tyrants and muslim dictators that are US puppets? I'd rather sooner see the Saudis toppled that Assad any day.

for spewing his vile racist rhetoric and Nakba denial. He also pretends to be an Arab Muslim who became an zionist overnight after reading the worls of Bernard Lewis.

Wersine has been highjackign threads at MW for 6 months. He was warned repeatedly about his behaviour and ignored the rules. Hostage routinely shredded Werdine's cut and paste jobs.

Tell me Neoleft, you said I lied. What pray tell did I "lie" about? You can't even say beacause you know I didn't lie about anything. Now, that's pathetic. As for Hostage cleaning my clock, please. Don't make me laugh. Nothing puts the lie to that more than our latest spat over Deir Yassin, where the full extent of his cowardice and dishonesty was plain for all to see. Once again, Lord Hostage got mired in the muck of his mendacity, and bitched and whined like a baby when I exposed him. Instead of responding to my argument in an intellectually honest manner, he took refuge in playing the "Nakba denial" card, three times called for me to be banned, and twice threatened to leave the blog if I was not. He got his way, and the Mondoweiss matinee idol returned to sing his insufferable disquisitions to his band of fawning admirers without any more interference from the likes of yours truly.

Now, if that is what you call "winning" an argument, I'm glad I "lost."

I’ve debunked Hostage’s lies and deceptions on so many occasions that I’ve lost count. A few examples,

Here,

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/06/our-demands-designing-placards-for-a-demonstration.html#comment-329848

Here,

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/06/our-demands-designing-placards-for-a-demonstration.html#comment-330805

And here,

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/new-yorker-says-two-state-solution-was-not-the-answer-during-u-s-civil-war.html#comment-349581

Along with these instances, Hostage had been hostile ever since I said this to him last May:

"I seem to be in something of a minority opinion here on this blog, where these long, ponderously labored effusions with which you suffocate your readers are concerned. They seem to be quite popular.

For myself, I cannot but help thinking of Winston Churchill’s wry description of Ramsay Macdonald’s oratory: “He has, more than any other man, the gift of compressing the largest amount of words into the smallest amount of thought.”

Stop highkacking this forum for your own catharsis.

This is not group therapy.

"We have already had this debate"

We have not. If you don't choose to, then don't. but don't sit here and smear me with"lying" without having the guts to point out my "lies." You can't and you know it. You're stumped and like your pompous hero, you havn't a trace of intellectual honesty, and never did. I told the truth on MW and I'm telling the truth here. You havn't a trace of integrity. THAT is the truth. You lie and plagiarize shamelessly here so you can pretend you're someone you're not and that you possess knowledge and insight that you don't have. Now, I think just about everyone here will agree that YOU are the one who needs some therapy, pal.

Adn there are thuosands of words of our debates as proof.

Don't while and arry on about being smearedand mistreated if you are going to smear me yourself.

You didn't tell the truth at MW, you sifted through the pieces of evience you could find to support your Hasbra. You got banned for lying and for your extremist disatribes.

You lied from the day you first posted, claiming to be an Arab Muslim who's world was turned upside down after reading the racist rants from Bernad Lewis. What was without doubtone of the most pathetic attempts I have ever come across - then along came Taxi and visited your ancestral home and found you to to be a...liar.

BTW. If you're going to acuse me of plagiarism, you might want to own up to being one yourself. How many pages of have you cut and paste from Morris, Karsh, Oren, and Wikipedia without providing links to the sources?

You lied, you got found out, and you got banned. Deal with it.

You haven't debunked any of Hostage’s arguments in any debates you had with him. You obviously believe that producing the largest word count and repeating the lies Hostage has already debunked meant you were winning.

Unfortunaltely for you, the debate was over long before you realized it and you lost every time.

I am neither Tree nor Hostage, though I am flattered to be mistaken for Hostage. He is in a league of his own and wouldn't waste his time with the participants on this forum. As you might have noticed, R Werdine is still bearign the scars of the whooping he suffered repeatedly at the hands of Hostage and has come here in the hope of finding a more receptive audience.

>> I can't believe anyone has so much info and time at their disposal.

I don't have much time at all, which explains the haste of my posts and the typos.

>> I read MW everyday and it is all so familiar. Especially with the supposed quotes, laws etc. You are counting on people being too lazy to investigate.

On the contrary Ruth, the debates that take place at MW are very detailed and comprehensive, and probably go over your head. Tose who apparently aren't too lazy to investigate frequently try their luck. They usually don't last too long. The Hasbrat repetoire is all to obvious and recognizable.

Yes I am familiar with the expression "expression lancer la poudre aux yeux", but I am no guardian of any narrative. In fact, I pride myself on debunking the narrative, especially the Zionist variety, which has dominated public discourse for far too long. As Moshe Sharett said, Israel cannot be ruled without deceit as if it's essential for the Jewish state's survival. He wrote just before resigning:

"I have learned that the state of Israel cannot be ruled in our generation without deceit and adventurism. These are historical facts that cannot be altered. . . In the end, history will justify both the stratagems and deceit and the acts of adventurism. All I know is that I, Moshe Sharett, am not capable of them, and I am therefore unsuited to lead this country"
(Simha Flapan, p. 52-53).

In other word, what Moshe Sharett is saying that the "Jewish state" is incapable of surviving without lying to its citizens and the rest of the world; in fact it has been national security for the "Jewish state" to do so. You strike me as someone who has yet to come to terms with the changing realities of the debate.

>> Furthermore, you monopolize the dicussion so much that my eyes glaze over when I see your name. Are you trying to kills us of boredom?

I would say sorry Ruth, but it was never my goal to entertain you. Facts and historical realities tend to be boring and monotohous at times. If it doesn't appeal to you, I would suggest you stick to celebrety gossip.

>> You are discussing the sam epoints over and over and over and over..........

Indeed I am, and I wish I didn't have to, but when the same lies are raised over and over again, they need to be corrected.

I hope you summon the courage to participate at MW one fo these days, but for your sake, I do hope you do a better job of arguing the topic at hand than you are at pouring out invective.

Being a nuclear engineer sounds far more impressive than it is. In reality, it is a tedious and conservative role and anything but extraordinary.

I just happen to be working in a field that has some relevance to the topic of nuclear science.

trying to come up with a coherent and convincing argument. After all, you haven't produced one thus far, so it's probbabyl best you leave that kind of effort to the adults.

>> But unlike you, I have lived the conflict.

How so Ruth. Did you break a fingernail eviciting a palestinian family from East Jerusalem?

>> You of course have all the answers but those of us who have first hand knowledge know nothing.

Right. All that first hand knowledge, and what good has it done you? How does that first hand knowledge help justify mass murder, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, land theft home demolitions and home evictions?

>> SO who gives a fuck what Simha said.

Those who are interested in the fact perhaps. Yes, you could trot out all the Zionist writers you liked, but their arguments wouldn't stand up to scruitiny. Like I said Ruth, you're mindset and appraoch is still stuck in the 90's and 2000's, where you go away with souting your Hasbra unchallenged.

>> And at the end of the day, Israel exists. Zionism has succeeded. End of story.

Yes and No. Yes, Israel exists, and may it contonue to. Zionism on the other hand, has been a failure. The majority of the world's Jews refuse to lvie in Israel. Support for Israel is plummeting worldwide and within the Jewish community - certainly among the younger generation.

There are 1 million Orthodox and 750,000 illegal settlers and each is growing at 3% a year. Over 10 years they will add another 600.000 tax avoiders. Who is going to pay tax in Israel ? The dwindling secular schmuck community ?

How does the balance sheet work ?

>> And you can't give shit to the Palestinians, no matter how many quotes you have in your arsenal.

That may or may not be true, but it clearly matters enough that every time Professor walt posts a column about Israel, it attracts you and your tribe like flies.

>> Do you think Obama makes his decions based on what you write on an obscure blog?

Of course not. As Walt and Mearewhimer have explained, he makes his decions based on political and financial pressure from the lobby.

The problem is that Israel is headed for it's own demise. It has become so isolated that it's popularity is similar to that of North Korea and Iran. What Israel is doing to itself is tragic and sadly, people like yourself are simply enablers.

Whatever, dude. If you think insults and pallywood talking points are arguments, knock yourself out. You will have won out all the arguments from the "hasbara trolls " here, and then what are you going to do for fun, hey ? There is only so much orgasmic activity one can get from repeating over and over the slogan racismethniclcleasningapartheid housedemolitionslandtheftwellpoisoningburnt olivetrees settlercolonialistentity. But if this is how you have fun, who am I to deprive you of this joy? Now that you have proven that you won yet another argument, can we get back to the reason I created an FP account? WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU? How much do they pay you? Who pays you? What is your interest in this fight? Please don't give me "human rights", cause I might be sick on my new laptop. Even Ayrabs won't do this for free. You can't be hostage cause he does not get too personal. Most Mondostanis are retired older people with too much time on their hand. You have to be Shingo. I know you won't tell. Anyways, nice talking to you. Ciao for now.
PS: You do love it when we visit this site and respond to you, life will be so lonely without us. Who else will be dazzled with your verbal acrobatics and reasoning skills? Have you noticed how Mondo is so sad now without the usual hasbarats? May walt's site suffer the same fate.

You registered on this forum simply to ask me who I am? I'm flattered.

You're not interested in debating the topic, which you have made abundantly clear, seeing as you've decided the truth doesn't matter. And yet, somehow, you can't let it go can you, because deep down you know it does.

>> There is only so much orgasmic activity one can get from repeating over and over the slogan racismethniclcleasningapartheid housedemolitionslandtheftwellpoisoningburnt olivetrees settlercolonialistentity.

That's easy to say when you're sitting comfortably on the land you stole from the indigenous population, while they live in squaller in refugee camps - if they are not already dead.

>> WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU? How much do they pay you? Who pays you? What is your interest in this fight? Please don't give me "human rights", cause I might be sick on my new laptop. ]

What do you mena who am I? I'm no one you'd know, so what why the obsession? No one pays me. Yes, my interest in this topic is indeed human rights and justice, and it's no surprise to me why both topics would inspire you to feel nauseous.

>> You can't be hostage cause he does not get too personal.

Very true, and I don't have tbe breadth of Hostages kowledge or legal expertise.

>> Most Mondostanis are retired older people with too much time on their hand.

Phil, Adam, Lizzy and mos of the writers are barely in their 50's. They have time on their hands becasue reportign is what they do for a living.

>> You do love it when we visit this site and respond to you, life will be so lonely without us. Who else will be dazzled with your verbal acrobatics and reasoning skills? Have you noticed how Mondo is so sad now without the usual hasbarats? May walt's site suffer the same fate.

Won't happen. The blog has been alove and well for many years and will be here long after you and your fellow travellers have given up trying to bring it down.

Only a few weeks ago, Reza Kahlili from World Net Daily, rana story with the headline reading:

"Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel“

As it turned out, the statement was made by a blogger names Alireza Forghani, was calling about an Iranian reposnse to Israeli preemptive strikes. Forghani has no connection to the Ayatollah and isn't even employed.

In the case of Tobin, he is lying too.

Fatemeh Bolouri Kashani’s did not say that her husband wanted to attack the Jewish State, nor that he had any intgention of using his work to do so. Accoring the the Fars Report, his alledged desire called for the elimination of the Zionist regime.

It is certainly inflamatory rhetoric and it will be interesting to see whether this story does indeed hold up for it will certianly be scruitinized. Given that the interview took place after the murder of her husband, it's likley that she is exagerrating anytghing her husband might have said.

It is worth mentioning that Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan's statement is not directed at Jews, or the Israeli state itself.

Meanwhile, the arab League has condemnend Netenyahu's alleged call for "death to Arabs"', which is a far more extreme statement. Unlike Kashani, who's husband was murdered by Israeli backed terrorists, Netenyahu's statement was made after an accident that killed 10 children and injured 40 others. It was not the work of Arabs.

http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2222617&language=en

Martial.

Neither I not Professor Walt satted that "open debate" is

the basis of democracy. In fact, the quote you provided states that:

"Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts—or by suggesting that critics are anti?Semites—violates the principle of open debate upon which democracy depends."

In other words, Professor Walt said that democracy DEPENDS on the principle of open debate. The word basis is nowhere to be found.

Are you sure English is your first language Martial?

>> All you need for democracy is a voting booth & the right to form parties.

Actually, democracy is a lot broader than that, but that aside, even your narrow definition implies freedom of speech does it not? How does one form parties otherwise?

Democracy comprises the franchise & freely created parties.

The US House & Senate virtually never debate 501C corporations (e.g., tax deductions for religious entities), tobacco subsidies, euthanasia (not the Nazi sort, simply the ability to take morphine to end agony), or handguns. Matters respecting national security are quite often not subjected to open debate, but are discussed in closed sessions. The Supreme Court hears oral presentations by attorneys in public (these are not debates, but rather serve to enable the Justices to better understand the positions of the petitioner & the respondent), but always deliberates (e.g., debates) in private.

The franchise & freely created parties exist in the US. How can democracy be said to depend upon open debate?

In thinking about this, discuss whether you believe democracy depends upon free speech. Remember Thomas Jefferson's apt statement that freedom of religion & speech together lie in the first amendment because they depend upon one another.

...only when there is a difference of opinion. Debate should be an option, it isn't mandartory that one be held.

>>The US House & Senate virtually never debate 501C corporations (e.g., tax deductions for religious entities), tobacco subsidies, euthanasia (not the Nazi sort, simply the ability to take morphine to end agony), or handguns.

They would have if there was a disagreement over these laws. Mind you, the fact that the two parties are in such lock step about so many issues reveals what a sham the 2 party system is.

>> Matters respecting national security are quite often not subjected to open debate, but are discussed in closed sessions.

That doesn't mean such policies are consistent with democracy. No democracies are perfect.

>> The Supreme Court hears oral presentations by attorneys in public (these are not debates, but rather serve to enable the Justices to better understand the positions of the petitioner & the respondent), but always deliberates (e.g., debates) in private.

Deliberations are venues for debates. Again, no debates necessary if the consensus is unanimous.

>> How can democracy be said to depend upon open debate?

No one said the depend on debate, but that they dependent upon the principal of debate.

>>In thinking about this, discuss whether you believe democracy depends upon free speech.

Without a doubt. If one isto from a political party, how can one possibly achive this without expressing a party platform?

>> Remember Thomas Jefferson's apt statement that freedom of religion & speech together lie in the first amendment because they depend upon one another.

So what?

Definition
con•sen•sus ?[kuhn-sen-suhs] Show IPA noun, plural -sus•es.
1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that theyshould meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
Argument & question.
The majority of opinion is that tobacco is the poison responsible for most preventable death in the United States. The presence of consensus does not mean that debate is unneeded to change the law to abolish tobacco subsidies, which will not change without open legislative debate; your argument would appear invalid. Did you mean to say something different?

Definition
op•tion ? ?[op-shuhn] Show IPA noun
1. the power or right of choosing.
2. something that may be or is chosen; choice.
3. the act of choosing.
4. an item of equipment or a feature that may be chosen as anaddition to or replacement for standard equipment andfeatures: a car with a long list of extra-cost options; a telephotolens option for a camera.
5. stock option.

Argument & question?
The rules in Congress grant to it the power or right of choosing to debate almost all subjects, including military | foreign aid to any countries the United States now assists. Why do you feel Congress lacks the option to openly debate aid to Israel?

Definition
sham? ?[sham] Show IPA noun, adjective, verb,shammed, sham•ming. noun
1. something that is not what it purports to be; a spuriousimitation; fraud or hoax.
2. a person who shams; shammer.
3. a cover or the like for giving a thing a different outwardappearance: a pillow sham.

Argument & question.
if X is a sham, then X is not real. If real Y requires real X, then “X is a sham” implies “Y is not real”. Entities such as “democracy”, “the franchise”, “ability to freely create political parties” may be said to be real or false. Real democracy implies real ability to freely create political parties. Do you mean to say there is no real democracy in the United States?

Added query.
Do you believe real open debate requires a plenum?

>> The presence of consensus does not mean that debate is unneeded to change the law to abolish tobacco subsidies

Besides the point. This is not an example of democracy but negligence on the part of lawmakers. The reason the law has not been changed is not due to absence of debate or lack of consensus, but corruption...you know, as in lobbying and bribery.

 The reason debate is not taking place is because those in power are putting self interest before that of the public, thus my argument remains completely valid.

Similarly, one could argue that debate has already taken place in public fora and that the consensus is a result of that debate.

The Israeli lobby works furiously to stifle debate about Israel. As Walt explains, this is legal and legitimate, but harmful nevertheless.

>>   The rules in Congress grant to it the power or right of choosing to debate almost all subjects, including military | foreign aid to any countries the United States now assist.

Most of those in Congress are elected on the basis of promises they subsequently fail to honor. Both Obama and Bush were elected on platforms which opposed war, but both then created new ones.

>> Why do you feel Congress lacks the option to openly debate aid to Israel?u

It doesn't, it chooses not to put of self interest. Similarly, a person does not lack the option to swallow razor blades if they wished, but most will decide against doing so for fear of the consequences.

>> Do you mean to say there is no real democracy in the United States?

That's exactly what I am saying.

>> Do you ubelieve real open debate requires a plenum?

No, but it helps.

is worth the effort because you have intelligence & have thought about these matters for some time, lived with them, if you will, in a way most, including me, cannot imagine.

Understanding you requires for me, 1) precise expression of what you are arguing, 2) resolution of verbal contradiction. Let's proceed piecemeal.

First, what do you mean by democracy? A definition is not a full expression, but merely a delimitation & a naming of essential characteristics. It may be necessary to ask you questions about what you say in response to this.

Second, resolve this verbal contradiction by telling what you meant to say.

Chicago unemployed man posting between gulps of ethanol: The presence of consensus does not mean that debate is unneeded to change the law to abolish tobacco subsidies

Nuclear engineer: Besides the point. This is not an example of democracy but negligence on the part of lawmakers. The reason the law has not been changed is not due to absence of debate or lack of consensus, but corruption...you know, as in lobbying and bribery.
The reason debate is not taking place is because those in power are putting self interest before that of the public, thus my argument remains completely valid.

Similarly, one could argue that debate has already taken place in public fora and that the consensus is a result of that debate.

My response:

The tobacco debate has been held in the public for decades & cigarrettes lost miserably; that is indeed consensus. Nothing is debated more frequently in the public fora (oft by the oddest of fauna) than Israel. If ever there were an issue that could be said to have been so debated in the public fora as to render legislative open debate needless, it would be Israel/Palestine.

Lobbying is communication by segments of the polity of desires as respects legislation. Bribery is corruption; no one has ever been convicted to the best of my knowledge for corruption as respects tobacco subsidies. Possibly, you are thinking of the defense industry here, Democratic (Rep. Murtha's "factory") & Republican (Rep. Cunningham's "bribery menu"). For three bottles of Everclear, I'll get you a great book that lists prices of items militarily purchased; attached to the book is a $30 nut & bolt. Serving constituents who live on tobacco farming is a much more powerful debate stopper than lobbying or bribery.

The reason for non-debate when consensus exists is moot because you had said consensus precludes debate eo ipso. Given the way things are going, it is clear you did not intend to say, as you did: “debate is not necessary when there is a consensus, only when there is a difference of opinion.” What did you want to say?

no way out of the contradictions concerning "consensus" & "option".

Of greater interest is "sham". If there exists no real US democracy, nothing can threaten democracy in America. Some would imply our fight against an increasing terrorist threat is failing; nothing will render the fight more effective because there is no increasing threat.

"Manipulating the media" in the Prof. W| P paper is invalid. Rules governing the beginning of an open debate neither preclude it in the presence of consensus nor stop it in the absence of consensus; the exercise of the option is the responsibility of legislators who may, as with tobacco subsidies, deem the topic unsuitable for debate for any reason. The US is a republic, not a democracy; nothing asserted in the W | P paper threatens our form of government.