Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

[AndrewR]

Mark, nothing stopping you from emailing Chomsky and telling him the same thing you just told me. You know I get much of my info and America from him since he is the leading dissident.

Ya chicken?

Ya know, you could do your own research and reach your own conclusions. Many of us do. Parroting a party line or relying on a resource just because you like the cut of their jib (so to speak) doesn't do anyone any favors.

[Mark Tiedemann]

Mark, nothing stopping you from emailing Chomsky and telling him the same thing you just told me. You know I get much of my info and America from him since he is the leading dissident.

Ya chicken?

That doesn't even deserve a reply, but I am thinking of two words just now that might be appropriate.

What I find amazing is how moral choice is something we're always held accountable for not using but no one else ever is if the United States is within soundbite distance.

[Mark Tiedemann]

Mark, wherever you're off to, have a good time.

Rob,

Already done been and come back. This past weekend, had a wedding to attend. I meant, I leave town and...

But thank you. It was fun.

[FrankChurch]

I was mulling this around and think I caught both Barber and Mark in a contradiction. Barber talks about how I should also mention Hamas, even though they do far less violence, but he also says I should also mention Russia, even though they did less violence too. But then, they talk about how Cambodia did more violence than us, so I should mention that fact. Which is it guys--who does more or who does less violence? In history and in politics it is always the most powerful country that does the most violence and dissident opinion is always with the state or land they live in.

[FrankChurch]

If you were to ask a Chinese dissident or Pussy Riot, why don't you also criticize the United States, they would look at you funny. If you notice, that kind of question never happens in the other context. We never ask dissidents from other lands why they don't protest someone else. Why is it different with American dissidents?

Consistency, my friends.

------

Rula, sweet Rula schools MSNBC:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/2 ... 06673.html

This is why American views on Israel are so bent.

There was a peaceful protest in Israel. Right wing Israelis beat up arabs, one said that arabs should go to the gas chamber! Yea, those kindly Israelis.

[Robert Nason]

It's gotten to the point where I can't even argue with Frank because I can't figure out what he's saying. (And I suspect the game is not worth the candle.)

[Mark Tiedemann]

I was mulling this around and think I caught both Barber and Mark in a contradiction. Barber talks about how I should also mention Hamas, even though they do far less violence, but he also says I should also mention Russia, even though they did less violence too. But then, they talk about how Cambodia did more violence than us, so I should mention that fact. Which is it guys--who does more or who does less violence? In history and in politics it is always the most powerful country that does the most violence and dissident opinion is always with the state or land they live in.

Except except except---- damn, Frank, heuristics are fine but there are always exceptions and outliers. "The Most Powerful Country...yada yada yada..."

And yet you won't credit that same country with any good whatsoever.

There's no contradiction. I responded to an assertion you made based on a soundbite you read that flatly isn't true. In response you call my courage into question because I won't say the same thing to Chomsky. What kinda cracked bullshit is that? "My mentor's bigger than your mentor, blah blah." This is tiresome and right now I don't have the energy to deal with tiresome.

Barber is holding you to a point of accuracy. Hamas launches missiles into Israel all the time. ALL THE TIME. But you don't hold them accountable for a hangnail.

The United States, by sheer numbers, has done less violence than any other major power in history, but that doesn't mean anything 'cause we're the big bad superpower and we're evil.

I apologize for getting personal, but I'm really tired. You argue like a freshman polisci student. In high school. I'm done.

Barber, again, my apologies. I have a ton of fiction to write and no real brain space for this. It's been fun, but I'm outta here for a while. Sorry.

[FrankChurch]

We are the leading exporters of violence. Don't like it, but I have to tell what truth I know.

Nason, you avoiding the pictures from Gaza? If you see the same kind of things in Israel I will be more on your side.

[AndrewR]

We are the leading exporters of violence. Don't like it, but I have to tell what truth I know.

Frank, I swear. This is the biggest load of bullshit I think you've ever uttered here (and we've been doing this dance for how long now?). There is no "truth" in this statement.

At all.

Period.

[robochrist]

I should also mention Hamas, even though they do far less violence

Hamas maintains its self-declared raison d'etre, the eradication of Israel.

Hamas keeps lobbing missiles at Israeli civilians, always breaking the ceasefire.

Hamas routinely urges its own people not to seek safety when Israel drops leaflets warning of an imminent attack, thereby drawing Israeli counterfire and creating telegenic killings which they can air all over the world and alienate Israel as the source of the violence.

Hamas, in effect, uses civilians as human shields.

Hamas continually produces rockets, launchers, mortars, small arms, even drones. They place them in schools, hospitals, mosques and private homes to better expose their own civilians, and from which they fire rockets at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

We can go on and on about Israel's flawed strategies, but HAMAS is the source of the problem! It begins and ends with Hamas. That's a simple fact, which conversely produces a complicated issue.

[Moderator]

We are the leading exporters of violence. Don't like it, but I have to tell what truth I know.

Define "Exporters of violence", please. If you "know the truth" it ought to be easy for you.

The phrase, however, has so many different connotations it's virtually impossible to establish it's a relevant comment. You could define the Disney Marvel movies as "exporting violence". You could define the drug culture as "exporting violence" because of the drugs they buy from violent cartels. But you could also define exporting violence as sending artillery and other weapons to an insurgency like ISIS or the pro-Russian rebels or terrorist organizations like al-Quaida. You could define "exporting violence" as sending our military personnel to overseas posts, even if they aren't fighting.

In other words, it's a useless statement if you don't give sources or define what you mean.

[Robert Nason]

Nason, you avoiding the pictures from Gaza? If you see the same kind of things in Israel I will be more on your side.

So if more Israeli civilians are killed, you'll support Israel more?

I think I can speak on behalf of Israel when I respond to your kind offer this way: Thanks, but no thanks!

[FrankChurch]

You always support the victims of violence, pretty standard ethics. Nason and his right wing friends are saying that some victims are forgettable. That should never play in anybodies court.

500 civilians to a few in Israel--Gaza under siege. Hamas rockets, no matter how idiotic you may think they are are a way to fight the siege. It is obviously from weakness, compared to Israel's massive stockpile advantage and access to nukes. How would you fight a long standing siege? I don't know because I don't live in Gaza. If I did I may or may not shoot off rockets. Most Gazan's do not, but they are being punished. Why? Netanyahu wants to take their land and he knows the dense charactor of Gaza improves the chances of killing more civilians, something he doesn't care about. He is a monster and is doing what most monsters do. The trouble is he is our monster.

I already talked about the Hamas deal of a ten year cease fire. Note that Nason played it off.

My guess is that Netanyahu timed the war because of the Ukraine plane crash, so the media would stay with that story over the Gaza one. They mostly have obeyed. The plane crash gets most of the press, while media tends to have on Israel flaks.

The reminds me of when Reagan bombed Libya right when the evening news was on.

--------

Andrew and others, this is one of the better Chomsky interviews where he explains that actually, we are becoming more civil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcDNCkVmXQM
.

[FrankChurch]

The general public is more civil. The elites have to use better propaganda to get us into another war.

[Moderator]

How do you feel about the use of the innocent Palestinians as human shields, Frank?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UXZEzbT0H1s

Hamas doesn't even bother to deny it.