Pangloss

In fact it was 12 soldiers and 3 civilians. Perhaps you should try to make sure you say all the facts before bringing up news stories. I, on the other hand, made no statement about whether they were civilians or soldiers. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=ce7c9ce2-2357-4d25-8c13-8500d989149e&k=90456 In fact you haven't known me long enough to make that case, and if you had you'd know it to be false. I've *STARTED* threads on this board about Israel's more outrageous actions over the years. You just could not possibly be more wrong. You are furthering exactly the kind of useless invective and pointless blame-gaming rhetoric that has created the situation in the middle east today. As I said above, good luck with that. I think you will find that it will continue to be less than productive.

Anyone following this story about Reuters axing a Lebanese photog over doctored photos? Quite fascinating.... http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1707782.htm LGF broke the story and has been carrying both real and mokingly re-doctored examples, as well as other comentary: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/ Here's a before/after sample of one of the doctored images:

BTW, that oh-so-innocent Hezbollah killed 15 Israeli's in those non-existent rocket attacks this morning. http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-0-0&fp=44d7ee4ea34f2a82&ei=dmLXRMmiEK_qaNCntLkF&url=http%3A//www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html%3Fid%3Dce7c9ce2-2357-4d25-8c13-8500d989149e%26k%3D90456&cid=1108515307

That's not a "broader historical perspective", that's two wrongs making a right. If it were actually a "broader historical perspective", then you would have discussed Hezbollah's history of terrorist acts in the same paragraph. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Can't fault that. Yet another dismissal of the rocket attacks. These dismissals abound around the Web. It's really unfortunate to see that here. So you see the US, UK and Israel as using violence to solve problems, but not Hezbollah -- they're only responding to Israel's provocations. Got it. Congradulations: You're well on your way to becoming an apologist for terrorism. Good luck with that.

My life number is ISTJ! Oh wait....

Huh? What WOULD it be? A mob of wayward Tasmanians? Perhaps a group of Native Americans, recently returned to Earth by aliens? But seriously, you don't find it plausible that a "mob of Jews" could exist in Judea in that time frame, or that it might protest various political events at the time? Are you not aware that Roman accounts exist from that time? Pliny... Josephus... Tacitus actually recorded the passing of a "Cristus" during the governership of Pontius Pilate. I happen to share your position on the Bible, but what you're saying smacks of agenda, not a search for truth. That's about Making Christians Wrong.

I also have to add that equating Hezbollah's rocket attacks with "throwing rocks at a car" is very bad form. Those aren't backyard model rockets, folks, they are SERIOUS WEAPONS, and they ARE killing people. If a western nation intentionally used that kind of high-powered artillery on a civilian population they would be absolutely roasted by the international community. Why this is perceived as a minor offense in some circles is utterly inexplicable to me. A wrong action does not become more wrong because of the number of people who die. If it was wrong when 5,000 are dead then it was also wrong when 5 were dead, or NONE. This business of rationalizing levels of justice is every bit as stupid as ignoring these problems altogether. We cannot say on Tuesday that Israel is in the right, and then decide on Wednesday that Israel is in the wrong. If you find yourself wavering in that direction, my advice is to GROW A PAIR. Human Rights Watch (historically no friend of Israel!) issued a statement yesterday condemning Hezbollah's attacks and declaring them to be WAR CRIMES.

Well that's your point of view, and you're entitled to it. Mine differs. I don't think Israel has gone too far, I think the Lebanese public shares a great deal of responsibility for the profligation of both Hezbollah and terrorism in general, and I have yet to see any evidence that Israel, unlike Hezbollah, has deliberately targetted civilians. Your last paragraph is invalid, at least where I live, because we have rule of law in my country. We transfer the human right of justice to the state in order to achieve a higher level of accuracy and consistency, and tackle the larger problem of crime in general. That is not the case when it comes to matters between nation-states.

It's a good point. Iran is a very large, diverse society. The "man on the street" perspective may be very different once you move away from Tehran.

What difference does it make what his motivations were? And why does it have to be either "truth" or "BS"? Do you have the same misgivings about, for example, Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11", or communist Howard Shore's blatantly apocryphal novel "Spartacus"? Are you at least consistent in your politically correct prejudice? (Edit: Or would that be "post-judice"?)

One of the more interesting aspects of the current crisis between Israel and Lebanon is the impact it's having in internal Iranian politics. Iranian political and religious leaders have been playing a very high stakes game of "wag the dog" when it comes to Hezbollah, and there are signs that, while they've generally been playing that game very well, they may be getting more than they bargained for. This interesting article by Jim Sciutto of ABC News was broadcast from Tehran today, and appears to be unique amongst current reportage in the region: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2275230 At first Scutto reports about the demonstrations at the British Embassy, the vast signing-up of suicide volunteers (would they have signed up in those numbers if they hadn't known the doors were presently closed?), and so forth. But then he goes on to point out that the demonstrations are carefully orchestrated by the government. Move away from the orchestration, and the picture is very different. Most Iranians appear to NOT support Hezbollah, and in fact the story seems to suggest that if Iran were to enter into a wider conflict, it would not be a popular war. Iranians want their DOMESTIC problems dealt with. High unemployment and poverty in THIS gasoline market is astonishingly disappointing even to supporters of the Iranian government. Combine this with the Security Council coming together to finally reach a certain degree of consensus about Iran's nuclear weapons program, and what you have is an increasingly tenuous situation for Iranian leadership, in spite of an amazingly adroit series of recent plays. They've put their best cards on the table, and they just don't seem to be good enough. It's probably worth noting, however, that this does not necessarily make them more amenable to peace. On the contrary, with their backs to the wall they may be more dangerous than ever.

"The Passion of the Christ" was not an anti-semitic film, any more than "Schindler's List" was an anti-German film.

This is just timing -- it's a fast-moving story. I found several stories via Google News on the subject of the ADL accepting Gibson's apology. http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21231759.shtml http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/8/2/143040.shtml To be honest, I find the fast-moving pace of this story to be amusing and indicative of the inherent hypocrisy of both the news industry and the public relations/special interest group complex*. This thing was played out behind the scenes in a matter of hours on Sunday night, from the issuance of statements to the acceptance of those statements and how the whole thing would play out in the media. So busy was the tail wagging the dog that it's a wonder they bothered to actually report it to a disinterested general public. (*That's my new thing, stealing from the concept of Ike's "military-industrial complex". What do you think? The inherent irony of naming a collective bent upon labelling things is intentional. I admit the name could be catchier; suggestions are welcomed!)

I heard an amusing bit on talk radio this evening where the host was wondering why Mel Gibson can't be forgiven, but Jesse Jackson's "hymietown" comment is ancient history (and Jackson's a saint again). It's sad the double-standards out there when it comes to statements like this, and ridiculously stupid the way organizations exact politically correct retributions. I read somewhere that the Anti-Defamation League has formally accepted Gibson's apology. WTF?! Stuff like that makes me wonder if I'm an alien.

Huh? It goes directly to my point that there are more adoptees than adopters. Hello, Earth to Snail, come in please....

This site has statistical information about adoption, including a typical and familiar number of 134,000 children unable to find a home. http://statistics.adoption.com/

(This was in reference to schools getting "slammed" for having children of gay parents.) You're smart enough to know that you can't prove a negative. We've given direct evidence that there are millions of cases of children of gay parents in this country. The onus is on you to give even one example of a school being "slammed" for having children of gay parents in the school. Not the AIDS issue either, it has to be an example of what you SAID -- a child of gay parents in the school. Sure, I'll go along with that. See earlier citation in the thread. (shrug) A "grand scale", you say, and yet you cannot cite even a single example. As I said, you're failing to convince. Uh, YT? There are far more orphans then there are homes available, guy. I thought everyone knew that.

1) I disagree, I think their situation is *exactly* like that of every other student. IMM made the point perfectly. You can't change your appearance or your name any more than you can change your parents. You've yet to contradict this point, guy -- just repeating yourself doesn't cut it. 2) I've never heard of a school's reputation being slammed because some of its students have one or more gay parent. Bear in mind that there are already *millions* of such students. Where's this slammage? 3) What do you propose to do about the millions of children already in school who have one or more gay parent? Are you going to roll back the clock and kick them out of school just because they might be bullied? 4) It's not what *I* want, it's what *is*. We've cited millions of examples, YT, right here in this thread. The ball's in your court to counter that -- you're the one who suggests that we step backwards into some kind of ideal rather than working with reality. Sorry guy, this argument just isn't passing muster.

I agree with Severian. And frankly, trying to parse the man's inner feelings from this kind of distance is pretty absurd. This is fodder for the likes of "Access Hollywood" and "The View". Nothing more. Most of the tirades against Mel Gibson in the blogosphere have nothing to do with this event. Just ideologues looking for an excuse to slam the man while he's down. What-evah.

Sure, bullying is bad, but doesn't it make more sense to do something about the bullying than to stop gay adoption? Are we going to stop putting braces on children's teeth because they might be bullied? Are we going to cut Advanced Placement courses because they might be bullied? Come on. Gay adoption has saved literally MILLIONS of children from foster and orphan care, and I think if the worst you can say about it is that they might get bullied -- just like most other children -- then I think most reasonable people would have to come down on the side of gay adoption. If you're going to convince me that gay adoption is bad, you're going to have to come up with a much better argument than that!

No, they're not transient at all, many of them are permanent, YT. The sound of one's name, the appearance of their face or body, their race or nationality, their stature or speach impediments, those things aren't temporary or transient. You're way out on a limb there, my friend. (chuckle)

Just to clarify, as they point out in the article, the language being protected here is not Arabic, but rather Persian, aka Farsi. Iranians are not Arabs, but they are Moslems, so they're not concerned so much about Arabic words creeping into the Farsi language. What they're concerned about, of course, is western language creep. And this certainly fits in with their issues with western culture. Given the fact that they want (or at least tolerate) one kind of creep but not another kind of creep, I'd call that hypocrisy. And it's an ironic hypocrisy, given how important their ethnic difference from the Arabs is to them (something they are VERY MUCH downplaying these days). I'll have to see if I can dig up some of the more interesting superiority rhetoric. It's been a while since I've read about it, but as I understand it many Iranians feel they are superior to Arabs. One good fictional example of this can be seen in the recent movie "House of Sand and Fog", starring Ben Kingsley and Jennifer Connelly. I've known Iranians, and I know from personal experience that many of them are insulted by the way westerners see them as Arabs. Call one an Arab some time and you'll see what I mean. As I say, this is something that Iran has pushed to the back burner in their social and political interactions with the Arab world these days, as they try to become a power broker for the region. But they haven't forgotten it.

I see a number of valid points there, and can't help but respect where you're coming from with it. But I guess I'm just not convinced that the label is accurate, or that naming it such constitutes an important part of the war against it. I can't say that you're wrong (I can't dispute your point or provide an alternative), but I can say with utter certainty that "reluctance" is NOT an accurate description of my feelings regarding the use of that word. Maybe the best way to put it is to say that I feel it implies a foregone conclusion and sense of indispensability that I find dangerous and presumptive at this stage of the game. Maybe it's just the historian in me, crying out for the need for accuracy. But one thing I can tell you that it is *not*, and that is the centrist in me crying out for fairness. That ain't it at all; I got no problem with calling a spade a spade. One thing is for sure: You've given me something new to think about, for which I'm always grateful.

I wonder if the point here might be just that -- that it is perhaps reasonable for countries to take unusual measures, like having official dictionaries and similar "protectionist" actions with regard to their language or culture, but that when those measures happen under the thumb of a brutal and repressive dictatorship then it becomes something else, even if the actions are exactly the same. The so-called "chilling effect", if you will.