Jan 4th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Goldfarb Endorses Terrorist Ethics
The Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb makes the case that it’s appropriate and praiseworthy for countries to deliberately target the wives and children of people they consider enemies. This kind of moral posture is not unheard of, of course. But it’s strange to see the ethics of Osama bin Laden being explicitly adopted by the organs of mainstream conservatism.
To be clear, he’s not saying that it’s sometimes okay to kill a bad guy’s innocent children as part of a military operation directed against the guy. He’s saying it’s better to kill his children than it would be to avoid killing them.
It’s really too bad John McCain lost the election so we don’t get to see this character in federal office.
62 Responses to “Goldfarb Endorses Terrorist Ethics”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Basketball
Budget
Bush Legacy
Cars
climate
Congress
Conservatism
Culture
DC
Economics
Economy
education
Energy
Environment
Finance
Health care
Health Care
History
Housing
Inequality
Iran
iraq
Israel
mccain
Media
National Review
National Security
NBA
obama
Pakistan
Palin
planning
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
SCOTUS
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Torture
transit
Transition
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 4th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
It’s like all those neocon hacks are making a race to the far-right: who can write the most disgusting, hateful article?
January 4th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
http://draftgoldfarb.blogspot.com/
January 4th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
It would really make for an easier dialogue if the ultra-hawks would just admit that they think an Arab life is worth less than a Jewish one.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Or as Michael Kinsley of the New Republic once put it, we needed to keep Reagan’s arms and support flowing to “Latin-style fascists … regardless of how many are murdered” because “there are higher American priorities than Salvadoran human rights.”
January 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Matt,
Goldfarb does not make the claim you attribute to him. I don’t know if you are being dishonest or just a sloppy reader.
He is saying that death of family might or might not deter Hamas. This is an empirical claim, not a moral one. As far as I can tell he makes no moral argument either way, on any of the examples he cites.
Perhaps you could quote the part where you think he is saying this is moral, or praiseworthy, or in which he advocates it. I don’t think you can.
You have a habit of arguing against strawmen. You would be more persuasive if you drop it. If you made an argument about why the targeting of Hamas leaders with family is immoral, you might have good arguments and might persuade someone. If you make easily disprovable false statements about your adversaries, that’s all people will hear.
John
January 4th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Goldfarb’s an idiot, but it’s interesting to see how much the Left loves terrorists. 60 years ago, when the Palestinian Jews were the terrorists, the Left loved them. Now that the Jews have airplanes, they love the Palestinian Arab terrorists.
Kinsley is a douchebag. El Salvador is a democracy now, which it wouldn’t be had we not supported its rightist government against Communist terrorists in the 80s. Unlike leftist regimes, which stay on well past their welcome, bringing misery to their people (think Cuba), rightist regimes have a history of economic progress and transition to democracy (think Chile, Brazil, etc.).
January 4th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
He is saying that death of family might or might not deter Hamas. This is an empirical claim, not a moral one. As far as I can tell he makes no moral argument either way, on any of the examples he cites.
Of course he doesn’t, who would imagine making a “moral argument” over something like this:
Goldfarb then wonders:
So to sum it up, those Arabs are not rational human beings like us, but perhaps if we kill enough of their wives and children via air-strikes on residential areas, they will finally understand our reasonable demands.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
This isn’t really related, but it’s hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpP7b2lUxVE&feature=related
January 4th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“Goldfarb does not make the claim you attribute to him. I don’t know if you are being dishonest or just a sloppy reader.”
You must be a new to Yglesias. The answer is a little from column A and a little from column B.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Mr. Goldfarb is correct in the sense that targeting the family members of enemy soldiers can be an effective tactic war. It’s also, of course, morally repugnant and a grave violation of the laws of war.
Some of the right-wing tyrannies in Latin America used similar tactics in their wars against left-wing insurgencies in the 1960s and 1970s. In Argentina, for example, it was common practice to torture to death the families and friends of Montonero insurgents. There are a lot of people who are willing to sacrifice their own lives for what they believe in, but may not be equally willing to sacrifice the lives of people they care about. This tactic succeeded, of course, and the Montoneros were defeated.
Again, I don’t think that either the United States or Israel should really want to maintain their domestic security at the cost of adopting the worst abuses of South American tyrannies. (And no, Fred, these regimes were always much, much worse than their opponents. But the fact that you refer to the Salvadoran freedom fighters as ‘terrorists’ indicates that you’re less interested in facts than in propaganda anyway.)
January 4th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Is Michael Goldfarb married? Does he have children?
January 4th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Fred: Yeah, El Salvador would have been a democracy a lot earlier and with a lot fewer civilians giving their lives in the struggle had U.S. hawk douchebags not backed corrupt military dictatorships their for generations. Reaganites and Jeanne Kirkpatrick can spout their nonsense about how right wing oligarchy brings about democracy, as long as they also get to kill long-standing democracy when it serves them (Chile).
The Salvadorans, however, may never have had a democracy if it hadn’t been for the rebellions against the military oligarchy.
So, although it would be shallow to say it, it’s actually a lot more historically fair to say that democracy was brought to El Salvador against the U.S.-backed oligarchy’s will precisely by leftist and even Communist rebels.
Before the leftist uprising and civil war, no democracy. After the leftist uprising and civil war, democracy. So, there you go, the nimrod’s guide to history as you prefer it.
But don’t get me wrong, Fred: you don’t fool anyone for one single solitary second that you care about El Salvadorans and their democracy — you’re just glad that they were slaughtered in the 10s of thousands so that all the other hawk trash could get their typical jollies and fantasize that Daddy Reagan saved us from the Commies.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Is it possible to still hold to the following propositions:
1. Hamas is a terrorist organization whose fundamental tenet is a denial Israel’s right to exist.
2. Israel cannot co-exist peacefully with Hamas.
3. Israel is justified in pursuing a strategy that reduces or eliminates Hamas’s ability to launch attacks on Israel, provided that such a strategy does not specifically target non-Hamas civilians and reasonable steps are taken to minimize casualties to non-Hamas civilians.
while disowning the neo-conservative agenda completely… ? It should be.
Yet those opposed to Israel’s actions against Hamas continually attack the positions of the neo-conservative right while leaving the above three propositions, which represent the less controversial centrist position, largely untouched.
(And when it is touched it is to simply say that it would be better for everyone all around if Israel, for the sake of the peace process, took it on the chin. Sorry - but this is unconvincing from a moral or strategic point of view.)
I would argue that any opposition to Israel’s actions in Gaza would have to undermine one or all of those three propositions, not the assinine tripe that spews from the megacephalic head of Goldfarb and his peers.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Don Williams
No one who has children could possibly write anything as unfeeling as Goldfarb did about the killings. And no one who looks like this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SWDiLvKwfRI/AAAAAAAABlM/g1dSnDZbdds/s1600-h/goldfarb.png
could possibly have convinced a woman to marry him.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Matt,
Goldfarb does not make the claim you attribute to him. I don’t know if you are being dishonest or just a sloppy reader.
If you read the rest of Matthew’s posts justifying Hamas’s terrorism and attacking Israel’s attempts to defend itself, you would know that Matthew is just being dishonest.
It is beyond obvious that Goldfarb is not stating what Matthew claims he is. Matthew obviously knows this. So the only possible conclusion is that Matthew is being deliberately dishonest.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Al, there’s less dishonesty than (what is becoming ever more frequent) garden-variety sloppiness in MY’s characterization. It is clear from what Goldfarb said that he thought Israel may have been targeting the family to set an example (I myself find this ludicrous) and if so, that he wholeheartedly approved.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Again, here is what Goldfarb said:
The fight against Islamic radicals always seems to come around to whether or not they can, in fact, be deterred, because it’s not clear that they are rational, at least not like us. But to wipe out a man’s entire family, it’s hard to imagine that doesn’t give his colleagues at least a moment’s pause. Perhaps it will make the leadership of Hamas rethink the wisdom of sparking an open confrontation with Israel under the current conditions.
Arabs: not rational “like us” (what us?), killing their family may finally deter them.
So what is beyond obvious is that Al, Harry and co didn’t read Goldfarb’s article, are the dishonest ones.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Anyone care to speculate what job this shithead might have gotten in a McCain admin.?
January 4th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Truly, there is no evidence that Israel-lobby types push forwar and militarism in US Middle East policy.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
60 years ago, when the Palestinian Jews were the terrorists, the Left loved them.
This is the sort of claim that adults buttress with citations and quotes.
It is beyond obvious that Goldfarb is not stating what Matthew claims he is. Matthew obviously knows this. So the only possible conclusion is that Matthew is being deliberately dishonest.
Even if your antecedent were correct, and it isn’t, it in no way leads to the “only possible conclusion” that Matt is being intentionally dishonest. In fact, I can think of a half dozen other interpretations. Maybe if you want to engage in faux-logical takedowns you should, you know, brush up on your logic?
January 4th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
It’s fair to say that Goldfarb made a strategic case for wiping out a man’s whole family rather than a moral one. But making a strategic case for killing innocent women and children is still morally outrageous.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Anyone care to speculate what job this shithead might have gotten in a McCain admin.?
Probably UN Ambassador, or US envoy for the Middle-East Peace process.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
It sorts of fits into the “lets reopen the debate on whether japanese-american internment worked in practice”-type gambit.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
The fight against Wall Street financial-system destroying radicals always seems to come around to whether or not they can, in fact, be deterred, because it’s not clear that they are rational, at least not like us.
But to wipe out a man’s entire extended family’s bank accounts, it’s hard to imagine that doesn’t give his colleagues at least a moment’s pause. Perhaps it will make the leadership of Wall Street rethink the wisdom of sparking an open confrontation with our economy under the current conditions.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
What Why oh why said. I’m not sure how anyone can read that piece and not believe Goldfarb thinks it may be a good idea to intentionally kill the wives/children of your enemies.
Well, at least as long they’re just arabs.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
War really is hell isn’t it. Unfortunately, if one wants to make an omelet, one must break a few egg shells.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
And SLC joins the ranks of the morally repugnant by comparing the murder of innocents to breaking eggs. Good job fuckwit.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I keep hearing people over the years in different countries talk about these omelets they say they’re making, but all I see are broken eggshells, and puddles of rotting eggs all over the place.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
I don’t want to make an omelet; I want to make a couple chickens–living peacefully side by side.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Goldfarb is one of those folks that I’d have loved to see his grand parents gassed by the Nazis. We’d have to deal with this microbe if Nazi hadn’t forgotten about Goldfarb.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
He is saying that death of family might or might not deter Hamas. This is an empirical claim, not a moral one.
Matt didn’t say Goldfarb was making a moral claim. But it is clear in reading Goldfarb’s piece that he is indeed advocating/defending the tactic, which is consistent with what Matt said. And this reflects Goldfarb’s morality.
Which is what Matt said.
~
Offside, Farid.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Can any of you nutcases (you know who you are) just please restrain from wishing death and murder and slaughter on your designated enemy population, even if you really, really hate them?
January 4th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
“The fight against Islamic radicals always seems to come around to whether or not they can, in fact, be deterred, because it’s not clear that they are rational, at least not like us.”
Well, I’d say that Islamic radicals are very rational. They’re just looking at different costs and benefits. If I believed that being a suicide bomber really does mean that you get to spend eternity in Paradise, in the same way that I expect my bank to pay me interest on my deposits, then I really would strap on an explosive vest and blow myself up along with a bunch of my enemies. Any collateral damage doesn’t matter, because anyone who didn’t deserve to get blown up goes to Paradise along with me.
It’s very, very hard to deter someone who believes in martyrdom with the same confidence that you believe that you can withdraw the money in your bank accounts.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Farid is the psuedonym for some dork from Hillel or Friends of Israel to troll with.
January 4th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
McKingford,
Saying “it is clear on reading” is a weak argument. It isn’t clear to me. Try quoting the part where he actually says what you say he is clearly saying. I think you can’t.
Why oh why,
Goldfarb does say that Hamas leaders are not rational. I agree that is a weak argument. To me that sounds like Goldfarb hasn’t tried to understand them. They seem rational to me. They just have very different preferences and starting assumptions than Goldfarb. And it would probably make Goldfarb very uncomfortable to think of what a decent case Hamas et al have against israeli behavior in stealing palestinian land and purposefully making palestinians miserable in hopes they will leave. I think there are a lot of good arguments to make against the Goldfarb piece.
But that doesn’t mean that Goldfarb said what Matt claims. He didn’t. and Matt loses the chance to make good arguments by making stupid ones.
To the larger question of whether or not it is moral to drop bombs on hamas leaders with their families: well, what choice do the Israelis have? I think their colonization is unjust, but I don’t expect them to let Hamas drop missiles on them without retaliating. Those kids didn’t deserve to die, but I think the blame lies on their father for making himself, a military target in a war, impossible to hit without killing his family. The Israelis are guilty of a lot of stuff, but killing this assholes family isn’t on the list, I would say. That’s on him.
January 4th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I was trying to determine the foreign policy tradition from which SLC, Michael Goldfarb, and the Likud obtained their ideas. I finally found it on the walls of the Holocaust Memorial:
“Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter—with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. It’s a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization will say about me.
I have issued the command—and I’ll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad—that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy.
Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formation in readiness—for the present only in the East—with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks to-day of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hitler_Armenian_Quote.JPG
January 4th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
In fact, if one reads just two sentences prior in Goldfarb’s post, it’s clear that Goldfarb thinks that Rayan killed his own family - deliberately.
I just re-read Goldfarb’s post, and he says nothing of the sort. Yglesias’s interpretation stretches things, but yours invents notions out of whole cloth.
January 4th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Al: You need to stop praising and excusing the crimes of Stalin and Hitler. Sure, you haven’t, but neither is Matt excusing Hamas.
Al, you’re lying, and you know you’re lying, and you like the fact that you’re lying. Yes, Goldfarb does mention that Rayan, the target of the bombing, possibly sent his son as a suicide bomber.
But you’re lying, and you know you’re lying, when you claim this as the context for Goldfarb’s comments. Here they are in full, and you can tell us how you’re going to lie your way out of this:
He says nothing about Rayan claiming to have killed his entire family.
It’s absolutely clear, because if Rayan had killed his entire family there would be no point in discussing a bomb that fell and killed nobody because he had already killed them.
Are you now going to claim that Goldfarb, in discussing the 2,000 pound bomb, was discussing Rayan’s destruction of one son in suicide bombing terror as “an entire family”?
Why are you lying about this? Why do you keep lying about Goldfarb’s comment?
You have other avenues you could explore.
You could claim that Goldfarb is just dispassionately discussing empirical predictions on the terrorizing effect whole-family bombing might have on the mentality of Islamic radicals. It’s a grisly subject, but you can discuss it without endorsing it.
But the whole f***ing post is discussing the effectiveness of aerial bombing on undermining enemy morale. Why would he comment about such a topic only to introduce a completely unrelated Islamic radical who killed his entire family?
Why are you lying like this? You’re usually better.
January 4th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
He said nothing about targetting the family whatsoever. In fact, if one reads just two sentences prior in Goldfarb’s post, it’s clear that Goldfarb thinks that Rayan killed his own family - deliberately.
But of course reading a blog post honestly is not helpful when someone’s main purpose is to excuse Hamas’s terrorism.
Who cares what Goldfarb think Israel is doing? The fact is that he is cheering on F-16 dropping massive bombs on Arab residential areas, and so are many of the comments here. Simply disgusting.
As for the distinction between “Islamic radicals” and “Arabs”, there is none in Gaza. For that matter, judging by the pictures of non-burka’d women during Gaza’s bombings, Hamas is far less “radical” than our good allies in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
To be clear, he’s not saying that it’s sometimes okay to kill a bad guy’s innocent children as part of a military operation directed against the guy. He’s saying it’s better to kill his children than it would be to avoid killing them.
I can’t tell if either Yglesias or Greenwald is being more dishonest in what Goldfarb said, although it is fairly equal. About the only difference I see is that Greenwald meanders on endlessly with his deceit, while Yglesias is much more succinct.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Based on the limited information that I can glean from the press, I support Israel’s move into Gaza. Accordingly, I am distressed that so many on the left are critical of Israel’s actions.
I also happen to believe that Israel did not act improperly in bombing Nizar Rayan’s house. After all, he had fair warning that the Israelis were after him, but nonetheless openly and notoriously let people know that he was staying in the house and held his family hostage to protect himself. By staying there with his family, he was no different than Josef Goebbels who, with his wife, murdered his own six children.
I hold to my belief, however, not because Nizar Rayan’s family was killed, but in spite of the fact that his family was killed. In this regard, save me from from the Goldfarbs of this world who seem to revel in the deaths of non-combatants.
Furthermore, I don’t think that the Israeli action can be criticized because of the insanity of “friends” such as Goldfarb (”With friends like him, etc.”) I believe that it is fairly debatable whether the Israelis were justified in bombing the house when non-combatants were there and the call is a close one. Yet, one cannot criticize the Israelis by attacking the morally disgusting position espoused by the Goldfarbs of this world, namely that that the attack was justified because of the deaths of his non-combatant family members.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Unfortunately, if one wants to make an omelet, one must break a few egg shells.
Not only does SLC exemplify the kind of inane cliched writing that Orwell said was such a facilitator of dreadful deeds, but he does so using the *exact same metaphor* that Orwell mocks in “Politics and the English Language.”
January 4th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Yeah, MY is smearing Goldfarb here. I’m no fan of Goldfarb or Weekly Standard, but this is just silly. Goldfarb is making the case that bombing tends to NOT break the resolve of an enemy and thus it’s unlikely that the enemies of Israel will back down even though a bomb killed someone’s entire family. He’s arguing for a ground campaign as opposed to a bombing campaign.
It’s also pretty weak of MY to link to an equally dishonest post from some blog called highclearing.com rather than directly to Goldfarb’s post. Clearly MY was banking on his readers being lazy and not finding the original post. I see from the comment threads that he was mostly correct in his assumption.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Actually, he’s making the point that Islamic radicals are not fundamentally rational creatures, but that it was possible that the particular bombing he discussed might have killed so many of his family members that it was momentarily worth wondering if such a death toll would alter similar Islamic radicals’ mindset.
Make of it what you will, but that was his point.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:09 am
I don’t read it that way at all. Goldfarb is saying that these particular people (I guess pro-hamas arabs in Gaza) are not rational the same way that we are rational. That’s why he wrote, “it’s not clear that they are rational, at least not like us.” You would agree that this is possible, right? A person my have a rational (to them at least) reason for doing something that seems weird or strange (or NOT-rational) to us. Why is this a difficult concept to understand?
And besides, that was not the point of his post, it was a throwaway line near the end. The entire point of the whole post (rather than just one sentence taken out of context) was to illustrate how hard (and rare) it is for bombing campaigns to achieve success. He underlined his point by mentioning the complete destruction of this person’s family and the unlikelihood that it would yield positive results for Israel. In other words, he is arguing completely the opposite of what MY is saying he’s arguing. This post from MY is embarrassing. He knows it to, he’s too smart not to.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:26 am
Look, here are Goldfarb’s actual words:
So, yes, there, in his own words, he is suggesting that it’s possible to question whether or not Islamic radicals are rational “like us”.
There’s no need to interpret that bit, except to refrain from being too broad. (I.e., he doesn’t really say what “us” means.)
And then after describing the particular bombing of Rayan and his extended family, he says:
So, we have (1) Aerial bombardment is not usually effective in Goldfarb’s view; (2) Islamic radicals are possibly not rational as we are; (3) This particular bombing wiped out this Islamic radical’s entire family; (4) It is possible that the wiping out of this Islamic radical’s entire family may somehow alter his judgment even though he, being under the set of individuals who are Islamic radicals, may well not be rational, at least not like us.
Anything but the kindest parsing of that is pretty clear:
Although aerial bombing is usually ineffective, and although Islamic radicals are possibly not rational beings, Goldfarb thinks that when enough family members of an Islamic radical are wiped out at once, some degree of rational reaction may be possible.
He’s not recommending it; he just thinks it’s a logical possibility.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:13 am
Stuart Levine: “I believe that it is fairly debatable whether the Israelis were justified in bombing the house when non-combatants were there and the call is a close one.”
No, it isn’t, you fucking moron. This is the classic definition of a war crime.
Christ, what a twit…
If the Israelis wanted his ass, and he, as you claim, was living there in defiance of them, why not just send a squad of soldiers to his house, arrest him as they have done to THOUSANDS of Palestinians without any actual charges rather than dropping a major piece of military ordinance with a kill radius in the hundreds of yards on a residential neighborhood.
Fucking moron. Jerks like you need to be living next door to the targets of this sort of war crime, so you get a fucking clue.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Richard Steven Hack,
No, killing civilians while hitting a military target is not the classic definition of a war crime. Especially not if you have warned the civilians to leave. Maybe you should try citing a support for your claim. Start by looking through the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. It is on the UN website. You could also try the ICC chartering statute.
Siting military assets in a civilian population center is a war crime though, look in the ICC statute for “using civilians as shields.” If Rayan weren’t dead he could clearly be hauled before the ICC.
One of the keys phrases in analyzing the bombing would be “wanton devastation not justified by military necessity.” I suppose you could argue that the attack was “wanton,” or that it wasn’t a “necessity.” But I think you would lose those arguments. Steve Levine was right, if overly generous to your argument, and you are dead wrong.
That you can be screechy and cussy doesn’t make your arguments any better.
The israelis do do a lot of bad things. If you want to oppose their actions you should limit yourself to talking about those. You will convince more people than when you complain that a terrorist boss got zapped, and got his own family killed on purpose. I oppose the Occupation, but this guy is the one to blame for killing his family.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Al: Where, exactly, in the quoted text, does Goldbarb write, or even hint, that there was this phone-call theory of personal responsibility by Rayan?
Here’s Goldfarb’s comment as actually written. Admittedly, it doesn’t include things in it that he didn’t write but which you apparently are including for him, but for the heck of it, here’s his actual comment:
Again, if you want to say that the phone-call theory of direct responsibility is implicit in Goldfarb’s comment because of something written or printed elsewhere, then say that.
January 5th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
While this may be incredibly daring and creative of me to do so, but I won’t subject myself to the mindless arguing of the endless interpretations and reinterpretations of one man’s words in a blog (not even an article mind you) whose position was perfectly understandable, albeit a bit harsh. Instead, I’ll allow the man to explain his own words, instead of pressing some skewed version of it, with my political preferences doing the pushing, all the while hurling insults at anyone in my way (yes, both sides would be quite guilty)
Oh, but BEWARE, I HAVE edited this… I took out the unnecessary paragraphs. Feel free to attack me for doing so…
[Insert more political jargon that does not pertain itself to this specific blog topic]
Now, I know certain people are disappointed that he further explain himself by saying “f*** palestinians, they have no souls. I like killing innocents, especially children. I am abhorrently evil and I feed on misery and death” This would have made EXCELLENT ammo against the inhuman, barbarian right-wing devils who eat babies. God knows (he’s on our side btw) that we must accuse them of lying and cheating and raping souls, because we all know that it isn’t the Israeli’s or the Palestinians who are less than human, but those goddamn conservatives.
Just in case you weren’t sure, my commentary was (mostly) satirical.
P.S. Please don’t attempt to interpret, reinterpret, or re-reinterpret my commentary for your own personal shield OR ammo against the other side. Normally I wouldn’t even ask, but it does seem to be quite the fetish on this site.
P.S.S. Yes, I am much better than you all, as my smug and all-knowing attitude indicates. You may worship me as your God of “teh internetz blogz”
January 5th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
People keep trying to defend Mr. Goldfarb by correcting my impression of what he wrote. Mr. Goldfarb himself tries to point out that what it sounded (to me) like he wrote wasn’t what he actually wrote.
Nobody, including Mr. Goldfarb, has yet come up with anything Mr. Goldfarb “actually wrote” which appals me any less than what I originally thought (and still think) he wrote.
“Ruthlessness” including the killing of absolutely innocent civilians can be understood (”clearly”!) as an effort to “change the calculus,” you say?
Somebody you call “the left” (or “fellow travelers” — what a lovely coinage!) “does not condone” this, you notice?
I am happy to admit I know very little of you, Mr. Goldfarb, but the words of yours I know I do not like. And I am less than impressed by the supposedly face-saving distinctions you and your apologists wish to introduce into a horrific situation, a situation which your every utterance makes worse.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
fred is clearly an idiot. el salvador is a democracy in name only just like the states… save your self rightous (the left loves terrorists) drugstore psychology for elementary school indoctrination
March 11th, 2009 at 4:52 am
Incredible site!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:19 am
Great site. Good info
cheap brand pfizer viagra