Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Muslims against terror | Main | No Comment »

Friday, July 28, 2006

UN and Hezbollah

Here's an interesting story about the bizarre interaction between Hezbollah and the UN. And here's a photo that shows how Hezbollah often co-locates with the UN. It's partly because the UN posts often choose the high ground -- perfect for observing, or directing rocket-fire. But it's also to use the UN as human shields.

Flags

Posted by Ezra Levant on July 28, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834619d5869e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference UN and Hezbollah:

» Where Is the Muslim Outrage? by Neal Boortz (VIDEO) from Ms Underestimated
Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage. Lets go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage. ... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-07-28 10:42:17 PM

Comments

No, you did not say it was "proof," but you did ask, "how is this proof..."

So what was the point of your question? I never said it was proof. Take your non sequiters and stick 'em up your ass. I was answering your direct question, whilst also saying that I never said it was proof.

If you read the whole story about the incident you will also realize that prior to the attack, the IAF made several fly by's over the Liberty, and it would have been unlikely they missed the American Flag flying on the ship.

If you think my response is a non sequiter, why the hell did you ask the question, "in just what way is this proof of an intentional attack?"

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 8:39:12 PM


Ian,
Now you proffer the "OPINIONS" of high ranking individuals. Cite the proof. Never mind. It could be true and I'll allow for it. So what. It is still irrelevant to the bombing of the UN Post. Why bring it up in the first place? Governements change. What British/American/Canadian would strafe Berlin or destroy Tokyo today?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-28 8:39:21 PM


Can't you read, h2o?

I'll repeat it for you:

Liz J: "Anyone with a brain and a thought process would know Israel would NEVER purposely attack the UN outpost, that is not their way of operating."

Well, I've shown that some with a brain do believe that Israel has been capable of purposely attacking that which it should not.

Your question, "how is this 'proof'?" is the non-sequiter. I never said it was "proof."

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 8:43:08 PM


"What British/American/Canadian would strafe Berlin or destroy Tokyo today?"

Your non-sequiter.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 8:44:07 PM


Ian,
"So what was the point of your question? I never said it was proof. Take your non sequiters and stick 'em up your ass. I was answering your direct question, whilst also saying that I never said it was proof."

Getting a bit worked up? My original response called you on your attempt at grabbing the "MORAL HIGHGROUND".

You still have not responded to that. What would calling them liars accomplish especially when I saw no evidence that their veracity was in question. NOPE, it's about the relevance of what they saw. It proves nothing about "deliberation" so why are you appealing to it?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-28 8:44:15 PM


Ian Scott wrote:Did I say it was "proof?" Indeed, I did not. I was responding to Liz, who wrote, ""Anyone with a brain and a thought process would know Israel would NEVER purposely attack the UN outpost, that is not their way of operating."

Just like Israel would never bomb American and British targets. I guess few people are aware of The Lavon Affair during the 1950's. Here's one url that gives a good description of the operation.

http://www.mideastweb.org/lavon.htm

Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-07-28 8:46:30 PM


h2o:

"Getting a bit worked up?"

Nope. Are you projecting that I am? I'm showing you that your assertion of "non-sequiter" is false.

"My original response called you on your attempt at grabbing the "MORAL HIGHGROUND"."

"What would calling them liars accomplish"

I guess the same accomplishment as Faramir, asserting this is an "ancient lie." Can Faramir "prove" the survivors, who believe the attack was deliberate, and have asserted the attack was deliberate, were lying about their assertion?

" It proves nothing about "deliberation" so why are you appealing to it?"

Once again, I never said anything about "proof." you brought up the question of "proof."

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 8:50:54 PM


No Spin Zone,
I'm sorry if others are saying that Israel would NEVER bomb US/Brits. Frankly, I don't know if they have or haven't.

What is the relevance to the UN post bombing? What's past is past. By bringing it up, are you trying to lay the ground work for a precedence. At least clarify. If so, I want PROOF!

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-28 8:52:30 PM


Ian,
Projection? You got personaly and told me to "stick 'em up your ass."

More gaslighting?

I don't speak for Faramir. Period.

As you were appealing to the veracity of the witnesses, it was a challenge regarding PROOF of INTENT. Or do I misunderstand? Or while else would you bring it up?


Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-28 8:56:45 PM


Boy this is the second place today that someone said, well remember the USS liberty. The other place was in a letter to The Star (big surprise there)

Israel makes mistakes like any other country. "Death by Friendly fire" has always happened in wars

The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was an error, largely attributable to the fact that it occurred in the midst of the confusion of a full-scale war in 1967. Ten official United States investigations and three official Israeli inquiries have all conclusively established the attack was a tragic mistake.

Many of the survivors of the Liberty remain bitter, and are convinced the attack was deliberate as they make clear on their web site. In 1991, columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak trumpeted their discovery of an American who said he had been in the Israeli war room when the decision was made to knowingly attack the American ship.31 In fact, that individual, Seth Mintz, wrote a letter to the Washington Post on November 9, 1991, in which he said he was misquoted by Evans and Novak and that the attack, was, in fact, a "case of mistaken identity." Moreover, the man who Mintz originally said had been with him, a Gen. Benni Matti, does not exist.

Israel apologized for the tragedy and paid nearly $13 million in humanitarian reparations to the United States and to the families of the victims in amounts established by the U.S. State Department. The matter was officially closed between the two governments by an exchange of diplomatic notes on December 17, 1987.

Posted by: ex-liberal | 2006-07-28 9:00:25 PM


"You got personaly and told me to "stick 'em up your ass."

And so you should. Your assertion of non-sequiter is false. If you took it "personally," then you are projecting.

"As you were appealing to the veracity of the witnesses, it was a challenge regarding PROOF of INTENT. Or do I misunderstand?"

It was a challenge of the assertion that it was an ancient lie, and was directed to Faramir.

Was that difficult for you to understand in the context of the comments?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 9:00:29 PM


Ian,
It's ok if you feel that I should "stick 'em up your ass". How that is not personal is beyond me. Just sensitive I guess. It's ok, I can take it.

"It was a challenge of the assertion that it was an ancient lie, and was directed to Faramir."

Yes, it was directed at Faramir. If it challenges the "ancient lie" then you are proffering at least the possibility that the witnesses have another view of the Israeli INTENT. So what? If they are wrong, why do you think it matters vis-a-vis past or present Israeli actions. Again. Why bring it up?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-28 9:07:42 PM


ex-liberal, thanks for your input. You are correct that inquiries absolved Israel of deliberately targetting the Liberty.

However, you might want to get some updated information, from the US Naval Institute Journal which published new evidence in June 2003:

http://www.usni.org/proceedings/Articles03/PROwalsh06.htm

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 9:09:55 PM


"Again. Why bring it up?"

My whim, h20.

My whim, upon reading this comment, which I've written out a couple of times already as has "No Spin," to whit: ""Anyone with a brain and a thought process would know Israel would NEVER purposely attack the UN outpost, that is not their way of operating."

Liz makes an assertion that folks with a brain know that Israel would never attack a UN outpost - she then states this is not Israel's way of operating.

I am asserting that some with a brain might beg to differ with her. Do they "know?" I dunno.. I wasn't one of the eyewitnesses. But I'd ascertain from what I've read, that some with a brain also DON'T KNOW that Israel wouldn't operate this way.

Is this a problem for you to understand, h2o?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 9:14:01 PM


Ian,
"I am asserting that some with a brain might beg to differ with her. Do they "know?" I dunno.. I wasn't one of the eyewitnesses. But I'd ascertain from what I've read, that some with a brain also DON'T KNOW that Israel wouldn't operate this way."

Yep, they could beg to differ. As I'd previously stated, I frankly, don't know if the Israelis did or didn't.

You, SPECIFICALLY, appealed to the veracity of the crew as if there was something inherent in their reports that proved INTENT. It's conjecture. If there indeed was not INTENT then the "ancient lie" is indeed a LIE and Faramir would be right.

But then again your arguments have been just more gaslighting on what you were trying to imply!

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-28 9:22:01 PM


"You, SPECIFICALLY, appealed to the veracity of the crew as if there was something inherent in their reports that proved INTENT"

Bullshit. You are projecting upon my words and coming up with your own "beliefs" about what I was doing or not doing. I wrote what I wrote. Anything else beyond what I wrote is pure conjecture on your part.

The crew believes it was deliberate. They are eyewitnesses to the event. Not only the event itself, but in the hours, and in fact day I believe, preceding the event.

If Faramir wants to assert it's a lie, perhaps he can call the crew liars in their belief and assertion it was deliberate. Faramir has no "proof" that it's a lie.

If you would kindly accept my words that I write at face value, rather come up with fantastical conjecture on my meanings, or my reasons, etc, that would likely assist in clearing whatever issues you have.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 9:36:52 PM


Ian,

just wondering, what is your point?

Jews make mistakes?

Jews do bad stuff?

Jews not the allies we think they are - they targeted the USS Liberty and now the UN outpost?


Posted by: ex-liberal | 2006-07-28 9:42:00 PM


Ian,
"If Faramir wants to assert it's a lie, perhaps he can call the crew liars in their belief and assertion it was deliberate. Faramir has no "proof" that it's a lie."

Why can't he simply say, "Sorry, you are mistaken for reasons X, Y and Z"?

You are right, he has no proof one way or the other. He did not bring up the veracity of the crew. YOU DID! Why bring them up? You had a reason. It does not disprove Faramir any more than Faramir's assertions prove him right.

Pray tell. What is the difference between you and him?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-28 9:42:10 PM


ex-liberal, my "point" is to assist others who are interested in realizing there are "people with brains" who have other perspectives.

People of every race "do bad things," just as people of every race "do good things."

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 9:45:32 PM


"YOU DID! Why bring them up?"

Why not? As far as I know, they have more information available to them as eyewitnesses than Faramir does.

Why NOT bring them up?

"You had a reason. It does not disprove Faramir any more than Faramir's assertions prove him right."

Of course it doesn't. I'm not talking about "proof" of deliberation. I'm showing some evidence, in the minds of the crew. Is this really that difficult for you to understand?

"Pray tell. What is the difference between you and him?"

I don't know. I've never met him/her.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 9:48:51 PM


Ian,

you go ahead and have whatever perspective you want - if you think that Jews deliberately targeted the USS Liberty and the UN outpost, go ahead.

I don't think anyone has asserted that Jews do only "good things". Jews make errors and mistakes all the time just like all other people.

(by the way Jews are not a race, they are a nation)

Posted by: ex-liberal | 2006-07-28 9:51:35 PM


Ian,
"ex-liberal, my "point" is to assist others who are interested in realizing there are "people with brains" who have other perspectives.
People of every race "do bad things," just as people of every race "do good things."
"

Yes, they do. No quibbling here. Only a troglodyte would argue otherwise. I'm sure you can find them here and on other blogs: Left, Right, Feminist, Conservative, Socialist, Communist, Republican, yada yada.

Question: Did the Israelis do a bad thing with the Liberty? If not, why bring it up?

The problem with moral equivalence is rooted in your assertion regarding how "people of every race do bad things".

It fails to acknowledge the other half of the equation. NOT ALL PEOPLE OF OTHER RACES currently give a whit about your assertion.

In other words, why we are all capable of bad things, we are NOT all capable of regularly doing GOOD things.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-28 9:54:16 PM


Thanks for your permission, ex-liberal! I'll keep that in mind if and when I decide to do further research if I ever want to have a perspective.

"(by the way Jews are not a race, they are a nation)"

Ummmm... ok. I'll keep that in mind next time I'm speaking with one of my Jewish friends who calls herself Canadian and who identifies herself as a Jew as a religious subset of a race.

I'll let her know you think she is part of a "Jewish Nation." I'm sure she'll appreciate your insights into her nationalistic identity.


Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 9:56:11 PM


"Question: Did the Israelis do a bad thing with the Liberty? If not, why bring it up?"

Ok, now I'm realizing you are really dense. Must I, once again, repeat Liz J's assertion?

" NOT ALL PEOPLE OF OTHER RACES currently give a whit about your assertion."

Well, I don't give a whit that they don't give a whit.

"In other words, why we are all capable of bad things, we are NOT all capable of regularly doing GOOD things."

Huh?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 9:58:31 PM


Ian,
Evidence in the mind of the crew is NOT EVIDENCE OF INTENT.

Only objective evidence counts. Yes, they have more objective observations than Faramir but still do not know what went on at HQ.

If he is right and the crew are wrong, your point about the Jews being capable of doing bad things is moot. Come to think of it, it is still irrelevant as to whether they intentionally bombed the UN outpost. But I digress.

Answer ex-liberal. Just what is your point about the Jews anyway?

I'm tired of the goalposts changing. The fumes from the gaslighting are starting to make me dizzy.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-28 10:04:16 PM


Ian,

Jews are not a race. Jews come in all skin colors, hair textures, nose shapes, and eye colors. Anyone of any race can be a Jew (this is one of the things that drove Hitler crazy about Jews - he called them a mongrol people).

Jews recognized themselves as a nation some 3300 years ago. They were the first constitutional monarchy.

and yes they make errors and mistakes and don't always do "good things". So what?

if you want to think they deliberately targetted the UN outpost, I'm sure you will find many people who share your opinion.

if you are trying to imply that they are morally equivalent to Islamofascists and practice "state terrorism", I'm sure you will also find many people who agree. So what?

Posted by: ex-liberal | 2006-07-28 10:06:48 PM


Ian,
Huge apologies. You did answer ex-liberal and very well vis-a-vis the Jews. Also, that should read "Israelis" and not "Jews".

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-28 10:09:07 PM


"If he is right and the crew are wrong, your point about the Jews being capable of doing bad things is moot."

Are you dense once again? When did I make any point about the Jews being capable of doing bad things?

Please point to that assertion you fantasize I made.

"I'm tired of the goalposts changing."

Then stop changing them. Your projecting upon my words, fantasies about what I was "trying to implying" (h2o: "But then again your arguments have been just more gaslighting on what you were trying to imply!") are what is changing the "goal posts" here.

Why don't you come right out and be honest, and tell us all what you fantasize I was implying? How do you KNOW what I was implying, in your mind?

Now, go ahead and "prove" that your fantasy about what I was "trying to imply" is correct and not just a fantasy.

Do you often fantasize about what others are "implying" when they communicate?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 10:12:13 PM


h20
Jews=Israelis
Israel is the world's only Jewish state

Ian,
huh? is your point that there are people who have different perspectives/opinions? So what?

Posted by: ex-liberal | 2006-07-28 10:19:17 PM


"Jews are not a race. Jews come in all skin colors, hair textures, nose shapes, and eye colors. Anyone of any race can be a Jew (this is one of the things that drove Hitler crazy about Jews - he called them a mongrol people)."

I did not say they were a "race." I wrote "subset." Can't you read?

The human race is the "full set."

There is in fact, "some" evidence (not that I have any perspective on this) that the Celts and Europeans are decendants of the "lost tribes." Who knows?

"They were the first constitutional monarchy"

Ummm.. ok. I don't know what you mean by "constitution" in this regard, but certainly they were not the first monarchy.

But as an aside, even their God did not approve of them having a king. Take a look sometime at I Samuel 8:6-18.

Would you mind providing more information on your use of the term "constitional?"

"if you want to think they deliberately targetted the UN outpost, I'm sure you will find many people who share your opinion."

Now, I must ask you if you are dense. Where the hell do you get any idea that I think anything about the targetting of the UN outpost? Please point to my words that suggest I have any thoughts at all on it.

"if you are trying to imply that they are morally equivalent to Islamofascists and practice "state terrorism", I'm sure you will also find many people who agree. So what?"

S'cuse my language, but what the fuck are you going on about? Huh? The relevance to this discussion and your last paragraph is what, exactly?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 10:20:34 PM


"Jews=Israelis
Israel is the world's only Jewish state"

Your logic is screwy.

Some arabs=Israelis.
Some Christians=Israelies
Some Agnostics=Israelies
Some Atheists=Israelies

Not all Jews=Israelis except that Israel will recognize them as citizens should Jews choose to go there (except for Norman Finkelstein).

Is Norman Finkelstein an Israeli, even though he is a Jew, but has been denied entrance to Israel?

ex-liberal, you really ought to take some advanced learning in logic.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 10:23:54 PM


King David. The constitution was the Torah. The king had to follow the same laws as the rest of the people of the nation.

Race = caucasion, oriental, black African. Jews are not a race.

You brought up the USS Liberty. For what reason? I assume that you meant to draw a parallel between that incident and the bombing of the UN outpost - which was the subject of this thread

Posted by: ex-liberal | 2006-07-28 10:28:48 PM


"King David."

??????????

What does King David have to do with any of my questions?

Beats me.

The first King of Israel, by the way, was King Saul.

David came after Saul. Would you explain your "King David" words, which are followed by a period, yet there is no full sentence?

"You brought up the USS Liberty. For what reason?"

You are dense. I'm not explaining it again. Go scroll back. I've already explained my "reason" to h20 several times.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 10:32:25 PM


h2o

when people talk about Israel, I am pretty sure they are not talking about the Israeli Arabs, Christians, or Agnostics. They are talking about Israel as the world's only Jewish state.
Israel = Jews in the minds of the majority of people on the planet. Do you think the Muslims want to destroy Israel because it is a nation of Christians, Arabs, Agnostics, and Atheists

Posted by: ex-liberal | 2006-07-28 10:33:30 PM


Ian
Um, too easy.
"Are you dense once again? When did I make any point about the Jews being capable of doing bad things?"

"People of every race "do bad things," just as people of every race "do good things."
"

Unless of course, you think Jews are no longer part of "every race".

Ok, cheap shot. Still, calling me "dense" repeatedly and to "stick 'em up my ass" belie a defensive mentality who lashes out when frustrated instead of just answering the base question.

You had a reason for wanting Faramir to call the crew "liars". As the crew can provide no EVIDENCE one way or the other, bringing them up is
a) irrelevant to the guilt of the Israelis then
b) irrelevant to the guilt of the Israelies now

unless you were trying to imply a precendent and show how bad they CAN be. If they are NOT in fact guilty of that past crime, then Faramir is right about the "ancient lie". As YOU stated, you were responding to his ASSERTION regarding the ancient lie. He may be wrong. Are you right? They could have done "bad things?" Or are you just throwing up a gaslighting smoke screen? Guilty because they are like everyone else and we know everyone can do bad things.

Again, how does your argument differ from Faramir's?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-28 10:33:49 PM


" Do you think the Muslims want to destroy Israel..."

Are you asserting that all Muslims want to destroy Israel?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 10:34:30 PM


h20, *sigh* - it is the fantasies in your mind you need to deal with. Your fantasies about what you imagine I was "implying."

I wasn't implying a god damn thing. Are you blonde, h2o? Once again, do you regularly fantasize about what folks might be "implying" in your own mind?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 10:37:08 PM


Ian

Saul did not last very long as King of Israel as you point out. King David ruled for some 40 years in what can be described as a constitutional monarchy - he had to follow the laws as set out in the Torah. He was not above the law. The laws in the Torah constitutionally regulated the king.

There is no reason to get so hostile. I am just unclear about why you would bring up the USS Liberty in relation to the UN/Hezbollah outpost being bombed

Posted by: ex-liberal | 2006-07-28 10:38:39 PM


Ezra:

Love the blog. Someone very close to you pointed it out to me. I'm sure you've seen my post then on my blog about "Where is the Muslim Outrage?" by American radio talk show host, Neal Boortz. If you are a commenter here and have not heard/seen this yet, then you really need to. It's hard to argue with Neal on this...

http://www.msunderestimated.com/2006/07/20/where-is-the-muslim-outrage-by-neal-boortz-video/

Regards,
Ms. U

Posted by: Ms. Underestimated | 2006-07-28 10:39:03 PM


"People of every race "do bad things," just as people of every race "do good things."
"

Unless of course, you think Jews are no longer part of "every race".

Ok, cheap shot"

Cheap shot? Again, another fantasy of yours, I imagine, to try to link my reply to ex-liberal's direct question, to my reply to Faramir.

No cheap shot - just your fantasies working overtime in your mind.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 10:39:03 PM


"There is no reason to get so hostile. I am just unclear about why you would bring up the USS Liberty in relation to the UN/Hezbollah outpost being bombed"

There is no reason for you to fantasize I am "hostile." You are of course, exactly right - there is no "reason" for me to get hostile, and in fact, there is nothing hostile about me.

If you are unclear, go scroll back, k? It's all there.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 10:40:49 PM


Ian
"I wasn't implying a god damn thing. Are you blonde, h2o? "

More bigotry! More lashing out.

So you weren't implying anything? You just throw irrelevant factoids into the wind to see what chaff will fall out. Hopefully, the right people will get the message you want to send but are too insecure to really espouse.

I don't know why. You seem to not be shy about attacking those of the blonde persuasion. It's ok to disparage the "dense" as well it seems.

Tell me how you really feel.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-28 10:45:14 PM


"Saul did not last very long as King of Israel as you point out."

I never pointed out any such thing. I did point out that Saul was the first king, followed by David.

I made no reference to how "long he lasted." ex-liberal, again, I point out to you your fantasies in your mind about what I've written here.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 10:46:32 PM


Wow Ian,
You really are riled up. The "cheap shot" comment was mine. All mine. I was taking a cheap shot at you...and admitted it. Talk about defensive and not being able to understand subtext.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-28 10:47:38 PM


"More bigotry! More lashing out."

You imagine bigotry and lashing out? No. I was curious. See, I'm blonde myself.

"You just throw irrelevant factoids into the wind to see what chaff will fall out."

What "irrelevance" is there when Liz J (*sigh* - I'll repeat her assertion ONCE again) wrote, ""Anyone with a brain and a thought process would know Israel would NEVER purposely attack the UN outpost, that is not their way of operating."

Liz asserts:

1. A person with a brain
2. and a thought process
3. would KNOW
4. Israel wouldn't purposely attack the UN
5. It's not Israel's way of operating.

I assert that there are many with a brain that DON'T KNOW this to be fact.

Are you really having a problem with this?

"You seem to not be shy about attacking those of the blonde persuasion."

Attack? I'm blonde myself. I was curious if you were.

You imagine I was "attacking" blonde folks?

" It's ok to disparage the "dense" as well it seems."

Is it? Hmmm. That is interesting you would fantasize that about me. You see, I wonder if you are dense, before I actually start to disparage you. If you are dense, I'll refrain from disparaging you.

"Tell me how you really feel."

Well, thank God, all my senses are intact. Although my eye sight is not as good as it used to be.

Man, you oughta see how I feel when I'm in bed with a sexy uninhibited woman! Unfortunately (for me), she's visiting relatives tonight.

Is that what you meant?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 10:54:19 PM


"Wow Ian,
You really are riled up. The "cheap shot" comment was mine. All mine. I was taking a cheap shot at you...and admitted it. Talk about defensive and not being able to understand subtext."

Your fantasies at work again. You project upon my words. My roommate is asking me to try to stifle my laughter. Have you ever come across someone that is "riled up" but at the same time, laughing happily?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 10:55:53 PM


Ian,

I'm going out on a limb here and guess that most people here recognize the question "are you blonde" as an attempt to insult despite your denials. This is called "gaslighting".

I didn't really understand what you were trying to say so I must have a problem. Is that about right? I wouldn't want to "project" any more.

I don't understand that you were merely correcting Liz/Faramir by saying Israelis CAN do bad things because the some USS Liberty crew said so.
I don't understand that you weren't denigrating blondes because you are blonde.

Ok. I'll just call you Sam Vaknin from now on.

Good night Sam.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-28 11:18:16 PM


"I didn't really understand what you were trying to say so I must have a problem. Is that about right? "

You have comprehension problems? Perhaps - I really don't know for sure - but maybe the problem is in your mind, in that you have difficulty in taking words at their face value?

"I don't understand that you were merely correcting Liz/Faramir by saying Israelis CAN do bad things because the some USS Liberty crew said so."

You are confusing two different subjects. If you care to scroll above, ex-liberal asked me a direct question, and I provided a direct answer. How you fantasize that this is related to my response to Liz J is simply beyond me. But then, I can't know the fantasies you have in your mind.

"Ok. I'll just call you Sam Vaknin from now on."

Call me whatever the fuck you want. I have no clue who or what Sam Vaknin is - but I know who I am.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-28 11:22:46 PM


Sam...er...Ian,
I couldn't sleep. I was just having fantasies about you and your roommate.

"Your fantasies at work again. You project upon my words. My roommate is asking me to try to stifle my laughter. Have you ever come across someone that is "riled up" but at the same time, laughing happily?"

Are you offering this as PROOF that you are not riled up?

How can I tell? Why bring it up? Insecure? I'm sure Liz realizes that "Anyone with a brain and a thought process would know" that you would NEVER "operate that way".

But I can't reconcile something you said with your objection to Liz and Faramir:

"If you would kindly accept my words that I write at face value, rather come up with fantastical conjecture on my meanings, or my reasons, etc, that would likely assist in clearing whatever issues you have."

You are so right. This blog and perhaps the world would be a better place if people did that. Don't you think?

I think I'll start by taking the Israelis words at face value on both the Liberty and UN Outpost actions.

I feel better now. Goodnight.


Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-29 12:56:03 AM


"I couldn't sleep. I was just having fantasies about you and your roommate."

Snort. I wish I could say the same about you, h20, but indeed, I just shared some reali fantasies with someone I know.. and then felt more energetic after doing so.

"Are you offering this as PROOF that you are not riled up?"

Take it as you will. To me, it's proof. I KNOW I'm not "riled up." Indeed, I find folks who get "riled up" in the sense of how one would get "riled up" physically, funny. I also found your projections upon my words that I was "riled up," funny - especially considering that indeed, the period of times that I was responding here, I had a big grin on my face.

Let me ask you a question - do you recall learning how to read? I do.. I also recall my teacher trying to tell me to read words out loud, using the projections in my mind upon those words, such that if I were reading out loud to others, they would hear the different genuflections of speech and thought as I interpreted them while I read.

That's all very entertaining, isn't it? But when one is genuinely interested in what another person is REALLy saying, I think it is best to have a "monotone" sense of voice in the mind when reading another's words.

That is of great assistance in ensuring one is not projecting one's own emotional thoughts upon the words one has written, and then come to insane conclusions about what the person is implying.

Try it sometime.

"How can I tell? Why bring it up? Insecure?"

You can't tell. I bring it up because you asserted your fantasies about my words. Me Insecure? Not at all. I have absolutely no insecurity in showing you that your ideas through your words indicate your own projections which have nothing to do with the ideas I was communicating.

Are you insecure?

"You are so right. This blog and perhaps the world would be a better place if people did that. Don't you think?"

I have no idea what you mean by a "better place." As far as "better," my projection is that it would be much "better" or more "sane" if you took MY words at face value as to my ideas that I am communicating, instead of spending your energy writing about your fantasies in your mind as to what I mean in your mind.

"I think I'll start by taking the Israelis words at face value on both the Liberty and UN Outpost actions."

There's a difference though. You have never observed my actions, or are privy to anyone's description of my actions. You'd be a fool to not consider all information that is available to you.

You'd also be a fool to to form a strong belief from what others tell you, as well. Information is just that - information. Take it or leave it as you will, without projecting upon what the entity offering the information is thinking about it.

"I feel better now. Goodnight"

That's nice! (My projections, of course).

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-07-29 1:50:34 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.