Breaking news of the shootings/bombing in Norway overnight was met with dismay and disbelief. That one person could kill so many people in what appeared to be an act of civil disobedience? My first thought was of Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Bomber
The media went into a frenzy of speculation that suggested an Islamic extremist group may be behind it. That was sharply removed, (try and find that shit on the web easily!) replaced with “ethnic Norwegian”, and finally something closer to the truth. The Ban the Burqa page went into overdrive.
No screenshots, as most of the comments still remain, but suffice to say that the comments were along the lines of…well, you know. Barely literate, hateful and completely misguided. A kitten with a ball of wool is the best analogy I have to describe it. That or the Monty Python stoning scene, but it’s been done so many times..
Admin of BTB took part with the usual fuckwittish responses (bomb=Islam), and all the sheep took up their position. But… the media started to take a different stance, and the BTB monkeys started to panic. Surely it was a Muslamic that committed this horrible atrocity??
Surely!
Nope. It looks as though the killer is Anders Breivik. Of course, this individual is yet to be charged, so I can’t assume that he is responsible for the deaths of 91 people (thus far), but hey, it kinda blows the BTB wankers theory outta the water! If true. Anders is Caucasian. Blue eyed blond male
Hates Muslims apparently
Right wing conservative
Fundamentalist christian
Didn’t wear a burqa that I know of.
I’m looking forward to the ADL gathering in Brisbane (30th July/6 Aug if they get it sorted!) if anyone is keen? I’ll be there regardless with trusty cam and pointy finger.
you said it... 
I was at work last night when this story broke. Even my workmates commented on how quickly all the media outlets jumped to stories about islam and “Islamic terrorism” despite their own admissions that there was absolutely no evidence linking the attacks to any person or group yet.
I’m sure that for every person who picked up on this incongruence, there were ten that accepted it without question. And the general fear and insecurity people feel just gets ratcheted up another notch with every such incident and constant implication that Islam is the cause.
I read a statistic recently that said only 6% of terrorist attacks on American soil were committed by Islamist Extremists. I am curious about the number worldwide. Anyone have any ideas? I could not find a statistic.
In a way, I am glad it was not an Islam-motivated terrorist attack. Those guys have been copping enough flak from the media. However, the real tragedy is so many young people dead. I am still reeling. May this be a catalyst for positive change in many ways. Down with hate forever.
According to the EU Terrorism Situation & Trend Report 2011 (https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/te-sat2011.pdf), Islamic terrorists in the EU:
– committed 3 out of 249 attacks (1.2%)
– were 179 out of 611 people arrested for terrorist related offences (29.3%)
i went on the ban the burqa site and tried to correct their misconceptions and was kicked off and blocked when i raised a few rational, relavent points. seems they are not really interested in facts, just hysteria. idiots!
So I was pretty crook last night. And was fading in and out of consciousness when I heard the news about Norway…
My first thought when I heard that it was a possible “Terrorist Attack” was “Get F@cked, what kind of international political power has Norway have that justifies terrorism of any kind???”
And then common sense prevailed… and the adage “Don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story” popped in my head. I then proceeded to sleep like a baby, knowing that the truth would eventually come out…
Today a more factual story has hit the news stand, and to clarify they have stated it was “a home grown terrorist”…
I have just one question. When did “a mass murderer” become “a terrorist”? Will we need to go back in history and call Manson, Bundy, and Jack the Ripper all “Terrorists”?
In my opinion this guy would be a mass murderer, who carried out a terrorist like attack.
Unless of course they find out that these attacks were to assist in some kind of “political agenda”…
But its really Tomato/Tomatoe… The media putting their “little spin” so they can continue to pursue the almighty dollar
So sad to hear this story yesterday. Heart goes out to the people of Norway.
There’s only one obvious solution though- Ban police!!
This has to be the best commentary I’ve heard on the subject so far:
It’s too often that people ignore the other potential perpetrators of terrorism that are out there. My thoughts are with the people affected by this unfortunate event.
It was cruel, but necessary.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/
It’s interesting to see how the far right groups went from “It’s the Muslims dat dun it! When will all Muslims complain about the terrorists-why do they accept hatred?” to “Well, he’s not a Muslim, or an Arab, and actually is kinda sharing our beliefs-but that doesn’t mean we have to think about what we’re saying”
It actually took place very slowly. As TAB ppointed out, when the first news of the attacks started, BTB and the APP forums were absolutely sure that it was an Islamic attack. Even when the image of the alleged killer emerged, they were still convinced:
“All because the bomber had western features DOES NOT mean he wasn’t recruited by radical Islamic groups like Al queda as they are brainwashing young men into their stupid religion !”
Yes, they were asking for proof that their theory was wrong, forgetting they never had proof it was right.
When his views emerged there have been three main responses, either:
1) This guy is crazy, but his beliefs had nothing to do with it.
“IMO this is completely unrelated to terrorists and Muslim extremism,”
Yes, an anti-Muslim blogger fires upon and attacks a group of children in a camp run by a left wing, pro-multiculutralism and immigration party, after sending a message saying to rescue Europe from Islam by killing as many as possible, and it’s nothing to do with views of Islamic extremism.
2) This is somehow still the Muslim’s fault.
“its this fucked up religion thats to blame :(”
“I bet he is a convert to islam.”
“Either way, fuk the raghead cunts, may as well have done it, alah is blushing again.”
So, as well as being to blame for all the Islamic terrorism in the world, the entire Muslim community is also to blame for all the anti-Muslim terrorists in the world. Gotta love that double standard.
One loony extended it to justifying his beliefs in banning the burqa.
“It means if you cant trust your own how the fuck are you suppose to trust some dickhead with a towel over their head.”
Yeah-so if a blonde guy starts killing people-how can I trust a Muslim to not kill me?
Which he thinks justifies banning the burqa, but really only justifies banning all human contact.
3) This can’t be right. It must be a conspiracy!
“Think this guy has been to be a scapegoat.”
This is the one the Australian Identity forums went for, hinting that the suspect has had his online identity changed by secret sources so he will appear to be far-right, and that there is a second gunman running around (Who knows-could be Muslim).
Of course, all these answers make sense when you realise that some of these guys must be aware that the crazy comments this dickhead posted, and the beliefs he was expousing before he went out and killed people is the same beliefs we see on BTB, FOWF, APP and so many other sites on a daily basis. Absolutely violent, hateful beliefs, believing murder, violence, and torture are okay, necessary, or a matter of humour when it involves people that the poster thinks are worth less than they are.
Now they have to either realise that the groups they join are just as likely to be producing terrorists as any source they currently fear. They have to realise that calling for brown people to be shot or killed is just as potentially deadly as any Al Quaeda operative shouting “Death to ” They need to start holding themselves up to the same standards that they demand of Muslims-of trying to prevent terrorism from happening, trying to catch potential terrorists, and doing all they can to condemn and discourage acts of violence.
Or could they deny the whole thing, make up conspiracy theories, or just ignore all rules of logic and say “It’s still the Muslims fault!”
As one poster said as the attacks started:
“Where’s the ones with guts who should say these jihadist idiots are NOT welcomed by their fellow Muslims. ”
To that poster, I ask, where’s the nationalist with guts who say that those who call for violence, or advocate the murder or torture of those different, are not welcomed by Nationalist groups?
I see a lot of Nationalists saying “Violence is wrong”-but when one of their members talk about murder, attacks, or torturing others, they’re all very quiet, never condemning or even criticising them.
But no more. We have seen this weekend that the beliefs of these groups are just as able to cause terrifying terrorist attacks. And these groups must be made as responsible for preventing these attacks as they demand Muslim groups are.
JM, whilst I agree with a lot of what you say, violence isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Violence is an occasional part of conflict, and has many benefits.
Violence is stereotyped as an assault upon the individual, and that is where the definition ends for many people. Y’know – one drunk person was beaten by another drunk person et al.
Step beyond the media hype and see that Greencash and the other pacifist fundraising groups are doing nothing other than perpetuating the medias’ line, sucking the Govt dick.
If it takes direct action to rid the country of the BTB/ADL scum?
I’ll have some of that 😉
I don’t see how violence can help us out at all. If you read the craziest of the BTB/ADL group, you’ll see violence is what they want-a huge civil war between the groups.
Why? Because they know that as long as we remain nonviolent, reasonable and rational, no one will listen to these groups. Australians by and large don’t care about the views of these groups to the extent of wanting to join them, much less become actively involved. Involve violence and suddenly, the rules of rationality and reasonableness are lost.
And even the idea of saying “Violence to get rid of ADL/BTB” is dangerous. While you and I would look at these lines and think “Oh, wouldn’t it me nice if the rednecks all left”, it would take one crazy person to take that to the extreme, and attack one of these groups, akin to the above Norwegian terrorist. This is my entire point-if you allow violent talk now, you run the risk that someone crazy will enact that violence.
We need to be better than the extreme right. And so far, we’re doing well, in terms of the public. They joke about blowing up trains, we call them idiots. They hate all non-whites, we call them idiots. Once we start responding to these extremist groups by using their own style of angry rhetoric, then the difference between us reduces.
I agree JM. F*ck violence. Enough people hurting and killing each other without the rational ones starting on it as well.
JM, to my mind it isn’t always as simple as that. The far right nationalists (groups such as ADL etc) are merely an irritation. They are poorly numbered, easily defeated and only a very small part of the problem. If you think I was suggesting walking up to one of the nazis and taking a swing? Nope. Not at all.
Violence isn’t necessarily against the person. The crimes of treason and sedition are treated by the courts as ‘violent’
I DO want to take the facists to task at every and any given opportunity possible in an attempt to show them that there is
real resistance to their ideologies, but to focus on them solely would be pointless. Simplistic.
We have a media that aggressively perpetuates the racism and hate, and a Govt that is complicit in encouraging it. If we are to [i]honestly[/i] attempt to make change, that’s where it has to start. That lot won’t give up what they have easily!
For what it’s worth, I have no political allegiances whatsoever. I don’t vote and I haven’t for around 20 years. Many years ago I was involved with Greencash/DSP et al and became dissatisfied by all the inactivity, publicity stunts and the lack of any purpose, direction?
I respect your stance on non-violence, and I’d like to suggest something that is worth considering. A book by US activist Peter Gelderloos ‘How non-violence protects the state’. It’s available at your local friendly anarchist bookstore, or I can upload a PDF version with a link if you want? With full permission of course. Worth reading as a contrast to your stance and offers an alternative viewpoint.
cheers
El toony, satisfy my curiosity. What positive impact has violent action achieved? Because if my beliefs must fail, I’d rather fail through tactics that I can be proud of, than fail doing something I am ashamed of.
JM, seriously, it’s a bit pedantic to ask for examples of where violent actions have succeeded. There’s many. The Spanish anarchists? Sea Shepherd?
Anyway, despite my polite reasoning and a willingness to inform, you have refused to accept an opinion outside of your own, so there is no point to this conversation.
All the best.
El Toony-I asked a question. A fairly reasonable question if you think about it-we disagree on methods, so I ask for evidence that your methods are more succesful than mine.
If you can’t handle questions, aren’t you as close minded as those we mock on this site? Isn’t a discussion each side questioning each other-if it’s one sided-isn’t that just a lecturer? I haven’t mocked your views at all, merely asked for further details. Yes I disagree with them, as I disagree with all violent actions, but I’m willing to talk to you more about them. However, you don’t seem willing to consider dissent (As how you treated other posters in this list who disagree with violent actions) as part of a reasonable discussion. May I ask how you expected this discussion to go? It seems like you wanted to hear blatant acceptance of all statements-which seems a bit naive.
But I digress-
The Sea Shepherd-any successes that group has had has been equal in damage it has done to the reputation of anti-whaling groups everywhere. As Greenpeace described them:
“By making it easy to paint anti-whaling forces as dangerous, piratical terrorists, Sea Shepherd could undermine the forces within Japan which could actually bring whaling to an end”
And seriously-can you really have much of a reputation as saving whales when your operations include blinding them?
Incidentally I asked for successes. You’ve given me groups. What did either of these groups actually achieve? Sea Shepherd seems to have damaged the anti-whaling movement, and the Spanish Anarchists, apart from creating a climate whereby Franco could come to power, seem to have created little change which wasn;t either reversed, or occurred later elsewhere by peaceful means.
Oh JM.. your ‘you cant handle the truth’ reply, as evocative as it may be, still fails.
I gave you clear references to times where action succeeded.
That you chose to quote verbatim from the Greencash website is irrelevant . Not irrelevant, but somewhat slavish.
Greencash is an organisation dedicated to generating profit whilst satisfying some of their more …. dull? Young? Gullible? into parting with their hard-earned, into believing that they are Making A Difference! lols
I feel a bit sad for you. I was once like you. Hopefully you wise up as quick as I did. 😉
…and just remember – wikipedia is a jumping off point, not the be-all, end-all. Just ask the blinded whale eyes and Franco!
RM, here’s an interview with Peter Gelderloos via Stimulator. A very basic overview, but provides some insight if you are interested?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F Kennedy
It’s sad that this person thought he wasn’t able to make his point peacefully, and resorted to violence. And watch the people who actually have same views as this “Mass Murderer” distance themselves and tell anyone who listens that he was not part of their “group”.
He not only damaged the reputation of any political group that has the same views… he has basically destroyed any credibility they have. Epic Fail in getting your point across mate.. anything you say now sounds like a crackpot idea!!!
Its the same with ADL and BTB, they seem unable to make their points/arguments in a basic factual way. So they bandy about some half truths and lies, in the hopes of getting their points across.
I wonder if “debating” is a foreign term for these people…
It would be pointless to debate with someone that quotes JFK.
You do realise that your beloved JFK oversaw the initial intervention into Vietnam, right? He also willingly signed off on death sentences for prisoners convicted of horrible crimes (Feguer).
He also was a willing participant in the Cuban missile crisis? You know, the one that brought world oblivion to its closest point eternally..
Bay of Pigs ring a bell?
So, to refute your allegation that I am a person with “a crackpot idea!!!”, I’d suggest otherwise. I promise not to quote JFK.
Scouts honour.
My whole statement could of been about JFK…
Can one support an idea… but not the person?
I support the war against Terror, but don’t support how its being carried out
But thats neither here or there…
I was stating that people do more harm to their “cause” when they resort to violence.
How much harm did the Vietnam War do to the US Govt and their “cause”?
How much harm did Osama do to his “cause” by carrying out Terrorist acts on “innocents” who probably didn’t even know where Afghanistan is located?
Willing participant?
So if you stand up to your principals, and oppose another persons imminent violence… you are a willing participant? So bullies always pick on certain people as they are willing participants…
And YOUR Crackpot Idea? If you want to take ownership of using violence to oppose peaceful protests and revolutions are you no better than terrorists and mass murderers?
I know you are just trolling, but I have a couple of minutes to spare…
I don’t have a principal as I am not at school. Therefore I don’t stand up to them.
The war that you support, the one against “Terror”? Fairly sure that involves violence. Pretty nasty too. Mainly women and children, led by a foreign govt and funded by the Australian taxpayer..
Your last paragraph is pure nonsense, given that I have explicitly stated my stance previously..back to the BTB facebook page for you young lad 😉
WOW… Well I don’t have time to hang around on the web all day…
It seems like you have thought I was replying to your post, rather than putting up my individual and independent blog
Where shall I start….
“I support the war against Terror, but don’t support how its being carried out”
To clarify – I am against the Terrorist attacks hence I SUPPORT the war against Terror.
The use of US Armed Forces was and is heavy handed, and I am still wondering why the UN Forces were not used or bolstered for this task. Ergo I DON’T SUPPORT how its being carried out.
The Crackpot Idea was related back to a “HE” that was actually referring back to the Killer in Norway one Anders Behrig Breivik. I have yet to see any evidence that this man led “Peaceful protests” against those people with opposing views to his
But hey like I said in the last paragraph
“And YOUR Crackpot Idea? If you want to take ownership of using violence to oppose peaceful protests and revolutions are you no better than terrorists and mass murderers?”
SO if you think I am calling your Ideas “Crackpot” I say that says more about your post than it does me… since the whole post was about Anders…
El toony-I would have more respect for you if you had more respect for others. You are openly patronising other members of this message board for disagreeing with you about methods.
In that, how is this a fair discussion? Again, I state, you seem to only want to state your beliefs, expect all people to agree with you, and if they don’t you call them idiots and trolls until they do!
Oh JM…whether you have respect for my internet persona is neither here nor there. I re-read my posts, and I don’t believe I have been patronising.
I haven’t patronised anyone, unless you consider going to considerable lengths to offer an alternative viewpoint patronising? My methods? Goodness.. what are my ‘methods’?
I think you give me far more credit than I am due. Whilst flattered, I promise not to ever offer a possible alternative view to your thinking as I feel that you may not be open to thinking for yourself.
As for patronising?
– JM is a white male aged between 16-22, living at home with affluent folks, never traveled (not including family trips to The Gold Coast, that secret beach in Thailand etc), indoctrinated by what is read in the mainstream media/ taught by teachers.
– Has no true appreciation of other cultures other than what is sent via email for his/her Greenpeace subscription.
– Thinks that manana means ‘one more!’.
Is that patronising enough? How far was I out (be honest!)
It’s certainly foriegn for them to use any, real facts or statistics!
I knew McVeigh I drank with him and spent time with him when he was in the Marine Corp He was a Catholic and was very opinionated but never struck me as capable of what he did Please youngsters don’t let ideas erase your humanity and lead you into acts that will destroy you and all you hold dear The Sicilians say it best, when you seek revenge, dig two graves Think about what a peaceful life could be like you aren’t defending anything but amorphous ideas
Satyagraha (Sanskrit: सत्याग्रह satyāgraha), loosely translated as “Soul Force”[1] or “truth force” is a particular philosophy and practice within the broader overall category generally known as nonviolent resistance or civil resistance.
The fact that you think of discussions as “Winning” or “Failing” speaks volumes, El Toony. This was never a discussion-this was a lecture where you expected people to just bow down to everything you say.
I ask again, what did these groups achieve? As you’ve been unable to say anything-this speaks volumes also. You act like this is me denying a different viewpoint-all I have been asking for is examples of it succeeding. You’re instead saying “I’ve given you names-go and research for yourself and find something that says I’m right”
I’ve heard people on the far right say the same thing about :
“Obama is going to Destroy Israel”, and
“The Protocol of the Elders of Zion is real”
And I give you the same response-you’ve made the claim. Support it. It is not my job to support your claims.
Now, let’s get started on the patronising. A person who disagrees with you is a troll. When they continue to disagree with you, they’re a “Young lad”, from the BTB page. He disagrees with you just on the topic of violence-how does that mean they belong on the BTB page? Is this how you treat people who differ in your beliefs? I begin to understand why you want to use violence-if the alternative is patronising people and shouting “Agree with me” until they run away.
I call you up on it, you decide to go after me with your apparently amazing psychic powers. Shall we go through your amazing powers:
“JM is a white male aged between 16-22”
Well gender and ethnicity is correct-age is wrong.
“Living at home with affluent folks”
Wrong
“Never travelled”
Lived overseas, travelled through most continents, so….wrong.
“Not including trips to Gold Coast, secret beach in Thailand”
Have been to the Gold Coast once or twice, as well as many other trips through Australia (Every state but Tasmania, so far), but never been to Thailand.
“Indoctrinated by what is read in the mainstream media/ taught by teachers”
Well, how do you test that? But you’re again sounding very similar to the people I speak to from the far right groups. “You just like Muslims because you listen to the mainstream media”
Seriously-you’re getting your statements from Sarah Palin now!
“Had no appreciation of other cultures”
Well, I’ve lived overseas in overseas cultures, engaged with someone from a different culture, work daily with asylum seekers to help them maintain their culture in Australia-but please tell me how I can have a real appreciation of other cultures.
“What is sent via email for his/her Greenpeace subscription”
No subscription to Greenpeace. I’m more a “Mother Jones” kinda guy
“Thinks manana menas….”
I’ve never used that word in my life.
So…in terms of your psychological profiling-I think you should stick to your day job.
Now if you’re done trying to pretending to be psychic, can you actually say what the violent groups you described have achieved through their violent acts?
No JM, I wont.
I initially presented a viewpoint that you disagreed with. You became emotive, reacting rather than responding, whilst I (as stated in my last post) simply offered information that runs along the same lines as what I believe? I wasn’t asking/begging for you to read or watch. Nor was I expecting you to agree. If you don’t agree, you don’t agree!! Sheesh….
I truly don’t understand why you feel the need to be so angry about it? I mean seriously, “winning/failing”? WTF is that all about!
JM, this is an internet forum, pure and simple.If you don’t agree with someone, state as much. If they offer further information/discussion, don’t jump down their throat! They aren’t always being patronising… ignore it?! Not everyone is trying to convert you to whatever it is they believe. Accept that others don’t have the same views as yourself, and if I can say, do so without the histrionics 😉
“No man is so foolish but he may sometimes give another good counsel, and no man so wise that he may not easily err if he takes no other counsel than his own. He that is taught only by
himself has a fool for a master.”
Agree to disagree and move on? I need this 5mins of my life back….
“You became emotive,”
Where did I become emotive?
“Nor was I expecting you to agree. ”
Yet when all I did was ask for successes achieved through violent actions-you acted all hurt as if this was the most terrible question in the world to ask.
“I truly don’t understand why you feel the need to be so angry about it?”
Well, the fact that you respond to simple questioning with veiled insults and patronising remarks like this :
I feel a bit sad for you. I was once like you. Hopefully you wise up as quick as I did.
Oh, and your rather silly “Let me be patronising about you JM” post-do you look back on that with regret?
You seem to think that everyone who disagrees with you must therefore be in need of your wisdom. Where I have I treated your beliefs like that? I have questioned them sure-but never have I treated you as if you were the naive young man in need of wisdom.
” I mean seriously, “winning/failing”? WTF is that all about!”
You tell me. Your exact phrase: your ‘you cant handle the truth’ reply, as evocative as it may be, still fails.
As you say-WTF is that all about? Why are you using terms like “Fail” when this is meant to be a friendly discussion of viewpoints.
“If they offer further information/discussion, don’t jump down their throat!”
Where have I jumped down your throat? What I did, and continue to do, and this is what you have reacted to, is ask “What successes have been achieved by groups through violence?” How is that “jumping down your throat”
” They aren’t always being patronising… ignore it?! ”
Is this you accepting that you are patronising others for having views different to your own (Bloody hell-one person wasn’t even referring to you and you started patronising them!).
“Not everyone is trying to convert you to whatever it is they believe. Accept that others don’t have the same views as yourself, and if I can say, do so without the histrionics ”
I have not, nor have I ever had a problem with you having a different opinion than myself. I was interested in your point of view. And that is why I asked, and continue to ask, how use of violent actions can be succesful and can achieve things. As I said, if my goals must fail, I would prefer them to fail through non-violent action that I can be proud of, than violent action for which I would be ashamed. This was me not attacking you, not leaping down your throat, but simply asking you a question, wanting to know more about the successes achieved through methods other than my own.
You responded by saying: “despite my polite reasoning and a willingness to inform, you have refused to accept an opinion outside of your own, so there is no point to this conversation.”
That is what made me annoyed. That’s what made me angry. Not that you have a different opinion than me-but that when someone disagrees with you, or simply questions your belief you treat them as immature, trolls, bogans, cliches, or any other type of person you value as worth less than yourself. And to make it worse, when you were called up on it, you act as if you’re disliked because of your beliefs, rather than your treatment of others, then start attacking personally (I again point to your “As for Patronisation-how about this” post).
If someone asks you a question about your beliefs that you can’t answer or don’t want to, you can say “I don’t know”-it won’t make you “Fail” as you like to put it. You don’t have to lose your beliefs because you can’t answer a question. You can say the question is irrelevant, or simply not respond.
Do me a favour: Look back at what I’ve written, and what you’ve written over the last few days. See if you can really say you’ve treated everyone you’ve spoken to with respect, as someone who differs in opinion, but who is not worth more or less than yourself. See if you can honestly say that everything you’ve written here you’d be proud to claim as your own text. And, please, tell me where I have attacked you, where I have leapt down your throat. Tell me if you don’t see a sudden change in your postings from “Let me tell you more” to “You obviously are closed minded, and not ready developed to hear more”, and a change in mind from “I disagree, but I’d like to hear more” to “Why are you talking like this?”
After that, I’m happy to agree to disagree with you. If you’re happy to start respecting others opinions, and not immediatly patronising those who disagree with you, or who you think disagree with you.
Hell, if you can manage that, I won’t even ask for an apology for the trolll-like comments you’ve been sending in my direction for the past few days.
Of course JM. No true response, as I am off to see a band. You know what a band is? It’s them things what JJJ tries to kill. Seeing a good one too. JJJ wouldn’t like them.
Thank fuck.
Will reply to your self-hating diatribe in the morn if I can be arsed!? In the meantime, keep looking at ‘Mother Jones’ and assuring yourself that you are doing something…
😉 I love you JM. You are beauty to me.
Enjoy yourself.
“Will reply to your self-hating diatribe in the morn if I can be arsed!? In the meantime, keep looking at ‘Mother Jones’ and assuring yourself that you are doing something…”
Oh, I know I am doing something.
But please, let me know how you actually are “doing something” with your life, apart from being a patronising, insulting troll on an internet forum?
It takes two to start a war but only one to end it.
If only Hamas and Fatah stopped to think, and put their pride aside, they would realize:
1) they will never agree completely as that is human nature
2) they have more in common than they have differences
3) the energy they are expending on fighting each other would be far more effective if combined than when used to cancel each each other out.
All it would take is for one of them to realize this and act on it. This approach works in marriage, family, friendship and amongst activists fighting a common enemy.