Working on this new server in php7...
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles

View article without comments

Is America Fascist?

by Enlighten the Truth Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 2:27 PM

It is no coincidence that the neo-cons are worried about comparisons between their policies and those of Hitler

by WAYNE MADSEN

America's manipulative neo-conservatives, who support unending aggression against any country that does not succumb to United States political, economic, and military control and who, themselves, seized power in Washington through electoral malfeasance, are taking a page from Nazi Germany's leaders in their quest for world domination.

It is no coincidence that the neo-cons are worried about comparisons between their policies and those of Hitler.

Ed Gernon, the Canadian executive producer of the upcoming CBS miniseries, "Hitler: The Rise of Evil," was fired when he suggested similarities between the methods used by both Hitler and Bush to wipe away civil liberties by playing on popular fear.

The Nazi-like campaign against Gernon was launched by the New York Post and TV Guide, both owned by proto-fascist Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

After being caught lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to prove their flimsy case that Iraq was a world class threat, the neo-cons now are planting fabricated documents in the rubble of Iraqi intelligence and secret police facilities.

Through a media laundering process, "discovered" documents are handed over to right-wing outlets owned by such slash and burn media moguls as Murdoch, Conrad Black, and Sun Myung Moon.

We are now being fed information that captured Iraqi intelligence documents "prove" that France assisted escaping members of Saddam Hussein's government by handing them French passports in Syria.

This follows repeated allegations that other "documents" proved French (and Russian and German) intelligence cooperation with Iraq's intelligence service before the war.

Syria has been accused of accepting Iraq's phony weapons of mass destruction. Iran is accused of helping Al Qaeda (its most bitter enemy).

Hitler used false evidence and phony rhetoric to justify his invasions of Danzig, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. American ambassadors in New Zealand, Norway, Turkey, Greece, Canada, Mexico, Barbados, Jamaica, Brazil, Belgium, Chile, and Luxembourg have acted like Nazi German Foreign Minister Joachim Von Ribbentrop's bellicose ambassadors in bullying nations that failed to support the U.S. war on Iraq.

France is being faced with being kicked out of NATO military planning meetings, Germany with a loss of U.S. military bases, Belgium with the loss of NATO's headquarters, and Canada, Chile, and Mexico with trade sanctions.

There are lies, damned lies, and Ahmad Chalabi. The leader of the Iraqi National Congress, stooge of the neo-cons, and a convicted bank embezzler is now aiming his wrath at Jordan.

Chalabi, who bilked the American taxpayer out of millions of dollars from State Department and CIA budgets in order to fight his self-styled struggle against Saddam from the restaurants of London's Mayfair District and the clothiers of Savile Row, now claims that recently "found" documents implicate Jordan's Royal Family in Saddam's spider's web.

Of course, it was a Jordanian court that found Chalabi guilty of stealing 0 million from the country's Petra Bank and which sentenced him to over 20 years at hard labor. It is surprising that it took this Gollum-like sycophantic creature so long to accuse the Jordanians of being in bed with Saddam.

Of course, Chalabi will not admit that while he was a math professor at the American University of Beirut during the 1970s, he served as an agent for the Shah of Iran's feared SAVAK secret police. So much for Chalabi's "democratic" credentials and his support for using Iraq as a base for the United States to attack Iran and install the son of the Shah upon a resurrected Peacock Throne.

Chalabi fits in well with the other congenital liars who now lead the United States government. Chief among them are those who prevaricated at every turn about why the United States went to war against Iraq.

They first said the war was to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological.

When no nuclear weapons were found and after a document purporting that Iraq purchased uranium from the West African nation of Niger was shown to be fake, the list of reasons for the war was pared down to the chem-bio weapons.

When that story was shown to be untrue, the story changed to: "We had to liberate the Iraqi people from a ruthless tyrant."

The chief truth manipulators were President George Bush himself, Vice President Dick Cheney, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumfeld, his obedient "Igor," Paul Wolfowitz, and think tank denizens and administration consultants Richard Perle Newt Gingrich, and Michael Ledeen.

Why does the Bush administration lie so much?

It is mainly because Bush's Svengali-like political adviser, Karl Rove, has taken to heart the advice of Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Rove has lived by this tenet throughout his political career. During the 2000 GOP primary campaign, it was the hand of Rove that was behind vicious rumors about Senator John McCain's prisoner of war record, his adopted daughter, his marital fidelity, and even his sexual orientation.

Rove's guns were then turned on Vice President Al Gore in the general election with similar lies about the Vice President's Vietnam service and Senate voting record.

A true symbiotic relationship exists between Rove and the neo-cons. Rove provides for them a nurturing host - the Pentagon -- in which to operate, procreate politically, and periodically ejaculate disinformation.

No sooner had the fake Iraqi intelligence documents "exposing" links between Saddam on one hand and Germany, Russia, France, and British Labor Party Member of Parliament George Galloway on the other been "revealed," other "documents" fingered former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, Washington Democratic Representative Jim McDermott, former House Democratic Whip David Bonior, Michigan's anti-war Representative John Conyers, Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin, and the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign as similarly being linked to Saddam.

It is fitting and timely that the Senate recently disclosed files from the hearings of the disgraced Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy. He also emulated Goebbels in using the "big lie" tactic. Rove and the neo-cons relish in the big lie tactic.

It is their lifeblood. Without it they would be impotent. The neo-con's obsessive use of the lie means that whatever they state, the opposite is true. They are the liars. Those who call them on their lies are the truth sayers.

The neo-cons now say that 170,000 priceless ancient artifacts were not stolen from Iraq's National Museum. They say Saddam and his henchmen stole them. The artifacts were stolen by thieves under the watchful eye of American troops. That is the truth. The neo-cons are lying. It is simply as binary an equation as that. All the lies of the neo-cons should be viewed in the same binary manner.

Sadly, the big lie may soon be turned on Secretary of State Colin Powell.

After Powell's deputy Richard Armitage counterattacked after New Gingrich used the neo-con fortress, the American Enterprise Institute, to launch a broadside against Powell and the State Department, the neo-cons are getting ready to again use their big lie weapon, a virtual "weapon of crass destruction."

The Washington rumor circuit is rife with speculation that one of the many right-wing muck mills will soon "reveal" an extra-marital affair involving Powell.

These days, it does not matter whether such rumors are based on fact or not. Rove prefers the politics of personal destruction and Powell is currently target number one for the neo-cons and their White House nurturers.

Lying and character assassination have paid off handsomely for the neo-cons.

Another Nazi leader provided the neo-cons with a blueprint for the strategy seen in their repeated attacks on those who dare question the party line.

Their targets range from the Dixie Chicks, Senator Robert Byrd, Bill Maher, and Michael Moore, to Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, to ABC News anchor Peter Jennings and MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield.

Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering, before committing suicide at the Nuremberg Trials, appeared to be advising the future neo-cons: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

A little advice for the neo-cons and your nurturers.

Every day you are creating more and more enemies within the United States and abroad.

Governments, non-governmental organizations, political parties and social movements, labor unions and business interests, and religious organizations and student groups are talking to each other and are realizing they have a common purpose.

That purpose is to drive the neo-con threat away from the power centers of the world.

They are beginning to understand intermeshing dependencies and are connecting the dots: Enron, Hollinger, UNOCAL, Halliburton, Carlyle Group, Trireme, L-3, SAIC, etc.

Your aggressive policies are upsetting the global balance of power, destroying economies, threatening international trade, and first and foremost, killing innocent people.

Like the Nazis in Nuremberg, you will, one day, face an accounting for your crimes.

As with the Nazis who stood in the docket in Nuremberg, few, if anyone, will be in the mood to grant you clemency or mercy.

* * * * * * * * *

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist. He wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the co-author, with John Stanton, of the forthcoming book, "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II."

Madsen can be reached at: WMadsen777@aol.com

When Lying Pays Off

The Fabrications of the Neo-Cons

by WAYNE MADSEN

Report this post as:

To answer

by fresca Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 2:47 PM

Uh no, it's not.

Does that help clear up your juvenile delusions.

Report this post as:

yea

by Penelope Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 2:59 PM

Yesssss.

absolutely

No doubts!!!

Report this post as:

sphere

by circle Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 3:02 PM

"Is America Fascist?"

circle

circle going nowhere

circle stuck in neutral

Report this post as:

yep

by Red & Arky Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 3:46 PM

way to go.

Whenever we (I) cannot refute the facts I just repete a minless mantra in hopes of being clever.

Report this post as:

YES, FASCIST.

by Alex Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 3:47 PM

There is no doubt that AmeriKKKa is fascist. Fresca is just another chip off the Hitler block.

Report this post as:

?

by just wondering Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 3:48 PM

Was AmeriKKKa fascist when Clinton was in office?

Report this post as:

ROFL

by fresca Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 3:52 PM

"There is no doubt that AmeriKKKa is fascist. Fresca is just another chip off the Hitler block."

This is priceless.

The triple "k's" are a nice touch.

I'm always fully amused at the moronic lefts' use of the word "fascism".

Report this post as:

faixistes

by de la columna de hierro Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 3:57 PM

"america" has been facist since the day it was created..

killin millions in the name of "freedom"

Report this post as:

wasted deffinitions

by Strobe Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 4:12 PM

Just call it criminal greed and remember the dead.

Their souls cry out for justice.

Report this post as:

1776 Fascism

by f Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 4:14 PM

So America was fascist before the word fascist ever became a word.

The EV is on high today.

Report this post as:

on the right track

by javier Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 4:15 PM

whether the US of A is fascist is a matter of what definition one uses for fascism. if you hold up hitlerian germany as the ultimate standard, complete with an all-powerful dictator, scapegoating and mass murder of the jews, routine torture and political murders, then no, we're not quite there yet.

however, a more operational definition of fascism is government that is very pro-capitalism and big business (at the expense of the working class), and which has a very powerful executive branch. the US has been moving in fits and starts in that direction since WWII. and recently, what with BushCo. running things, suspending habeas corpus for anyone they brand "suspected terrorists," scapegoating middle eastern muslims, and bending over backwards to felate big corporations, why, we're much closer to achieving a bona fide american fascist state a reality than tricky dick nixon or ronnie "i don't recall" reagan could ever have dreamed!

p.s., yes, america still fell under the broader definition of fascism under clinton. (he did gut his share of social programs, after all!) in this humble contributor's opinion, he was a pro-choice republican who ran as a democrat.

Report this post as:

Definition

by yckma Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 4:21 PM

i would hold up hitlerian germany as the minimum standard. anything short of being exactly like a full fledged nazi germany is not fascism.

Report this post as:

Definition of Fascism

by @ Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 4:29 PM

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power"

- Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini / Fresca's lover.

Report this post as:

More on fascism.

by @ Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 4:31 PM

This sounds just like Bush's AmeriKKKa to me:

"Fascism emerged as a "third way" — as Italy's last hope to avoid imminent collapse of 'weak' Italian liberalism or communist revolution. While failing to outline a coherent program, it evolved into new political and economic system that combined corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, and anti-communism in a state designed to bind all classes together under a capitalist system, but a new capitalist system in which the state seized control of the organization of vital industries. The appeal of this movement, the promise of a more orderly capitalism during an era of interwar depression, however, was not isolated to Italy, or even Europe."

http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/Benito_Mussolini.html

Report this post as:

Mussolini

by words Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 4:32 PM

Mussolini also said the trains ran on time. Mussolini said a lot of things for the sake of propaghanda. That Mussolini said it means nothing.

Report this post as:

Mussolini

by @ Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 4:34 PM

Mussolini was the father of fascism. He is the ultimate authority on fascism.

Mussolini's trains did run, more or less, on time.

Report this post as:

DeVoy

by aadf Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 4:40 PM

Trains ran on time. Yeah, right.

Let me explain something to you Devoy. Any definition that anarchists give to any word is a reason for suspection. That you believe it automatically makes it suspect.

To anarchists, any form of government is a police state. I got that directly from head sf anarchist nessie. Now that's just a small example of how extreme anarchist definitions are. So you calling something "fascism" or any references you may use to back you up are going to be immediately dismissed.

Report this post as:

Someone can't take losing.

by @ Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 4:56 PM

oooooohhhh, let's change the subject. That definition is the definition provided by the father of the fascist movement, not by me. The United States is undoubtedly a fascist state. Fascism does not require a strict dictatorship. Fascism can exist with elections. Both the US and Israel fit perfectly the definition of fascism.

Zionists have been attempting to redefine Fascism as anti-Semitism ever since the founding of the state of Israel. Zionists are uncomfortable with the sad truth that they are every bit as fascist as Hitler was. Anti-Semitism was just another layer of evil on top of the Nazi movement. There are American conservatives, for example, that are anti-Semites and NOT fascists. Anti-Semitism and fascism are completely independent dimensions.

Israel is fascist.

The United States is fascist.

Report this post as:

Spain 1936

by ker-plunk Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 5:04 PM

Well, if there's anyone who should know about losing, it would be anarchists. I've discussed enough things to know that once you've made up your mind to distort things to your own flavor, you'd rather drown than be thrown a life-preserver. Here, have a concrete block.

Report this post as:

Anarchism will triumph.

by @ Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 5:10 PM

There are two environments were anarchism can function:

(1) Primitive societies.

(2) Highly advanced societies.

We are between these two extremes at this point in time.

Anachism can work under these two extremes because one basic rule holds true under these extremes: all individuals have roughly the same capacity to destroy.

Between these two extremes, various CLASSES and ORGANIZATIONS can accumulate power such that the individual can be crushed. As science and technology move forward, the individual is increasingly able to destroy. At some point the individual will have the capacity to destroy on such a massive scale that CLASSES and ORGANIZATIONS (e.g. governments) will no longer be able to crush the individual. Under such conditions a new ethics must arise where individuals can simultaneously be as destructive as Gods and yet coexist. In fact, that is the only option. We either become anarchist or we destroy ourselves.

The problem with the rightwing retards posting on IndyMedia is that they have no understanding of the trends of history, no understanding of long term consequences, and no understanding of the force of human dignity over oppression.

Anarchism will win. It's just a matter of a few more generations.

Report this post as:

Simple

by Simple Simon Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 5:11 PM

Main Entry: fas·cism

Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-

Function: noun

Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces

Date: 1921

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

The above entry is courtesy of Merriam Webster online.

The answer to the question "Is America fascist?" is unquestionably no.

It is interesting, however, that those who most want to paint the US as a fascist state represent political philosophies which believe firmly in "severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition".

For example, I would love to hear what "@" thinks of Cuba and Castro.

For sake of argument, what if the US were a fascist state? What would you suggest should be done about it? There is little question that the State of Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a fascist state - yet you moonbats opposed its liberation.

So what's your point?

Report this post as:

Anyone can produce a dictionary.

by @ Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 5:32 PM

Merriam Webster is just the dictionary preferred by corporatists. It also has a false definition for anarchism. Only morons rely upon dictionaries as the definitive guide to the meaning of political terms. Even the word "liberal" has become distorted.

Read 1984. Redefinition of words is an essential mind-control technique of totalitarian regimes. You are just trapped in "new speak" and "double think." Fortunately, some of us are not. It's your choice whether to take the red or the blue pill. In the end, those of us that see the truth will leave you behind.

Report this post as:

Simple

by Simple Simon Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 5:55 PM

What a fascinating universe you inhabit.

Words have meanings. Those meanings are given definitions. Those definitions are cataloged and called dictionaries. If you would like, I could produce a dozen more dictionaries' entries for "fascism" and guess what? They are all roughly the same. Now do you want to go for the big prize and guess why all the dictionaries define "fascism" the same way?

No, the answer is not that the dictionaries are all owned by Masons.

The answer, my deluded juvenile friend, is because the definition for "fascism" is roughly what I have cut and pasted above. The fact that your personal definition doesn't jive with the actual, factual one is not a fault of the dictionary, but rather of your capability to accept reality.

"Red" and "Blue" pills? What are those? How do you know what "Red" is? Did a corporate government-sponsored grade school teach you your primary colors? Do you think they would tell you the truth about "Red" and "Blue"? Who was paying your kindergarten teacher? Who bankrolled your headstart instructor? AND YOU TRUST THEM????????

Either accept the definitions provided by scholars or produce an equally accredited definition - what you WANT it to be doesn't count.

And what about Cuba and Castro?

Report this post as:

Translation

by nonanarchist Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 5:55 PM

"Don't confuse me with facts!"

Report this post as:

For the Constitutional Anarcho-Capitalist:

by nonanarchist Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 6:06 PM

"There are two environments were anarchism can function:

(1) Primitive societies.

(2) Highly advanced societies."

Please list for me the highly advanced societies that are anarchist. For that matter, please list the primitive societies.

Here's a clue: NONE. Humans are heirarchical by nature. You get any three people together for a while, and a pecking order will form. It's inevitable; a leader will emerge.

"...all individuals have roughly the same capacity to destroy."

BZZZT! Sorry; wrong. Thanks for playing.

If you are correct, your dear sainted grandmother could have killed 3000 people 2 years ago, instead of the whackos who did do it.

Anarchy must be some sort of mental illness.

"Anarchism will win. It's just a matter of a few more generations."

Uh huh. Sure. Steve, you can "just a few more generations" until the heat death of the universe, and it ain't gonna happen.

You have backed the wrong horse. As a matter of fact, the horse you have backed isn't even a horse.

It's a stillborn sewer rat.

Report this post as:

Simple is a moron.

by @ Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 6:23 PM

You're talking to someone with years of education in Philosophy of Mind.

Here is a stupid quote: "Words have meanings. Those meanings are given definitions."

Sorry, moron, but that's no how it goes.

Words are associated with meanings through usage. Words don't HAVE meanings. Meanings can exist without words and words can exist with meanings.

Meanings are NOT GIVEN DEFINITIONS. Definitions describe whatever meaning may be associated with a word. A definition is an attempt to provoke a meaning within the mind of its reader and then to associate that meaning with the word. The meaning exists whether or not someone bothered to give the word a definition.

Definitions fit into two basic categories:

(1) Analytic

(2) Synthetic

An analytic definition is true and absolute because it exists only as a definition. For example, the concept "center of gravity" exists only as a definition. It does not exist in any material sense.

A synthetic definition is a construction derived from observation. It is emperical. All empirical phenomena are subject to interpretation. Thus, these definitions are subjective.

What starts out as an analytical definition may be subverted, over time, through usage. Mussolini defined fascism. His definition is absolute because he invented it. Later definitions are derived from usage and are emperical. They are interpretive. They are not definitive.

It gets tiring discussing issues with lesser minds. You rightwing fascists in the orbit of KOBE are missing 50% of your intellect. There is an entire universe that you are incapable of comprehending. You are like those born blind. You cannot miss what you never had. You are soulless and do not even realize it.

Report this post as:

More bullshit by nonanarchist.

by @ Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 6:25 PM

Many native American tribes approximated anarchism quite well. You will seldom find any system in its pure form.

As for advanced societies, the kind I'm speaking of don't exist yet. There was a time when democratic societies did not exist either. Had you applied your argument then, how would someone have proved you wrong? Fact is, you lack the imagination (and intelligence) necessary to comprehend things that do not yet exist.

You are worthless and of no value.

Report this post as:

"BZZZT! Sorry; wrong. Thanks for playing"....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

by KOBE SBM Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 7:14 PM

For those of you who dont know already, "@" is Stephen DeVoy. To him, anything which is not listed on his pathetic website is "fascist" or "Zionist". Nothing he says can be taken seriously. Perhaps if he could explain how a so-called anarchist can endorse a political candidate for President (the "Cynthia McKinney for President" sticker suddenly disappeared after I called attention to the hypocrisy). Now, a day after the elections, he comes up with the most ridiculous of all: "Boycot KKKalifornia" Um....yeah, whatever.

An anarchist who sells products is a hypocrite. A man who suspects everyone of being "KOBE" or anyone who remotely supports anything or anypne Jewish is a "Zionazi". Hell, he has turned me from a biracial man who is a Systems Administrator for an aerospace manufacturing company into a Jewish computer store owner! Pay the fool no attention.

"BZZZT! Sorry; wrong. Thanks for playing"....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Report this post as:

KOBE SBM of the JDL.

by @ Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 7:18 PM

Actually, I am correct. The US is fascist. Israel is fascist. KOBE and the JDL are fascist.

End of story.

Funny thing is that KOBE SBM is proving me to be right. All of his ZionNazi crap and behavior is convincing more and more Americans not to support the ZionNazis.

What KOBE SBM fails to understand is that only a bullet will stop me from speaking the truth. The other thing he doesn't understand is that it is impossible to intimidate me. I lack the "intimidation" gene. Call it a defect or call it a strength, but I won't shut up.

Israel's grasp on the hearts of Americans is coming to an arrogant end. The last "BWAHAHAHA" will come from the mouth of a Palestinian.

Report this post as:

fascism difined

by Rob Ferguson Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 7:24 PM

OK people here it is:

FASCISM:

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Source: www.dictionary.com

First there is no dictator in the U.S. Secondly according to most "progressives" the socioeconomic controls are not stringent enough. Third, there is no terror aparatus run by G. Bush. No "Night of Long Knives". No mass graves, no dissapeared (ala Saddam Hussien). The fourth one is up for grabs...I dont think we are particulaly racist or nationalist, although there are those elements.

So no the USA is not fascist.

Thank you, and goodnight.

Report this post as:

Too easy, but I can't resist!

by nonanarchist Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 7:38 PM

"ou're talking to someone with years of education in Philosophy of Mind."

Most common phrase uttered by someone with years of education in Philosophy of Mind:

"You want fries with that?"

"... words can exist with[out] meanings."

Certainly. See www.stop-fascism.org.

" For example, the concept "center of gravity" exists only as a definition. It does not exist in any material sense."

Wrong. Ask an engineer. Stick to bumperstickers, Steve; anything else is over your head.

"It gets tiring discussing issues with lesser minds."

Then stop talking to yourself.

"Many native American tribes approximated anarchism quite well."

Really? NOBODY made the final decisions? Interesting. Got proof? Now, please explain how the same system which works for a primitive society can work for an advanced one. Note: I do like your insistence that society must be more advanced than ours for anarchy to work. That really absolves you of everything, doesn't it? "Society's not ready yet, so I don't have to do anything...just post obnoxious stuff on the net. I don't have to explain anything, I don't have to answer for any failures. I can just sit here and use the system I want to supplant, and just say 'Society's not ready yet!' What a great gig! Political activism without any work! Revolution 'someday!'"

Yeah, good gig, Stevie. Revolutionary-without-Portfolio.

"Fact is, you lack the imagination (and intelligence) necessary to comprehend things that do not yet exist."

Stevie Boy, just because I don't agree with you, I'm an idiot? Could you BE a more pompous, arrogant windbag? You have no clue about my imagination or intelligence. All you see is words on a screen, and you don't like them (or are afraid of them), so automatically I'm a "retard". Wow...you really are an idiot, aren't you?

"You are worthless and of no value."

Gee, coming from you, that's totally meaningless.

Go ahead now, Stevie. Tell me I'm a moron, too stupid to understand what you're talking about.

Personally, I think I've got you nailed, Skippy.

Report this post as:

KOBE fascists are WRONG again.

by @ Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 8:46 PM

Dictionaries are created by corporations. Those corporations have in interest in distorting the meaning of fascism just as the ADL has an interest in distorting the meaning of fascism. Under the Soviet system, entire dictionaries redefined many terms in order to control the thought processes of the "people." The same was true in NAZI Germany. The same is true in the US and the UK. The only real definitions of fascism come from the time that fascism emerged. Anything else is a reinterpretation created in order to distort objective thinking on the matter.

I will post some more accure definitions of Fascism:

EG:

http://www.remember.org/hist.root.what.html

Quoted from the above, a definition that fits Bush's Amerikkka well:

"*** Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.

*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.

*** Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).

*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.

*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.

*** Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.

*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.

*** Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy_seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.

*** The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.

*** Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.

*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.

"

All of the above can be seen in the views of KOBE.

KOBE IS THE JDL.

KOBE AND THE JDL ARE FASCIST.

DEATH TO FASCISM.

Report this post as:

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

by @ Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 8:54 PM

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.



4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed

to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

AGAIN - THIS HAS BUSH WRITTEN ALL OVER IT.

Report this post as:

What was your search criteria, Stevie?

by nonanarchist Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 9:02 PM

"Definitions of 'fascism' that fit America"?

You're quibbling. I can find definitions of "diety" that fit the Easter Bunny, if I try hard enough.

That don't make it so.

The fact is, by any RATIONAL definition, America and Israel (thanks for tossing in that bit of obligatory Jew-hate, by the way) are not fascist states.

No matter how hard you hope and wish they are.

Ironic how a Jew-hater references a Holocaust memorial web site...

Report this post as:

Prove that I'm a Jew-hater.

by @ Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 9:26 PM

Go ahead, try to prove that I'm a Jew hater. You keep making that assertion. Prove it.

Report this post as:

In my experience...

by nonanarchist Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 9:30 PM

...those who constantly rant against Zionism and the JDL hate Jews.

To quote you, Stevie:

"End of story."

Report this post as:

idoit tome

by Sheepdog Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 9:43 PM

this is always the defence of the right (riech) when defending zionism

and murder, the threadbare and overused rant of anti-jew.

Many devout jews deplore zionism. But his is the skirt they hide behind. No one is fooled except themselves.

Report this post as:

nonanarchist proves that he's full of hot air.

by @ Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 9:44 PM

Here's his proof that I'm a Jew hater:

"those who constantly rant against Zionism and the JDL hate Jews"

Let's see, if I constantly rant against Zionism, who is ranting on my website against Bush's fascism, Nazism, and war? I'm the only one editing my website. That means that I am ranting about other things too, doesn't it? Consequently, you are a liar.

Let's consider the JDL. The JDL is defined as a terrorist organization by the US Government. Do you support the US Government? I don't. However, you do. How do you explain the fact that the government you support considers your JDL to be a terrorist organization?

As a person targeted with hate by the JDL and Zionists, do you really expect me to lay back and take it? Naturally I will speak against those that are harassing me. Who wouldn't?

The government that robs my income in the form of taxation hands that money over to a Zionist government that murders Palestinians. You think I shouldn't passionately rant about that?

You have no proof that I am a Jew hater because I am not a Jew hater. In my lifetime I've loved three Jewish women. I still care about them. My uncle was a Jew. I've had "Thanksgiving" dinner with Jews, not once but several times.

The new definition of Jew hater is "Someone that Jews hate because he or she is critical of Israel."

You are the hater. Not me.

Report this post as:

proof

by fresca Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 9:52 PM

"Zionist government that murders Palestinians."

There it is. There's proof of your Jew hatred.

The fact that you would even characterize Jews defending themselves (and let's be honest, when you're talking about Israel you are of course talking about Jews) against outright terrorism as "murder" is proof that you're a garden variety racist.

Why you hate Jews AND Zionists and Israel is a mystery (although I could guess); that you do hate them is painfully obvious regardless of what your embarrassingly sophomoric website claims.

Report this post as:

fresca

by fresca Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 10:01 PM

The fact that you would even characterize Palestinians defending themselves (and let's be honest, when you're talking about Palestine you are of course talking about Palestinians) against outright terrorism as "murder" is proof that you're a garden variety racist.

Report this post as:

More proof that the KOBE coalition lies.

by @ Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 10:05 PM

Most of the world agrees with me. Israel is occupying Palestinian lands. The Palestinians are waging a war of liberation - IN DEFENSE OF THEIR LIBERTY.

Only a depraved and unethical person would not support the underdogs in a war of liberation.

I do not agree with suicide bombings. However, the suicide bombings are conducted by non-governmental groups. States are expected to respect international law. Israel is in constant violation of International law. It's attacks intentionally kill civilians. These attacks are the attacks of a state governed by international law. They are also unnecessary. They have not made Israel more secure - only less secure.

I supported black South Africans against white South Africans. Does that make me anti-Aryan?

For me, the fact that most Israelis are Jews has absolutely nothing to do with my position. My position is based on support for a people under occupation by a racist and brutal regime. It is only Jews that think the ethnicity of Israelis to be important.

The fact is, you are operating out of tribalist loyalty. Since I'm not a tribalist, you are insane to think that I should be loyal to your tribe in a war of aggression against an innocent people. As for the Palestinians, I support them not because they are Palestinians but because they are oppressed.

Fresca the fascist - it has a ring of truth.

Report this post as:

A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel" 1955-1992

by Oracle Friday, Oct. 10, 2003 at 10:25 PM

A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel" Here is a list of UN resolutions that Israel has not complied with, far more than Iraq. Note that she has also illegally developed nuclear weapons. Further, the situation is far worse than would at first appear, it involves the serious distortion of the official Security Council record by the profligate use by the United States of its veto power. (See Table) Israel's, defiance goes back to its very beginnings. This collection of resolutions criticizing Israel is unmatched by the record of any other nation as Israel stands in violation of more UN resolutions than ANY OTHER NATION ON EARTH.

A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel" 1955-1992: *

Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid". *

Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people". * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem". *

Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions". *

Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria". Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control". *

Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees". Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan". *

Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem". *

Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250". *

Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital". *

Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation". * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation". *

Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport". *

Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan". * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem". *

Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon". *

Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem". *

Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon". *

Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon". * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem". * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon". * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon". *

Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty". * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon". *

Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon. * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces". *

Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". *

Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon". *

Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories". *

Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program". *

Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon". * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return". *

Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians". *

Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". *

Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'". * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'". *

Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re- admit two deported Palestinian mayors". *

Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility". *

Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith". *

Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon". *

Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops". *

Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon". *

Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in". *

Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon". *

Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon". *

Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut". *

Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters. *

Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw". *

Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops". *

Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians. *

Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention. *

Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians". *

Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians. * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. *

Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations. Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return. *

Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for there immediate return.

1993 to 1995UNGA Res 50/21 - The Middle East Peace Process (Dec 12, 1995) UNGA Res 50/22 - The Situation in the Middle East (Dec 12, 1995) UNGA Res 49/35 - Assistance to Palestinian Refugees (Jan 30 1995) lUNGA Res 49/36 - Human Rights of Palestinian Refugees (Jan 30 1995) UNGA Res 49/62 - Question of Palestine (Feb 3 1995) UNGA Res 49/78 - Nuclear Proliferation in Mideast (Jan 11 1995) UNGA Res 49/87 - Situation in the Middle East (Feb 7 1995) UNGA Res 49/88 - The Middle East Peace Process (Feb 7 1995) UNGA Res 49/149- Palestinian Right- Self-Determination (Feb 7 1995) UNGA Res 48/213 - Assistance to Palestinian Refugees (Mar 15, 1994) UNGA Res 48/40 - UNRWA for Palestinian Refugees (Dec 13, 1993) UNGA Res 48/41 - Human Rights in the Territories (Dec 10 1993) UNGA Res 48/58 - The Middle East Peace Process (Dec 14 1993) UNGA Res 48/59 - The Situation in the Middle East (Dec 14 1993) UNGA Res 48/71 - Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Mideast (Dec 16 1993) UNGA Res 48/78 - Israeli Nuclear Armament (Dec 16 1993) UNGA Res 48/94 - Self-Determination & Independence (Dec 20 1993) UNGA Res 48/124- Non-interference in Elections (Dec 20 1993) UNGA Res 48/158- Question of Palestine (Dec 20 1993) UNGA Res 48/212- Repercussions of Israeli Settlements (Dec 21 1993) ==========+++===========

U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel (1972-2002)

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Vetoes: 1972-1982 Subject Date & Meeting US Rep Casting Veto Vote Palestine: Syrian-Lebanese Complaint. 3 power draft resolution 2/10784 9/10/1972 Bush 13-1, 1 Palestine: Examination of Middle East Situation. 8-power draft resolution (S/10974) 7/2/1973 Scali 13-1, 0 (China not partic.) Palestine: Egyptian-Lebanese Complaint. 5-power draft power resolution (S/11898) 12/8/1975 Moynihan 13-1, 1 Palestine: Middle East Problem, including Palestinian question. 6- power draft resolution (S/11940) 1/26/1976 Moynihan 9-1,3 (China & Libya not partic.) Palestine: Situation in Occupied Arab Territories. 5-power draft resolution (S/12022) 3/25/1976 Scranton 14-1,0 Palestine: Report on Committee on Rights of Palestinian People. 4- power draft resolution (S/121119) 6/29/1976 Sherer 10-1,4 Palestine: Palestinian Rights. Tunisian draft resolution. (S/13911) 4/30/1980 McHenry 10-1,4 Palestine: Golan Heights. Jordan draft resolution. (S/14832/Rev. 2) 1/20/1982 Kirkpatrick 9-1,5 Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, Jordan draft resolution (S/14943) 4/2/1982 Lichenstein 13-1,1 Palestine: Incident at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. 4-power draft resolution 4/20/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1, 0 Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. Spain draft resolution. (S/15185) 6/8/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1,0 Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. France draft resolution. (S/15255/Rev. 2) 6/26/1982 Lichenstein 14-1 Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. USSR draft resolution. (S/15347/Rev. 1, as orally amended) 8/6/1982 Lichenstein 11-1,3 Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, 20-power draft resolution (S/15895) 8/2/1983 Lichenstein 13-1,1 Security Council Vetoes/Negative voting 1983-present Subject Date Vote Occupied Arab Territories: Wholesale condemnation of Israeli settlement policies - not adopted 1983 S. Lebanon: Condemns Israeli action in southern Lebanon. S/16732 9/6/1984 Vetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK) Occupied Territories: Deplores "repressive measures" by Israel against Arab population. S/19459. 9/13/1985 Vetoed: 10-1 (U.S.), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK, France) Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17000. 3/12/1985 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK) Occupied Territories: Calls upon Israel to respect Muslim holy places. S/17769/Rev. 1 1/30/1986 Vetoed: 13-1 (US), with one abstention (Thailand) Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17730/Rev. 2. 1/17/1986 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK) Libya/Israel: Condemns Israeli interception of Libyan plane. S/17796/Rev. 1. 2/6/1986 Vetoed: 10 -1 (US), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, France, UK) Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored repeated Israeli attacks against Lebanese territory and other measures and practices against the civilian population; (S/19434) 1/18/1988 vetoed 13-1 (US), with 1 abstention (UK) Lebanon: Draft condemned recent invasion by Israeli forces of Southern Lebanon and repeated a call for the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory; (S/19868) 5/10/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) 12/14/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Draft called on Israel to accept de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention; (S/19466) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; (S/19780) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, and strongly deplored also Israel's continued disregard of relevant Security Council decisions. 2/17/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Condemned Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories. 6/9/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Deplored Israel's policies and practices in the occupied territories. 11/7/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. 5/31/1990 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993 5/17/1995 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. 3/7/1997 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Middle East: Demands that Israel cease construction of the settlement in east Jerusalem (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians and Har Homa by Israel), as well as all the other Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories 3/21/1997 Vetoed 13-1,1 (US) Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza 3/27/2001 Vetoed 9-1 (US), with four abstentions (Britain, France, Ireland and Norway) Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers. 12/15/2001 Vetoed 12-1 (US) with two abstentions (Britain and Norway) Source: U.S. State Department

Report this post as:

Thanks

by fresca Monday, Oct. 13, 2003 at 3:15 PM

Excellent research.

Finally a concise list of all the UN's attempts to vilify and prevent Israel from defending herself from terror.

Keep up the good work.

Report this post as:

so wrong

by so wrong Monday, Oct. 13, 2003 at 3:19 PM

fresca you must be insane.

My opinion.

Report this post as:

Au contraire

by fresca Monday, Oct. 13, 2003 at 3:25 PM

How so? There it is in black and white. Read every one. They all refer to some act of retaliation or defense against terrorism.

There's no getting around it.

Everytime Israel does ANYTHING to protect itself, the usual suspects at the UN start whining and draft a resolution.

Fantasize if you want.

Report this post as:

my fantasy

by fresca Monday, Oct. 13, 2003 at 7:18 PM

Of course i supported the UN and all its resolutions

against Iraq.

Those are all valid!!!

(notice my hipocracy)

thats why I support the Iraq invasion by the United States!!!!

Iraq never attacked the US

I hate the UN (bunch of whiners)

Iraq has no WMD

But i support the US to invade to support those

UN resolutions!!!

NOTICE MY ILL LOGIC

I KNOW EVERONE HERE JUST

LAUGHS AT ME

I provide the greatest comedy!!!!!

Report this post as:

© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy