Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

It's Obama's fault.

That goes without saying.

Thank God for Guns, Geller and Gov. Abbott.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

"When one thinks of all the people who support or have supported Fascism, one stands amazed at their diversity. What a crew! Think of a programme which at any rate for a while could bring Hitler, Petain, Montagu Norman, Pavelitch, William Randolph Hearst, Streicher, Buchman, Ezra Pound, Juan March, Cocteau, Thyssen, Father Coughlin, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Arnold Lunn, Antonescu, Spengler, Beverley Nichols, Lady Houston, and Marinetti all into the same boat! But the clue is really very simple. They are all people with something to lose, or people who long for a hierarchical society and dread the prospect of a world of free and equal human beings. Behind all the ballyhoo that is talked about ‘godless’ Russia and the ‘materialism’ of the working class lies the simple intention of those with money or privileges to cling to them."

- George Orwell

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Update on Israel's use of force in Gaza.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Update on Israel's use of force in Gaza.

Great to see a Philippe Sands quote. He was a law school prof. of mine (despite only being a year older than me - damn overachiever).

As to the substance - is anyone surprised here?

And will anyone be surprised when Israel does the same to the part of East Jerusalem they are penning in, just like Gaza?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Great to see a Philippe Sands quote. He was a law school prof. of mine (despite only being a year older than me - damn overachiever).

As to the substance - is anyone surprised here?

And will anyone be surprised when Israel does the same to the part of East Jerusalem they are penning in, just like Gaza?

I'm surprised -- and I would think your former prof is too. Why would he find this "troubling" if it's what he expected all along?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'm surprised -- and I would think your former prof is too. Why would he find this "troubling" if it's what he expected all along?

I find it troubling but fully expected it. Indeed, I find the fact that I expected it, and expect few to care, just as troubling.

Really, you're surprised? Isn't this exactly what was being reported from Gaza by just about every correspondent there?

Here's the sentence that really highlights how unsurprising this is: "They suggest that an overarching priority was the minimisation of Israeli military casualties even at the risk of Palestinian civilians being harmed." Like, duh, right?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I find it troubling but fully expected it. Indeed, I find the fact that I expected it, and expect few to care, just as troubling.

Really, you're surprised? Isn't this exactly what was being reported from Gaza by just about every correspondent there?

Here's the sentence that really highlights how unsurprising this is: "They suggest that an overarching priority was the minimisation of Israeli military casualties even at the risk of Palestinian civilians being harmed." Like, duh, right?

The last part didn't surprise me. I think most military operations has that same overarching priority, of minimizing their own casualties. The question, of course, is how far you go to achieve that priority, in terms of both how much death and destruction you are willing to inflict and how much you are willing to compromise the military objective.

What surprised me was the testimony that the presumption was that there were no civilians in areas the military entered, and essentially the "shoot everything that moves" strategy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

The last part didn't surprise me. I think most military operations has that same overarching priority, of minimizing their own casualties. The question, of course, is how far you go to achieve that priority, in terms of both how much death and destruction you are willing to inflict and how much you are willing to compromise the military objective.

What surprised me was the testimony that the presumption was that there were no civilians in areas the military entered, and essentially the "shoot everything that moves" strategy.

Never assume anything Ty posts is accurate or factual ESPECIALLY when fro a source as fuzzy brained as the Guardian.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

The last part didn't surprise me. I think most military operations has that same overarching priority, of minimizing their own casualties. The question, of course, is how far you go to achieve that priority, in terms of both how much death and destruction you are willing to inflict and how much you are willing to compromise the military objective.

What surprised me was the testimony that the presumption was that there were no civilians in areas the military entered, and essentially the "shoot everything that moves" strategy.

That was more or less our strategy in the opening round of Battles of Fallujah. It embittered the town against us and made it three times harder to take. It may well have planted some of the seeds whose stalks we now have to reap. By the end of those battles, we had almost completely shifted strategy, and were willing to take significant losses to protect civilians. But it was one of the major military mistakes of the 2nd War.

Gaza wasn't a place Israel was looking to take, where they needed or wanted anyone's cooperation. It's a different kind of battle. Do the damage fast and hard and get out.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

I'm confused. I haven't seen a single #jesuisGeller all day.

Seriously, I think the heros here are the cops, just as in Paris, and that's who we should praise.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Never assume anything Ty posts is accurate or factual ESPECIALLY when fro a source as fuzzy brained as the Guardian.

You prefer the article from the Jerusalem Post?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

what is your fave Jimmy buffet LP?

Don't listen to him, Hank. Yours is no disgrace

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Of all the Not Bobs, I am the Not Bobbiest.

Ah, Cheap Trick - I always think of them as springing onto the scene the following year, fully-formed like Athena from the forehead of Zeus, with the release of Live in Budokan. But that is merely my memory of how they sprung into my awareness.

And my list was not meant to be all-inclusive, and I simply picked the first two albums that I was aware of in 1977 and think are, even now, good. (To be clear, Rumors is a stone-cold classic, while Changes is just (hah! "just") really good.) I mean, I didn't mention Elvis Costello's My Aim is True because I wasn't introduced to it until several years later.

I'm sure I missed this thread entirely, but I want to throw some support, NB. The Ramones, Talking Heads:77, and My Aim Is True changed my life.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Gil Scott Heron.

Times have changed. Not only wii the revolution be televised, it will go viral onYouTube before being picked up by CNN and al-Jazeera America

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Someone has to watch out for the black helicopters, no?

Last week in Savannah, I actually saw a black helicopter.

Carry on.