Not much rhymes with ‘bulldozer’

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on August 9th, 2017 at 01:51 pm

It would have been so much easier for Billy Bragg if the IDF used lorries.

Posted by Tim B. on 03/29/2006 at 10:32 AM
    1. “Keyser Sozer?”

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 29 at 10:38 AM • permalink


    1. That she herself should be silenced – first by an Israeli bulldozer, next by a New York theatre cancelling a play created from her words – is a testimony to the power of her message. That it is as shrill in death as it was in life?

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 03 29 at 10:59 AM • permalink


    1. I quite like Billy Bragg – a hangover from those halcyon days when I was a high minded socialist, I suppose. But does he ever come out with some bollocks. Instead of pontificating to the Americans, he should take a good look at what Tony Blair’s Labour has done to British liberty. At the recent Liberty march in London, protesters were forbidden to wave national flags! The bulldog has been spade – and what does Billy Bragg have to say about that?

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 03 29 at 11:09 AM • permalink


    1. “Co-edited by Alan Rickman”?  The actor?

      Rachel Corrie was a poseur
      Who got run down by a ‘dozer
      The soldiers had to hose her
      Blood from the Rose—er

      (Okay, I apologize….)

      Posted by Challeron on 2006 03 29 at 11:14 AM • permalink


    1. So, the voice of Palestinians is not heard in the U.S. Except, of course, in academia. And in the NYT. And in the frequent broadsides put out by CAIR. And by the chatter of Palestinian spokemen on news shows. And the historical American arm-twisting of Israel to go along with the latest “peace initiative”. And the pro-Palestinian pronouncements of the Buchananites. And American subsidies to the Palestinian Authority. No, no, that voice isn’t heard at all.

      I don’t think Bob Dylan needs to sweat out the competition from Billy Bragg. A pro-Palestinian checklist of grievances isn’t the same thing as lyrics.

      Posted by paco on 2006 03 29 at 11:14 AM • permalink


    1. An LGF commenter reminded me of Dylan’s Israel song “Neighborhood Bully,” from “Infidels.” Got it at the library last night. Even without the message, it’s great rock.

      Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 03 29 at 11:20 AM • permalink


    1. I remember seeing something recently asking why the other Rachels – various innocent Israeli women who were not actively out to stir up trouble but were killed going about their normal business by suicide bombers – are not similarly remembered by the likes of Billy Bragg as this dingbat.

      Is there anything that rhymes with ‘Darwin Award’?

      Posted by Flying Giraffe on 2006 03 29 at 11:31 AM • permalink



    1. Bulldozer…



      Posted by Mystery Meat on 2006 03 29 at 11:53 AM • permalink


    1. It was a Caterpillar.

      Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 03 29 at 12:01 PM • permalink


    1. The left sure can pick ‘em. It seems their two mascots are Mama Moonbat and St. Rachel of Pancake.

      Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2006 03 29 at 12:08 PM • permalink


    1. At least St Pancake can’t say anything stoopid, whereas Mother Moonbat…

      Posted by Rob Read on 2006 03 29 at 01:14 PM • permalink


    1. That she herself should be silenced – first by an Israeli bulldozer, next by a New York theatre cancelling a play created from her words – is a testimony to the power of her message.

      Or it could be a testimony to the general crapiness of any play created from Rachel Corrie’s own words.

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 29 at 01:25 PM • permalink


    1. Wow. This is the best hymn to an inspirational martyr since The Horst Wessel Song.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 29 at 01:27 PM • permalink


    1. Being silenced is a testament to the power of your message?

      Call me crazy, but I always thought the more silence, the less message.

      Posted by R C Dean on 2006 03 29 at 02:16 PM • permalink


    1. New Yorker theatre critic John Lahr, based in London, used to offer a cash prize to anyone who could find a positive portrayal of an American in a British play. Since the only good American in the West End seems to be a dead one, have we got the horse right here?

      Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 03 29 at 02:52 PM • permalink


    1. Like Mr Waterton, as a former socialist, I have a soft spot for young Bill, but I think he should have quit while he was ahead.

      Maybe after “I’m not looking for a new England (I’m just looking for another girl)”.

      I actually went to see him in Montreal 2 years ago. Some good stuff, but the polemical shit (e.g., It’s all about oil) – just sad and stupid

      Posted by jlc on 2006 03 29 at 02:56 PM • permalink


    1. So, when does the T-shirt with the picture of St. Rachel burning an American flag come out?  She will surely give Che a run for his money.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 03 29 at 02:58 PM • permalink


    1. Her name was Rachel Corrie
      She was not hit by a lorry
      Her life was one big thrillar
      Run over by a Caterpillar

      Wait—this could work:

      It’s close to midnight and something evil’s lurking in the dark
      Under the moonlight you see a sight that almost stops your heart
      You try to scream but terror takes the sound before you make it
      You start to freeze as horror looks you right between the eyes, you’re paralyzed

      Caterpillar, ‘pillar night
      And no one’s gonna save you from the plow about to strike
      Caterpillar, ‘pillar night
      You’re giving up your life for some killers, thriller tonight

      Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 2006 03 29 at 02:59 PM • permalink


    1. Miss RC was a leftoid nut
      Got run over by a dozer but
      the walls still came down at Jericho
      And she’s still just a commie ho

      Posted by jlc on 2006 03 29 at 03:03 PM • permalink


    1. Monroe D. and jlc: this is better than browsing through the Oxford Anthology of English Verse. Have you composed any poems on Sheehan or Sheen or MoDo?

      Posted by paco on 2006 03 29 at 03:06 PM • permalink


    1. Workin’ on it, mate

      Posted by jlc on 2006 03 29 at 03:26 PM • permalink


    1. If Bragg took a little artistic licence, he could change the Caterpillar to a JCB, and then he’d have an easy rhyme with Corrie.

      Posted by jic on 2006 03 29 at 03:32 PM • permalink


    1. The Gozerian, Gozer?

      Posted by Sigivald on 2006 03 29 at 04:01 PM • permalink


    1. I met my love on a pile of debris.

      It seems to me that’s a better start for a musical.

      Posted by rhhardin on 2006 03 29 at 04:10 PM • permalink


    1. If the Left ever finds itself in need of some headline-grabbing stunt, maybe it could have the Rachie Corrie accident re-enacted, featuring Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore.

      Posted by PW on 2006 03 29 at 04:23 PM • permalink


    1. Rachie? Rachel. Sorry, I’m sleep-posting here.

      Posted by PW on 2006 03 29 at 04:24 PM • permalink


    1. I laughed out loud at Billy Bragg’s song. If it hadn’t been his song, I would have thought it a satire. It is one of the funniest things I’ve heard for a while.

      These moonbats really do live on the moon!

      Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 03 29 at 04:56 PM • permalink


    1. Sheehan, don’t be discouraged,
      The Man he ain’t so hard to understand.
      Sheehan, if you try now,
      I know you’ll get us out of Afghanistan.

      OK, that’s pretty weak, but she’s just so darn pathetic. Media playthings like Mother Sheehan wind up taking their own lives. It makes me nauseated on so many levels.

      Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 2006 03 29 at 05:20 PM • permalink


    1. I hear they are going to name a new model bulldozer after Rachel.

      Posted by Torontosteve on 2006 03 29 at 05:41 PM • permalink


    1. I would like to see Michael Moore in front of a bulldozer,interesting to see who would win.

      Posted by Torontosteve on 2006 03 29 at 05:41 PM • permalink


    1. I meant to suggest Michael Moore for the role of the bulldozer in #26, btw. I honestly can’t tell if I was being too opaque or not.

      Posted by PW on 2006 03 29 at 05:47 PM • permalink


    1. correct me if I’m wrong, but the actual rhyme with “bulldozer” that Bragg comes up with in the song is “suicide bomber.”
      And they say satire is dead.

      Posted by daddy dave on 2006 03 29 at 05:52 PM • permalink


    1. Hey, Toronto, would that be the Corrie Quarry?

      Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 2006 03 29 at 05:55 PM • permalink


    1. Now if only Cindy and Michael went to Iraq or Gaza as Human Shields or “Peacemakers”.

      Posted by Torontosteve on 2006 03 29 at 06:01 PM • permalink


    1. Alan Rickman is an anti-semitic creep

      Posted by murph on 2006 03 29 at 06:18 PM • permalink


    1. So this is the end, Hamas lost a friend, oy vey
      I couldn’t turn my head away
      Crushed like a grape that’s clutched by an ape, that’s fair
      For bombs she had no qualms

      Poor Rachel Corrie fought for jihad
      She made the intifada her God
      Who made a flat flat flat flat rug of her bod?

      Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 03 29 at 06:25 PM • permalink


    1. Add Alan Rickman to the list of wacko actors.  Guess I’ll be wiping my copy of Lion King now…

      Posted by anthony_r on 2006 03 29 at 06:43 PM • permalink


    1. Here’s why the play got canned.

      Act one:
      [A knock is heard at the Corries’ door]

      “Who’s there?”

      “Fed-Ex. We are delivering the remains of your daughter”

      “Just slip it under the door”.

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 03 29 at 07:23 PM • permalink


    1. Oh and before anyone accuses me of being callous for my previous comment, you should know I harbour a similar level of sympathy for kids who get killed car surfing and other Darwin Award candidates.

      Although, generally their activities threaten only themselves. Corrie died defending terrorists.

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 03 29 at 07:25 PM • permalink


    1. ‘She lost her young life in an act of compassion’, that’s a bit harsh, calling the bulldozer execution of Corey an ‘act of compassion’. I know it was but it’s a bit mean of Billy to say so.

      What that moving in the night?
      Caterpillar! Caterpillar!
      Oh hell yeah shit gonna be alright!
      Caterpillar! Caterpillar!
      A deadly menace that will make you pay,
      unless you walk slowly out of it’s way

      Posted by Amos on 2006 03 29 at 07:42 PM • permalink


    1. “Now ain’t the time for your tears.”

      Well fine!
      Okay by me.
      Then I’ll just go now.

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 03 29 at 07:47 PM • permalink


    1. Muppet version:

      Do doo be-do-do
      Do do-do do
      Do doo be-do-do be-do-do be-do-do be-do-do-doodle do do do-doo do!

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 03 29 at 08:01 PM • permalink


    1. She went a-lookin’ for some Pali boyz t’ fill ‘er,
      Instead got squashed by a Caterpillar;
      Rachel was angry, outraged to the max,
      But that fizzled out under the crush of the tracks.

      She hated the Joos and her fellow ‘Mericans,
      Who made the Arabs drink and wash with jerrycans,
      They’d cut off Gaza, isolated the West Bank,
      While the military-industrial complex laughed all the way to the bank.

      So Billy has penned a tune t’ remind us all,
      About brave Rachael’s untimely fall,
      But what about the driver of the killer bulldozer,
      When from out of his rollers he had to hose her.

      Next we’ll have a song from Sting,
      But the driver’s reminded by her ming;
      ‘Cos no matter how much you scrub and spray,
      That roadkill pong won’t go away.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 03 29 at 08:50 PM • permalink


    1. If the Left ever finds itself in need of some headline-grabbing stunt, maybe it could have the Rachie Corrie accident re-enacted, featuring Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore.

      {Richard Dreyfus mode on}

      You’re gonna need a bigger dozer.

      {Richard Dreyfus mode off}

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 29 at 10:04 PM • permalink


    1. #7

      Borrowing slightly from another recent thread:

      That Rachel Corrie! Oh My! Oh Lord!
      Just about dumb enough to drive a Ford
      Qualified herself for a Darwin Award
      And so on…

      Posted by BS on 2006 03 29 at 10:15 PM • permalink


    1. Surely a decent Rachel Corrie song could only happen if Killdozer reforms?

      Posted by jic on 2006 03 29 at 10:50 PM • permalink


    1. #44 – genius, Habib. Jeeeeenyus!

      Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2006 03 29 at 10:51 PM • permalink


    1. Dave S.
      “Wow. This is the best hymn to an inspirational martyr since The Horst Wessel Song.” ROTFLOL.

      Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 03 29 at 11:18 PM • permalink


    1. “…if the IDF used lorries.”

      that and I prefer the limerick as a vehicle of expression myself:

      A commie of misguided pluck
      Was down on her political luck
      She was too left for Vassar
      Began shilling for Yassir
      And got squished by an IDF truck

      Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 03 29 at 11:25 PM • permalink


    1. dozy bitch

      Posted by murph on 2006 03 29 at 11:34 PM • permalink


    1. dozy bitch

      I’m not worthy…

      ISM handler: “Hey Rachel, can you give me a hand for a second defending some brave Palestinian freedom fighters?”

      Rachel Corrie: “Sorry, I’m flat out”.

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 03 29 at 11:39 PM • permalink


    1. #47 Heh. I used to see those fellas Killdozer when I was a student in Madison.

      Posted by JDB on 2006 03 29 at 11:43 PM • permalink


    1. Alan Rickman is still playing Obadiah Slope, in real life.

      Posted by walterplinge on 2006 03 30 at 12:52 AM • permalink


    1. Clerihew:
      Rachel Corrie
      Didn’t have much of a story.
      She never looked very dishy,
      And ended up a squishy.

      Posted by Susan Norton on 2006 03 30 at 02:55 AM • permalink


    1. How about-

      A Palistinian Cop yelled out “pull d’ozer”,*
      to the driver of the splatty bulldozer.

      Who says nothing ryhmes with bulldozer?

      *Note this would require a palistinian policeman who a). would come within cooee of an IDF armoured vehicle, and b). had a cleft palate.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 03 30 at 02:56 AM • permalink


    1. Even if she was not level-headed in life…

      Posted by Henry boy on 2006 03 30 at 03:42 AM • permalink


    1. Rachel Corrie went to Gaza
      She was a goddam phoney
      She tried her hand at Canute’n a ‘dozer
      And now she’s macaroni

      Posted by geoff on 2006 03 30 at 03:45 AM • permalink


    1. There was a dumb bitch called Rachel,
      Loved by the Joo-killers she’d enable,
      Ironically she would die,
      With a face like a dropped pie,
      When a bulldozer gave her a facial

      Posted by murph on 2006 03 30 at 03:46 AM • permalink


    1. Anyone looking for the ugly backside of the political Right need only read this bank of comments.

      At least when American right-wing blogs want to dance on Corrie’s grave and make jokes, they usually do it with some degree of wit. Some of the stuff posted here wouldn’t look out of place etched into the desks of a Grade 5 classroom.

      Posted by Emily P. on 2006 03 30 at 05:03 AM • permalink


    1. “Some of the stuff posted here wouldn’t look out of place etched into the desks of a Grade 5 classroom.”

      What are you saying? Most of the stuff would look out of place? We must try harder.

      Oh dear. We’ve managed to get up Emily’s nose. How could that have happened?

      Posted by geoff on 2006 03 30 at 05:20 AM • permalink


    1. What precisely are you criticising Emily?

      Our wit?

      Or our dancing?

      Posted by geoff on 2006 03 30 at 05:26 AM • permalink


    1. “At least … American right-wing blogs … do it with some degree of wit.”

      Good old-fashioned Aussie cultural cringe.

      Posted by geoff on 2006 03 30 at 05:30 AM • permalink


    1. I wonder if Bragg got Bob’s permission before using the Hattie Carroll melody? Not sure Bob would approve.  He’s an Israel man.

      It’s all a bit of a stretch from Billy. The lyrics suggest that people only noticed the Palestinian thing because she, as one American, died. But then suggests that her story is being ignored and she’s being turned into a non-person.

      As for the non-person thing, that’s even a thinner argument.  She’s received no shortage of press and had a play written about her.  Im not sure of the circumstances of the play being cancelled but would wager the story is less nefarious then is being suggested.

      Short of building statues to her in every city i’m not sure what more people expect.

      Much preferred Bob’s song – even though i’m sure it took license with the facts it was genuinely moving. Billy’s effort just looks like facile stance taking.

      Posted by Francis H on 2006 03 30 at 05:40 AM • permalink


    1. #60 Well, well its Emily “Princess” P. to the rescue again. The self-appointed self-anointed royal mistress of the Faux-outrage Liberal Hypocrisy and Protectorate has deemed the thread both witless and uncoordinated.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 03 30 at 06:17 AM • permalink


    1. I haven’t deemed it so – it patently is.
      But do please keep cheering and smirking and making light of someone’s death: it reveals much more about you than anything I say here reveals about myself.

      Posted by Emily P. on 2006 03 30 at 06:23 AM • permalink


    1. Go do something useful and lie in front of an IDF bulldozer.

      Posted by murph on 2006 03 30 at 06:35 AM • permalink


    1. And while we’re at it, I will make light of her death.  She was an evil piece of fucking shit.  She deserved want she got.

      Posted by murph on 2006 03 30 at 06:38 AM • permalink


    1. Well Emily tasteless jokes surrounding high profile deaths aren’t exactly unusual.

      Princess Di’s death had jokes circulating within 24 hours. Space shuttle crashes were similar.  Azaria Chamberlain jokes were common currency. I bet the Jews and Romans had some beauties about that Jesus bloke.

      Some of these jokes are funny some are just sick.

      People only get uppity when it’s their hero suffering the jokes.

      Posted by Francis H on 2006 03 30 at 06:41 AM • permalink


    1. FrancisH, what you say is true, but there’s a vast difference between a bad-taste joke that makes light of someone’s unfortunate death – and jokes or remarks that openly celebrate the fact that they did (post #68 for example).

      Posted by Emily P. on 2006 03 30 at 06:57 AM • permalink


    1. Murph, you seem like such an angry fellow – I wonder where this anger comes from.

      Posted by Emily P. on 2006 03 30 at 06:59 AM • permalink


    1. Rachel was dumb as a person could be
      She thought murderin’ would make you feel free
      As it turned out she was dumber than that
      for not catchin’ on that ‘dozers make you flat

      Posted by Peter Boston on 2006 03 30 at 07:31 AM • permalink


    1. Piss off you patronising fuckhead.

      Posted by murph on 2006 03 30 at 07:39 AM • permalink


    1. How was the stupid Nazi bitch’s death unfortunate, Emily? Even if you were a Nazi, you would baulk at perpetuating the genes of someone too stupid to move out of the way of a dozer travelling at 5 kph.

      Posted by Jim Geones on 2006 03 30 at 07:50 AM • permalink


    1. “Nazi bitch”? Well, I just don’t have any answer to that kind of hatred. I guess I could do a little hatchet-job on Pat Tillman or Jessica Lynch but I’m afraid I just can’t conjure up the same intense loathing for other human beings – regardless of what they did or what they believed.

      Murph, I hope something happens in your life to make you less angry; I really do.

      Posted by Emily P. on 2006 03 30 at 08:35 AM • permalink


    1. Oafish, infantile AND insensitive; I must apologise for my and others tasteless japes at the expense of the martyr’d minx, whose flag-burning and rock hurling workshops no doubt led to a leap forward in the progress towards a just and equitable settlement of the vexing problem of the occupied territories.

      It would be crass in the extreme to suggest that she was a spoilt middle class anarchist airhead who should have been givinghandjobs to second-string quarterbacks in the back seat of a Mustang or blowing her english lit lecturer so she’d get a credit and could go to Vassar rather than getting her come-uppance for playing with the big boys.

      And heaven forbid that anyone suggest that there’s a quid to be made in using her well-known demise to promote a line of pancake make-up, or guarana drinks- feeling a bit run down? Well new “Zippy Hippy” has so many ampetemine-like ingredients it could even have Rachael Corrie bouncing around he dance-floor with a very long glowstick wrapped around her head- get yourself a Zippy, you’ll go yippee, you stupid hippy.

      That would be a new low ebb in marketing.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 03 30 at 08:54 AM • permalink


    1. I know it’s probably a waste of breath and bandwidth so I will say this just once.

      If this truly stupid and bigoted young woman’s death had been marked with something proportionate to its significance then my guess is most people here would regard it as unfortunate and regrettable. It would hardly be the subject of a topic on this blog. A narrow minded and ignorant foolish girl whose passing is memorable mainly for the cowardice of her family and colleagues, but who at least had the excuse of youth.

      Instead, what has happened? She has become a cause celebe. The canonisation process is well under way. A martyr. Where will it? A kind of Joan of Arc of Jihadism. A Nurse Cavill of the new nazism and their craven collaborators among us.

      Books, plays, websites, candle-lit public meetings… And now this appalling Dylan rip-off published in the British quisling press.  As if this sickening case of moral inversion was not bad enough, it gets worse.

      There have been thousands of victims of the Islamo-fascists including in Gaza and Israel. Thousands of Palestinians have lost their lives through the antics of their fascist masters and marauding Islamist murder gangs. Including exploited children.
      The dead include innocent young
      Australians and Americans. Let’s pause a moment and remember just one. [Link below]

      So who do the gutless sell-outs of democracy, human rights and basic decent values build their memorials for? Rachel Corrie.

      It is not us who are celebrating the death of Rachel Corrie. It is Hamas and Islamic Jihad and their Western apologists. Her death is being exploited but not by us. It is this that is being lampooned here. And if you think some of the jokes here are sick, that is nothing compared to the stinking foul and rotting moral decay that has spawned the likes of Billy Bragg and his grubby little hymn.

      So spare us the sanctiminous preaching please if you don’t mind, Emily. For many of us this is very much a moral issue too. And to be brutally frank about it, you have about as much moral authority around here as a Jihadist homicide bomber in a primary school.
      Melbourne fifteen-year-old Malki Roth

      Posted by geoff on 2006 03 30 at 09:02 AM • permalink


    1. Emily, you would have great difficulty doing a hatchet-job on Pat Tillman or Jessica Lynch, because they were not the useful idiots of imperialistic terrorists trying to establish a global totalitarian theocracy one fraudulent muslim nationality at a time. I actually find it even harder to understand or sympathise with her than to understand her beloved paleosimian terrorists. Whereas her precious terrorists grew up in a diseased culture where they were brainwashed from birth to slaughter the infidel and die for brutal & corrupt terrorists in the process, she herself grew up in a modern civilised country which gave women equal rights. Yes, her family must have been serious sickos, but she was old enough to think for herself and to know better than to risk her faeces, let alone her life, for the sake of such an evil, repugnant cause. She hasn’t suffered 0.0001% of what the victims of islamic supremacism have suffered, yet it’s the innocent victims who don’t get 0.0001% of the fawning publicity that Corrie got. Instead, it’s the innocent victims who get blamed for the islamic atrocities, while the terrorist collaborators get lionised by idiot has-been musicians.

      Posted by Jim Geones on 2006 03 30 at 09:53 AM • permalink


    1. #75 Princess Emily “Murph, I hope something happens in your life to make you less angry; I really do.”

      If you mean that, not posting here would be a wonderful start. I think that would make murph less angry. I know it would make me happy. But why pick nits, it would make EVERYONE happy.  Thank you for your kind gesture and we look forward to seeing you no more.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 03 30 at 11:15 AM • permalink


    1. Murph, you seem like such an angry fellow – I wonder where this anger comes from.

      Emily, you use that tired-ass line every fucking time you drag your childish, sniffy ass in here. Find some fresh material, will you?

      Now, I can’t speak for Murph, but dangerously stupid, morally narcissistic dipshits enabling this sort of thing makes me angry.

      Oh, and do scroll down to the picture at the bottom of the page. Then patronizingly ask, “What made her so hateful and angry?”

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 30 at 12:36 PM • permalink


    1. Make that “middle of the page.” The bottom is her idiot parents getting their asses kissed by a terrorist and lapping it up like cream. That’s not hateful, it’s contemptible.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 30 at 12:39 PM • permalink


    1. #60,66,71,75 Em who would not be able to celebrate the death of the devil. Do we not notice something here? The same changing the subject of the thread, the same holier than thou sermons, the same self-importance, the same injured respose to insult after insulting everyone (#60) around him/her, the same non-response to facts(#77)and the usual ignorant psyco-babble attack (re #68). Haven’t we seen this before in other leftoids that troll here? They are trained in Disruption 101 as part of diverting posts when discussing matters that are beyond their boundaries. Let me now give the test to Emily aka LLL: Can you answer a dirct question? If you are not a lefty troll, you’ll be able to do so. Here goes. What is a defence of RC’s action in not getting out of a dozer going less than 5km/hr?

      Posted by stats on 2006 03 30 at 12:40 PM • permalink


    1. Problem with the EM leftoids is that they are great at calling down those who mock the enablers (dead or alive) of murderers but not a word against the propogandists for the murderers and their enablers.

      Posted by stats on 2006 03 30 at 12:53 PM • permalink


    1. Gawd, Is this a right wing blog? What am I doing here, I voted for Roosevelt and Truman and JFK and on and on until I felt it too much to ask me to vote for Kerry. I thought it a bit too lefty, but Thanks Em for the news. I got to tell Zell before he messages on here.

      Posted by stats on 2006 03 30 at 12:57 PM • permalink


    1. I met Mr. Bragg once, backstage at the Sweet Auburn Festival in Atlanta a gajillion years ago.

      I have always regretted not asking him why, if he was such a big socialist, he was selling such expensive t-shirts at the show.

      Posted by VKI on 2006 03 30 at 04:20 PM • permalink


    1. Corries soul sister Caroll, the Boston Anti-Christ Monitor ‘reporter’, has been “released”. How in Hell is she going to get that suitcase full of cash (the kickback) through customs? OOPS, I forgot, the US will never impose the usual on these dhimmi sluts. She’ll also explain that the gift of the clap given to her by her companion-kidnappers was part of the kind treatment afforded her. Hey, You can take the costume off now Car-roll.

      Posted by stats on 2006 03 30 at 06:15 PM • permalink


    1. VKI

      Because he’s a self-righteous, hypocritical windbag loser.


      I’m not angry.  To put it simply, I don’t suffer fools.

      Here’s a tip: Why don’t you attempt to provide an actual argument, rather than patronising your opponent?

      Posted by murph on 2006 03 30 at 06:52 PM • permalink


    1. #87

      Because he’s a self-righteous, hypocritical windbag loser.

      Well, d’uh.  I just regret not asking him out loud and in public.

      Posted by VKI on 2006 03 30 at 09:03 PM • permalink


    1. Sorry VKI.  I wasn’t being a smart arse.

      Posted by murph on 2006 03 30 at 10:25 PM • permalink


    1. Here’s a tip: Why don’t you attempt to provide an actual argument, rather than patronising your opponent?

      Here’s a tip for you, murph – if you had responded with arguments and not abuse, then I’d have done the same.

      My argument is quite simple: you should never, ever celebrate death. Perhaps in some extreme cases it might be understandable and justified (if Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ted Bundy or Martin Bryant was under that bulldozer, then sure) but not in the case of Rachel Corrie or anyone else. Criticise her actions in life and the campaign that has sprung up subsequent to her death, by all means – that would be fair and valid comment. But there hasn’t been too much of that in this thread, just dancing on Corrie’s grave, making pancake jokes, calling her a “Nazi bitch”, etc. – that’s all just puerile hateful nonsense. And if that’s preaching on my part, then so be it.

      Posted by Emily P. on 2006 03 30 at 10:44 PM • permalink


    1. Emily, you would have great difficulty doing a hatchet-job on Pat Tillman or Jessica Lynch, because they were not the useful idiots of imperialistic terrorists trying to establish a global totalitarian theocracy one fraudulent muslim nationality at a time.

      Have a listen to yourself Jim – you’re peddling the anti-Islamic equivalent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Rachel Corrie was not the pliant tool of a global imperialist theocracy-seeking conspiracy; she was a naive, misguided girl, barely out of her teens, who thought she was doing some good and helping people. Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman were no different, other than they waved the flag instead of burned it. Some elements of the Corrie memorial campaign have indeed been hijacked or exploited by questionable political causes, true enough – and Bragg’s song is maudlin and woeful. But Rachel Corrie has no control over any of that, and it’s her you’re attacking – not the hangers-on who have used or misused her unfortunate death.

      Posted by Emily P. on 2006 03 30 at 10:57 PM • permalink


    1. Oh shit. Are you back? Here’s one especially for Emily.

      “Knock Knock”

      “Who’s there?”

      “FederalExpress. We have the remains of your daughter.”

      “Will you be needing the milk bottle back?”

      Posted by geoff on 2006 03 30 at 11:01 PM • permalink


    1. not the hangers-on who have used or misused her unfortunate death

      Misused it? Unfortunate? She was defending a tunnel used by terrorists to get into Israel to blow up women and children. Why do you continue to speak as if she was some unfortunate waif in the wrong place at the wrong time?

      Did you even bother to click the link I gave you? If you did, and you’re still peddling this line, you are utterly irredeemable.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 30 at 11:35 PM • permalink


    1. Tunnel schmunnel. That tunnel story has been doing the rounds on blogs for months and it is entirely unverifiable. It even differs from the official IDF account: that they were clearing shrubbery to expose potential explosive devices. You may, of course, post evidence from reliable, independent sources to prove that these tunnels actually existed in that specific part of Rafah, and that their destruction was the purpose of IDF activities in the area. Once you’ve done that, you can post evidence that Rachel Corrie knew of their existence and was actively protecting them. Otherwise, much of your ‘arguments’ seem speculative.

      And although I didn’t visit the link you posted, I’ve actually seen the ‘other Rachels’ page before – yes it’s tragic and heart-rending, but their lives are no more or less worthy of our respect than Rachel Corrie’s. That why-are-you-mourning-her-when-you-should-be-mourning-them line of argument is simple-minded rhetorical oneupmanship and it proves nothing.

      Posted by Emily P. on 2006 03 31 at 12:50 AM • permalink


    1. 77 Geoff, that’s beautiful man.  If you were an extremely hot babe, I’d ask you to marry me. But I already am. So, uh…never mind.

      Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 03 31 at 12:55 AM • permalink


    1. you should never, ever celebrate death

      Shouldn’t I?  And why not?  ‘Cause my self-appointed moral superior, Emily, says so?

      She’s was a worthless piece of filth.  A conspirator to murder and an enemy.

      What do you say when Palestinians celebrate the death of Jews and infidels?  Do you troll websites in the Arab world castigating them?


      Posted by murph on 2006 03 31 at 12:58 AM • permalink


    1. Emily, I am sincerely fascinated. What exactly are the Left’s limits of moral depravity in its quest for, I don’t know, whatever its quest is?

      Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 03 31 at 01:05 AM • permalink


    1. #97

      Making complete cunts of themselves?

      Posted by murph on 2006 03 31 at 01:24 AM • permalink


    1. Objection sustained Murph.  Your Honor, let me rephrase the question: Emily, I am sincerely fascinated.  What exactly are the Left’s limits of moral depravity in its quest for making complete cunts of themselves?

      Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 03 31 at 01:32 AM • permalink


    1. you should never, ever celebrate death…..what a load of utter bollocks- there’s a whole shitload of arseholes walking the planet who would be much improved by their immediate demise, and when ever one of them pops their clogs and I find out about it i do a little jig.

      I was as happy as a non halal pig in haram filth when Arafat karked it, likewise when the chief wheelie of Hamas got blown out of his culy-toed surgical stockings- and that’s just from one small grouping of turds in need of turning into grub tucker.

      You haemmoraging aortas make me want to puke.

      As to this :- their lives are no more or less worthy of our respect than Rachel Corrie’s….bloody hell- does your moral equivalence know no depths? One was actively assisting a declared terrorist organisation and put herself in danger by trying to make a facile, futile and fatuous point, the other Rachaels were going about their business, bothering no-one and behaving like rational, free human beings.

      To the puke add explosive diahhorea.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 03 31 at 01:37 AM • permalink


    1. Habib, they didn’t give a rats ass about the 100 million they murdered and starved in their quest to create the perfect socialized man, so why should they give a shit about a couple of poor blown up Jewish girls.  But they stuff old Lenin, one of the architects of genocide, and have his decaying carcass lie up under glass in the Kremlin for yonks, and now they lionize some dimwit terror apologist for making herself dozer toe cheese. Then we get “you should never, ever celebrate death” from old Emily.  Tells you what sort of sick shits we are dealing with.

      Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 03 31 at 01:54 AM • permalink


    1. #101 Oh here we go, back to the same-old you-love-Lenin-and-Stalin routine. I’ve never voted for a radical left-wing party in my life; never supported a centralised economy; never worn a red t-shirt or been part of a student union. I read Das Kapital at university and thought it was boring and stupid. Get yourself some new material.

      #96 murph, no I don’t trawl the fanatical websites of the Arab world telling them to stop killing and cheering terrorism, for many reasons, chief among them being that I don’t speak Arabic. But if I could and I did, I expect they’d respond in much the same way as you have here.

      And no, you shouldn’t celebrate death because tell you to, but because your conscience does. To say nothing of the fact that for every murph on Tim Blair’s blog rationalising hatred and proclaiming that Corrie-loving in-bred Islamo-fascist pigs must die-die-die, there’s a Palestinian or an Algerian or a Javanese sitting somewhere doing the same. If you were as vastly different from these people as you claim, you’d behave vastly differently.

      Posted by Emily P. on 2006 03 31 at 02:30 AM • permalink


    1. I think you’ll find we only want the expiration of those who would dearly love to see us (and ours) croaked; if they were tolerant of us and our peccadillos, they wouldn’t even be on our radar.

      There’s a difference between wanting to eradicate something/someone that has proven to be and continues to be a real threat to one’s very existence, both culturally and physically, and wanting to snuff something/someone because they don’t follow your own atavisitc, medieval belief system.

      Look up moral equivalence some time, then toddle off to the hall of mirrors for some serious introspection.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 03 31 at 03:00 AM • permalink


    1. From Emily:

      Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman were no different {than Rachel Corrie}, other than they waved the flag instead of burned it.


      Rachel Corrie, an ungraduated college student, hated her country and actively supported the people who want to destroy it, Israel, and the West in general.  Dying for those people is insane.  And that’s not being naive, that’s being destructive.

      Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman volunteered to defend their country against the people who want to destroy it……the same sort of people (certainly ideologically, if not operationally) that Rachael Corrie supported.  Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman, as citizens serving trained soldiers, were anything but naive.

      The differences here are that of night and day.  Your moral relativism really stinks, Emily.  OTOH, this sort of turd is typical of your “thought” process, especially when you come here and crap out your condescendation.

      I’m sure you’ll disagree with this, but I really don’t care.  Your opinions aren’t worth the dirt to bury them with.

      And, for the record, I don’t see Rachael as a “nazi bitch”.  Some of my fellow posters here see her differently, and I don’t know that they are wrong….there is some justification, in a moral sense, for that epitaph.

      Still, I don’t dance on her grave, but I damned well won’t speak of her with respect, nor do I mourn her passing.  Her family gets zero sympathy from me.

      She was a stupid, narrow minded, spoiled brat of a fool who died defending a bunch of bloody handed terrorists.  Whether there was a tunnel or not is immaterial—Rachael Corrie openly and blatantly supported terrorists.  That’s why she went to Palestine in the first place.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 31 at 03:10 AM • permalink


    1. The tune isn’t woeful Emily. But that isn’t his.

      Actually Dylan’s original is pretty mournful but i find it compelling listening.

      One of the thing i liked about the Dylan song was that it never went for the easy point-score. It never mentioned Hattie Carroll was black for instance. It would be probably obvious to anyone of the day of course but many less subtle and gifted song writers (ie Bragg) would have been all over that aspect like a rash. It still told the tale starkly though – even if a bit misleadingly (google is so useful for looking up the true stories)

      But I might just be biased as i do like Dylan.

      Posted by Francis H on 2006 03 31 at 03:17 AM • permalink


    1. emily pee, emily pee
      oh how we wonder at emily pee
      who is she, what is she?
      so loyal to the memory of rachel corrieee
      and staunchly defending mr leftyee
      with his copyright cat up its leafy treeee
      what would we do without emily p
      to show us how wicked we all beee
      to support israel’s libertiees
      and also those of the iraqiees
      if emily pee left us alone
      we’d all be forced to gnash and moan
      so emily pee please stay for ever
      we think you’re really, really clever
      and have a lot to teach us dotards
      and fools and scum and drooling retards…

      that enough of that – bored now

      Posted by KK on 2006 03 31 at 04:58 AM • permalink


    1. It would be wise to for Em to lecture the Palestinians on the sin of dancing on other peoples grave, or has she not seen the videos of the Paleos dancing to the tune of 3000 brutally murdered on 9/11 and to the screams of those who leapt in desperation to their deaths. Hey, Em, send a note to the so-called Prof. Churchill of Colorado who celebrated the deaths of these “little Eichmanns” killed on 9/11. How about media whore Cindy who has been dancing on the grave of her son for months now? We don’t hear from the lefties the whisper of admonition to any of these creeps and many others who the lefties adore.

      Posted by stats on 2006 03 31 at 09:18 AM • permalink


    1. LLL Emily,employs the standard tricks of the lefty trolls, some of which are listed in #82, to hijack a post, to distract it from its topic in order to concentrate it on his or her inanities. I asked of Em to answer a direct question:  What is a defense of RC’s action in not getting out of a dozer going less than 5km/hr? Still no answer and I don’t expect one. His/Her task is not to illuminate a subject but to force attention upon itself by angering the bloggers by her mixture of arrogance and stupidity. Works for awhile.

      Posted by stats on 2006 03 31 at 09:27 AM • permalink


    1. Emily gets my vote as the most morally repulsive lefty ever to leave a trail of slime through here.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 03 31 at 02:35 PM • permalink


    1. Mine as well.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 31 at 02:59 PM • permalink


    1. 107 stats, do you think that pointing me to other people who behave like callous morons gives you the right to behave like one as well? That logic is unfathomable; it is the law of the kindergarten sandpit.

      108 I didn’t see your question hence I didn’t respond. But it was pretty stupid, I agree. I’m not sure what she was thinking at the time.

      109, 110 Your vote of confidence is uplifting, gentlemen.

      Posted by Emily P. on 2006 03 31 at 07:55 PM • permalink


    1. #111 so is that an admission that LLL & Emily P are the same person?

      Posted by KK on 2006 03 31 at 09:22 PM • permalink


    1. 102 Emily, my dear old thing, the point being that murderous ideologies have not changed a bit.  I will get new material when some new ideas are presented.  Quite frankly I’d love to hear some new ideas instead of the same old murderous ones.  If you see no difference between the theatrical martyr death of a terror apologist and little girls sitting on a bus or eating pizza, we share no common ground, no matter who you vote for.  And I categorically claim the right to mock or satirize those who perpetuate those ideas, as opposed to the head hackers, little girl killers and gulag operators who don’t like my ideas of individual liberty, rule of law and the right of free peoples to defend themselves.  Peace. Out.

      Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 03 31 at 10:29 PM • permalink


    1. 111. LLL EM: Let me try to explain my point. I’ll speak slowly. A post is a place where people can explain their views freely. Lefties are supportive of free [removed]or is that only in the case of Muslims and other op-pressed?)The first thing you do upon arrival is berate people for what they’ve said. You offer no arguments why RC’s action should deserve respect, and you have not illuminated at all why the leftoids have made her an icon. You have provided no illumination at all but lectured us on how conscience should guide us. As we used to say in Brookly “Who died and made you Pope?”: translation, what are your credentials to so advise or are you so stupid and arrogant that you can believe that there is any reason to give you a second of consideration? Lefties are so ready to lecture on the free expression of others, but when it comes to condemnation of barbaric ACTIONS such as Paleo 9/11 dancing, nary a word is heard.
      Now to again prove the point. But first I note that you responded to the question I asked, but did not answer the question. Read it carefully, I asked for a defence of her actions. You could have responded that there is no defence. Instead you said her action was stupid. Crikey STUPID? Is that all you can cough up in judging the ACTION of someone who lets herself be run over by a bulldozer that can be outrun by a turtle. Maybe demented by unreasoning hatred might be a little closer to the truth, but not nearly stong enough. You can stretch your wit to the limit chastising those giving opinions, but your words are weak and slow in coming when you describe really evil actions.

      Posted by stats on 2006 03 31 at 11:09 PM • permalink


    1. 112 No I am not this LLL person and I have no idea who it refers to.

      113 Vanguard, you didn’t hear what I said (or, more likely, you didn’t want to.) I am not a socialist, a communist, an Islamist, a theocratist, a sympathiser for terrorists – yet you conclude that I must be because I hold dissenting views to your own. And this subsequent post continues to be predicated upon the most extreme and fundamental dichotomies: head-hackers and little girls eating pizza; Islamo-fascists and liberty-loving Republicans; you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists. Is this Neal Starkman’s ‘S factor’ at work? I doubt it because you’re obviously a thinking person. But as the bard said, there are more things in heaven and Earth that are dreamt of in your philosophy. The world is not as morally simplistic as you’re suggesting and Rachel Corrie was not a terrorist, nor is there reliable evidence, beyond the ranting of a few blogs, that she was wifully and knowingly supporting them (I guess Dave S. is going to get back to me later about those tunnels..)

      114 stats, indeed you are entitled to your views – doubtless you’ll continue to air them, as uncouth as they may be. But you also continue to misinterpret all of mine: I am not here to glorify Rachel Corrie or to explain or justify the campaign that followed her death; indeed, as I’ve already pointed out, a lot of that is baloney. What I have been on about is the malicious lampoonery and vicious logic that tries to imply that a young girl who died protesting naively was “demented by unreasoning hatred”, an “evil action”. You and others have offered nothing, beyond wild gesticulation and faux outrage, to prove why this action was so detestable. If you were serious about deconstructing the myth of Rachel Corrie then you’d go about proving your claims instead of this childish parade of bad jokes and a campaign of demonisation based upon nothing other than your loathing of some of the people she was trying to protect.

      Posted by Emily P. on 2006 03 31 at 11:35 PM • permalink


    1. OK Emily, I will stipulate for argument’s sake she was not engaged in terror activities.  What then, pray tell, was she doing in that circumstance where she got killed?  I’m sure you agree that she thought she thought she was bravely shielding something worth protecting. That photo of her, face contorted in hateful rage, inciting little Pali kids to burn the flag tells me otherwise.  Call me presumptuous, but it is also telling to me who exactly applauds, or in your case equivocates, that sort of behaviour.
      I’m actually a Democrat, albeit a conservative one, but thanks for inferring. I will state again that I don’t care who you vote for, right left or neither, but I believe you to be deluded if you think there are shades of grey in this matter that deserve our introspection and understanding. To wit: the people who suicide bomb, conduct rape rooms, run planes full of people into buildings, etc, do not have justifiable grievances. The people who do something about it do not have sinister agendas.  Its quite the opposite.

      Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 04 01 at 12:13 AM • permalink


    1. Emily, I have read her emails home and come to what—I hope—is an unbiased conclusion. I am sorry, but all the evidence points in the very direction you refuse to look.

      Rachel Corrie was a young college student from Washington State, who decided she could make the world a better place by showing her solidarity with Middle East terrorism and Palestinian mass murderers. She joined the International Solidarity Movement, a communist-anarchist group who openly support Palestinian terrorism.

      Corrie went to the Gaza Strip, where she and her ISM comrades spent their days trying to harass and provoke Israeli troops and interfere with Israel’s legitimate anti-terrorist military operations. She and her ISM comrades would set up obstacles on roads to prevent Israeli troops and otherwise assist and defend the terrorists.

      I have checked, Emily, and found the ISM is probably the campus organization most upfront about its support for the Palestinian “right” to engage in terrorism.

      I have also checked, through sources you may be unaware of, and found that the IDF operations being carried out that day were specifically aimed at uncovering the smuggling operations that were directly contributing to the deaths of their fellow Israelis.

      Again, whether you like it or not, I have personal experience of the IDF, how they operate in circumstance such as these and the “rules of engagement”.

      The IDF performed a complete and exhaustive investigation of the death and discovered the following: 1) Corrie was not sitting in front of the bulldozer, but was obstructed from it by a mound of earth; 2) She died not from being hit by the bulldozer – apparently there was no contact between her and the machine – but rather was hit by heavy building debris that the vehicle was
      moving; 3) the bulldozer was not demolishing homes, but was flattening out an area frequently used as a staging ground for terrorism and arms smuggling, in order to increase Israel’s ability to maintain security control of the area.

      I cannot summon up any pity for this foolish girl, and maintain an abiding dislike of her parents—whose influence on their daughter led to this travesty and whose behaviour now can only be described as ridiculous.

      They are touring the world to demonize Israel, and represent daughter Rachel as a “victim of Israel’s illegal occupation.” They and other ISM supporters have been organizing a boycott of the Caterpiller Corporation, because it sells machines to Israel.

      Finally, the official ISM web site endorses “armed struggle” by Palestinians, which means random mass murders of Israeli children. The local ISM offices hosted two Moslem suicide bombers from the UK, who had entered Israel as “peace activists,” only to blow a Tel Aviv bar to smithereens the next day. See this

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 04 01 at 12:22 AM • permalink


    1. 116 Vanguard, the picture of Corrie burning a flag does indeed look militant and a little ugly (mind you, the Palestinian kids – if that’s where they’re from – look more nonplussed than jubilant). But the weight of evidence about Corrie suggests she was filled more with despair than hatred. Was she opposed to US and Israeli policy with regard to Palestine? I have no doubt of it. She was quite entitled to hold those views, as you and I are entitled to ours.

      There are no ‘shades of grey’ in my philosophy, it is quite clear: I deplore violence in all its forms, whether religious terrorism or state militarism. But I also try to understand why they occur without ranting or seizing the moral high ground. My opinions about the murder of Jewish children on buses are not apathetic or morally ambivalent; I am outraged by them – but it is outrage tempered by reason and consideration. Terrorism in this region is not new: the state of Israel itself came into being following years of terrorism by Jewish groups like Irgun and the Haganah against Britons and Arabs in British Palestine. Many victims of these groups were civilians and some were children (I don’t know if they were eating pizza on buses though).

      Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 01 at 01:35 AM • permalink


    1. it is plain that emily p came here to rile us all by being wilfully blind to the concept of useful idiots, which rachel corrie so excellently typifies

      she starts out saying we are baaaad people for making lame jokes about rachel corrie. she ends up revealing her true stance in #118, pushing the moral equivalence of haganah and hamas.  time to ignore

      Posted by KK on 2006 04 01 at 01:50 AM • permalink


    1. 117 Mental Floss, I won’t dispute your remarks about Corrie’s death (I’ve never been of the opinion it was anything other than an accident) and the behaviour of her parents. But your view of the ISM is biased and skewed. It is not an “anarcho-communist” organisation but a single-purpose collective containing a wide range of individuals and sub-groups. Doubtless some radical left-wing students and rabble-rousers have joined it with their own agendas; doubtless also that it has been infiltrated by a few Palestinians intent on violence – these facts were also true of the NAACP during the Civil Rights movement, and just about every other large organisation. But condemning the entire ISM as “anarcho-communist” and supportive of terroristm because of the actions and rhetoric of individual members is just too much (wasn’t Tim McVeigh a Republican, after all?)

      And if you have evidence of the Rafah operation being specifically aimed at locating and destroying smuggling tunnels, as you seem to imply, then please do paste it.

      Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 01 at 01:51 AM • permalink


    1. KK, there is indeed a moral equivalence between Haganah and Hamas – they both murdered civilians and children, for a political cause. Why does that frighten you so much that you start calling for others to ignore?

      Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 01 at 01:56 AM • permalink


    1. Another clerihew

      Rachel Corrie
      Ended up quite gory
      And looking sick
      Eight feet in diameter and half an inch thick.

      Posted by Susan Norton on 2006 04 01 at 02:00 AM • permalink


    1. KK, I agree.  Ignore Emily.  She’s not worth the pixels.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 01 at 02:15 AM • permalink


    1. “There is indeed a moral equivalence between Haganah and Hamas – they both murdered civilians and children, for a political cause.”

      We need go no further than this to establish that we are dealing with somebody who is both profoundly ignorant and morally depraved. This is a person who has never read a book on the subject he/she has chosen to preach about like a wounded crow at dawn. This person knows nothing and yet does not have the basic sense to keep quiet on subjects where his/her ignorance is total.  As a moralist he/she could not distinguish between a rape victim attempting to defend herself and the rapist.

      I agree with KK and The_Real_Jeffs.

      Such a person is best ignored.

      Posted by geoff on 2006 04 01 at 06:55 AM • permalink


    1. Geoff, face facts pal – you’re talking rubbish.

      Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 01 at 07:07 AM • permalink


    1. Stats? Are you talking about me again? You really are obsessed, aren’t you?

      I particularly like your little theories about the hijacking of posts. Hmmm, sort of reminds of someone who can goes regularly off topic to mention the evil Muslims or LLL, his favourite emotional scratching posts.

      Yes, Stats, that someone is obviously you. Like a broken record, scccrrrrttcch

      Oh, I just went off topic…

      I’d never even heard of Rachel Corrie until I saw her name mentioned here, again and again and again. After seeing all the hate and bile she festered up I just had to go and find out who she was.

      The same applies for all those ‘Jews Control The Media’ and ‘It must be the Joooosss’ jokes or jibes or whatever they’re supposed to be.

      The question is, why continually mention cliches or flog a dead horse like Corrie that most young people are not aware of at all?

      Is it to perpetuate the cliches and publicise the ‘known enemies’, even when they’re dead and gone? Keep them alive or something so they can be used as tools?

      It really is strange.

      Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 04 01 at 08:47 AM • permalink


    1. There was a young gal named Corrie
      For whom I am supposed to be sorry
      She wanted dead Joos
      So I’d be elated by the news
      If her mother was hit by a fucking lorry

      Posted by murph on 2006 04 01 at 09:30 AM • permalink


    1. Wondered how long it would be before someone got around to wishing death upon on her mother.

      Mmmm, tacky.

      Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 04 01 at 10:07 AM • permalink


    1. # 126 You complete and utter twat.

      The question is, why continually mention cliches or flog a dead horse like Corrie that most young people are not aware of at all

      In my opinion, it is the very height of conceit for you to come in here and post that because YOU have never heard of a particular issue or person (such as Corrie) that such issue or person is unknown to “most young people”.

      Honestly, tell us how many “young people” you actually know, and be honest, please.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 04 01 at 10:40 AM • permalink


    1. that goes for LLL too

      these people have read nothing & learned nothing.  they fail to understand that rachel corrie might have deserved some respect in death had she, in life, taught palestinian children something useful instead of how to burn flags for the camera

      for some people activism means marching, chanting, barricading streets, throwing rocks, flag burning, trashing cars & macdonalds shops, making papier mache effigies & braiding their friends’ dreads.  for the rest of us it means practical, not symbolic, work to make life better for those less fortunate.  like the idiot “peacemakers” taken captive in iraq, rachel corrie’s activities were all about self

      Posted by KK on 2006 04 01 at 10:42 AM • permalink


    1. #129, as an example : I have a media class ‘Politics In New Media’, we study a lot of stuff on the internet, politicial blogs as well. One of the first sites I suggested the class should check out was this one. About 25 people aged 18-20 start visiting the site on a regular basis. I won’t bore you with their opinions on their favourite ‘mad fucker’ posters, but Corrie and the ‘Jews Control The Media’ were two subjects that leapt out for most of them, from comments in these boards, as two things they found out about through visiting this blog.

      Now eight of those 25 students know all about Rachel Corrie. They were wondering why she was so hated, so they went googling around and found more than half the stuff on the internet they looked at was fuming with bilee and venom towards her and her family (what her family has to do with it, who knows, but whatever).

      These eight students originally thought she was an idiot, but not now. Now they think she’s a fucking hero, and most of that comes not from her actions but from the fact she is hounded beyond her death. Now she’s the victim. I’ve tried to explain to them what she was doing there when she was killed, but I’m one of ‘them’ when I talk like that. So from one group of 25 young people, there are now at least eight who have told all their friends about ‘Poor Rachel’. Fuck knows how many their friends have told.

      As for how many young people I know, if that means aged between 16-25, probably 50-60 or so directly, I’m in contact with another 100 or so via e-mail and chat rooms and there’s about 300 who subscribe to my blog on MySpace.

      When I first found this blog I told all of them about it. most visited, they all had something to say about what they read here. And so the Legend Of Rache Corrie and ‘The Jews Control The Media’ viruses and perpetuates.

      Nice to see you’re sticking to your standard greeting, MentalFloss. As rational and communicative as always.

      Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 04 01 at 12:21 PM • permalink


    1. Murph, Habib, KK, Mental, TR Jeffs, Geoff et al.  I’m off this to go explain helicopter aerodynamics to my dog, as it will be ultimately more productive.  I enjoy reading your attempts to convey apparently not so common sense to Miss Emily, sorry, MS Emily, but its shoveling sand against the tide.  Hope to join you anther day and fight the good fight.  Keep Buggering On!

      Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 04 01 at 12:30 PM • permalink


    1. Haiku explanation:-

      Corrie extrapolates

      Bulldozer revs


      Posted by Habib on 2006 04 01 at 12:47 PM • permalink


    1. I believe your observations, LLL, I truly do.

      I would ascribe them to what has been a common theme throughout human history (and pre-history for that matter, though I cannot report authritatively on that).

      “Most young people”, to use your nomenclature, are fools. I know I was when I was young.

      Look up the terms “altricial” and “precocial” and, if you’ve got the time in your clearly very busy schedule, check out “nidifugous” and “nidicolous” as well.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 04 01 at 01:07 PM • permalink


    1. LLL, truth be told, at a young age (including during my active duty tour), I leaned left.  A lot.  I wasn’t a socialist, but I knew a fair number of soldiers who were.

      Then, I got older, and learned from my experiences.  Among them, I realized that the underdog is not always in the right.  I eventually realized that “victimization” is a method of manipulation.  People can be bona fide victims, but when someone is declared a “victim”, and never faulted for their actions, no matter how stupid, I get suspicious, and look closer at the situation.

      Corrie Rachael has been victimized as a symbol of the pro-terrorist movement.  She died in a very stupid manner; I work around construction equipment—you practically have to try to get killed by a bulldozer.  It does happen, and the root cause is generally stupidity.

      The original link to Tim’s post is a classic example of victimization.  People are singing praise for Corrie Rachael.  They write plays about her.  They sue Caterpillar because the bulldozer involved in Corrie’s death was made by Caterpillar.  They never hold Corrie accountable for her own death because it suits them politically.  Corrie Rachael is a martyr, like the Palestinian suicide bombers, and for the same cause—terrorism.  Which I reject as a tool of change, given that innocent people (which I define as “non-combatants”).

      And that is not only pathetic, it is beneath contempt.

      Yeah, there’s a lot of bile and venom directed against Corrie.  So what?  She hated her own country.  She supported terrorists who murder children and pregnant women*.  She doesn’t deserve respect or praise, especially as a martyr.  She gets the bile and venom because she gets the praise and adulation.  Corrie Racheal is a symbol, much like Che Guevara.  Or Pat Tillman.  Get over it.

      BTW, Corrie’s family is included in the bile and venom because they supported her going to Palestine, and have actively supported her martyrdom.

      No matter—you and your fellow students no doubt believe that Corrie died a noble death, and is worthy of your respect.  No problem, but you do realize that you have become a member of a special, but very large type of people.

      This group is generally known as “suckers”.  As in, “There’s one born every minute”.



      As a gesture to you, I am not including the many Israeli soldiers butchered by Palestinian terrorists, although I firmly believe they died honorably defending their nation.  I do this because Corrie and her ilk believe that the Palestinians are in a war, and any Israeli soldier is fair game.  I disagree, but then again, I’m a soldier myself.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 01 at 02:29 PM • permalink


    1. Sorry, minor typo.  The last sentence in the 4th pargraph should read:

      Which I reject as a tool of change, given that innocent people (which I define as “non-combatants”) are deliberately targeted.

      PIMF, once again.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 01 at 02:33 PM • permalink


    1. That’s a very tall soap bos you’ve got there, Jeffs. Where did I say I thought she died a noble death? Read it again. Nothing there.

      I don’t give a shit either way, she’s another dead person in a war zone who thought they were doing good things, but just wound up dead.

      The point Jeffs was, the more people talk about this dead woman, loudly and angrily, the more people find out about her, like the kids in my class, the more they see her being ‘victimised’ by those who hate her, the more sympathy she is likely to draw.

      From what I just read, that stupid play in New York would have played to a few thousand people, tops, got almost no reviews and disappeared, probably losing a crapload of money in the process. But now it’s banned or pulled, suddenly it’s big news.

      Whatever. Do you what you want, rant about whatever dead chick you think is worth the effort. I just wanted you to know that the mythologising of people like her begins and ends with those who won’t stop talking about her, on both sides.

      Only six or so comments on the Israeli election that is one of the most important in two decades, and over 130 posts about some stupid chick who died fighting a bulldozer in the country next door, years ago.

      Like I said, it sure is strange.

      Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 04 01 at 03:10 PM • permalink


    1. #134, I’ll correct my post, Mental, “most young people” should be “most young people I know (50-300 in 18 different countries) are not aware of…” Or were not aware of…

      Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 04 01 at 03:15 PM • permalink


    1. The point Jeffs was, the more people talk about this dead woman, loudly and angrily, the more people find out about her, like the kids in my class, the more they see her being ‘victimised’ by those who hate her, the more sympathy she is likely to draw.

      Well, that’s a good start, LLL.  You’ve admitted that she is being victimized, although you did use danger quotes….does make me kinda wonder how sincere you are(n’t).

      But if your fellow students can look at us and be repulsed, I can’t look at Billy Bragg and be repulsed by his crap?  How about MentalFloss?  And the others?  Are we supposed to roll over and play dead?  According to you—yes.  Or at least be meek and mild in our rhetoric.  Since Billy Bragg is celebrating the death of an apologist and supporter of terrorism, your position is not reasonable.

      This, LLL, is known as “double standards”.  You want to have ‘em, go right ahead.  I don’t want them, there’s a short and slippery slope into moral relativism from there.

      For example…..Tim has posted about Green Peace, and their idiocy.  The few people who wished harm upon them (as I recall) were slapped down pretty firmly.  While Green Peace is essentially anti-human, they are not violently so.

      The level of rhetoric against Corrie is reasonable, IMHO.  If people don’t like it, they need not become an active supporter of Corrie.  That’s where the term “sucker” comes into play.

      As for our not posting so much on the Israeli election….so what?  The Israeli’s are perfectly capable of running their own nation.  They’ve been doing so for a long time.  It’s good news, and I’m glad of it.  But need I focus on it?  Certainly not because you said so.  Indeed, I just checked, and you never posted there.  Is “Do as I say, not as I do” your slogan, LLL?

      As for soap boxes……LLL, you are very prolific on your posts here, trying to divert this thread off topic, it being so unimportant and all.  Pot, kettle, etc.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 01 at 03:41 PM • permalink


    1. The Caterpillar,
      Ignores Nature’s Heirarchy,
      And Squashes the Wasp.

      Posted by murph on 2006 04 01 at 09:39 PM • permalink


    1. Dreyfuze

      The reason that I used the words “cunt” and “fuck” is because Emily immediately mounted a patronising and personal attack on me.  I’ve seen the likes of Emily come and go (and come again), and I am bored with having the same conversation with them.  It is impossible to argue with them on the basis of fact, because they are evasive, emotive and intellectually dishonest.

      Posted by murph on 2006 04 01 at 10:19 PM • permalink


    1. Hmmm.

      How did my response to Dreyfuze appear before his statement?

      Posted by murph on 2006 04 01 at 10:28 PM • permalink


    1. Bloody hell!  Has Dreyfuze discovered the secret key to the art of “having the last word”?

      Posted by murph on 2006 04 01 at 10:30 PM • permalink


    1. Dear Mr. Dreyfuze.

      While I take pains to couch my arguements or opinions in language suitable for that which passes for reasoned discourse on these fora, I have become so aggravated at a certain individual that I cannot help but preface any remarks directed their way with the words ‘you complete and utter twat’.

      I take the position that I am doing the individual a favour, as he need not read all the way through my post to know who is addressing him.

      I also eschew overuse of quotation marks and neologisms wherever possible. While I would not presume to instruct you on elements of style, you might consider that some find posts riddled with quotations and invented words to be more irritating than the occasional Anglo-Saxon expletive.



      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 04 01 at 10:31 PM • permalink


    1. S’truth!

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 04 01 at 10:32 PM • permalink


    1. For what it’s worth my quick count is the C word has been used three times in this thread (not directed at other commenters)and that includes once by Dreyfuze.

      The F word has been used six or seven times including once by Dreyfuze and twice by LLL. It has been used three times as abuse of other commenters including twice by LLL.

      That’s in 141 posts.

      “Patently absurd”? You bet it is.

      You’re a crybaby Dreyfuze. Oh so precious.

      “Gods Chosen” in “Gods Given Real Estate”.

      Spell it out Dreyfuze please. Don’t be shy now. Just who precisely are you talking about? And where? While we’re on the subject of “bilious and crude vilification”.

      Posted by geoff on 2006 04 01 at 10:33 PM • permalink


    1. When an attempt at a reasoned discussion is met with the responses that Emily P has experienced, it is clear that the antagonists are short of
      1) logical, accurate responses and
      2) basic manners and courtesy.

      It is patently absurd to assert that words like “cunt” and “fuck” are in anyway a part of intelligent discourse or genuine philosphical debate. They may be in some dictionaries but the way they are “used” on this board is to demean and denigrate and possibly, intimidate, anybody holding an alternative view point. However mildly posited.
      It is the first, oldest and most obvious ploy of the policy bereft, in any so called “debate” It is curiously uncivilised behaviour for those who profess to have a clear view of what is and is not, civilised behaviour.
      However, it is expected, but sad, that a contrary view of anything involving “Gods Chosen” in “Gods Given Real Estate” would invoke such bilious and crude personal vilification. That appears to be the “modus” of some of the more extreme “mentopaths” on this board.
      I thought though, that the terms of use of the board, specifically prohibited such behaviour.
      Continually accepting such behaviour would suggest that this board is in fact intended primarily to function as a Hate site..
      Is that in fact, the case?? We should know.

      Posted by Dreyfuze on 2006 04 01 at 10:36 PM • permalink


    1. Heh!  Dreyfuze, you are diverting the thread, and are attacking the messengers on a rather minor point of order.

      True, cursing is not commonly used in logical discourse.  But that doesn’t mean cursing is forbidden, either.

      But your sudden intervention is interesting.  Emily is a pretty hard nosed person; someone who apologizes for terrorism is hardly subject to fainting when reading profanity.

      And Emily is morally deficient as well. Again, cursing is not something that will bother this person.

      Further, rules of debate don’t hinder Emily from obfuscation, moving the goal posts, and other tactics that I’ve seen her use.

      All of this points to murph and MentalFloss out debating dear, sweet Emily, if someone has to raise a diversion in her defense.


      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 01 at 11:14 PM • permalink


    1. OK lads listen carefully.

      You will have observed by now that Dreyfuze is being constantly thrust forward in time and space. As result are responses to his/her comment are earlier in both time and space to the comment.

      While this is a curious phenonomen it is nothing to worry about. There will be a perfectly reasonable explanation.

      Likely it will involve wronwright somehow. Probably he is messing around with the Tardis again and using it in yet another unauthorised experiment. My guess is he is attempting to refine a new rhetorical weapon. The “pre-emptive rebuttal”

      Much work has already been done on this as you know. It is intended to counter the “left/liberal” device of the pre-emptive offensive denial. Such as accusing everyone of falsely alleging antisemitisn against them which they deploy immediately before saying something antisemitic.

      Im sure he knows what he’s doing.

      Posted by geoff on 2006 04 01 at 11:15 PM • permalink


    1. Dreyfuze, very well said. The anger and vitriol demonstrated in this site against people who hold differing views is palpable; it is far worse than any piece of cogent evidence they’ve been able to produce that shows Rachel Corrie ‘hated America’ and ‘loved terrorists’. The silly girl burnt a paper flag and hang out with people who may have hung out with suicide-bombers – so she deserved to die. And because I don’t agree then I probably deserve the same fate (#67, murph’s first comment to me, suggesting I lie in front of a bulldozer… now he claims to have used foul language because I was ‘patronising’).

      There’s no great mystery about any of this, to my mind: some posters behave rabidly because they don’t know what to say. I have asked for evidence that shows Rachel Corrie was protecting tunnels and fraternising with suicide-bombers – and this has not been produced. If something clear, independent and incontravertible was proffered, then I’d probably have said “fair enough” – but not a single thing has been provided, other than a snapshot of her burning a flag. The rest has just been blog-based supposition, conspiracy theories and emotive pictures of dead Israeli children. It is a tabloid-level debate at best.

      The argument that Corrie was a terrorist or supported them, and thus deserved to die is based on little more than a deep hatred of ideas contrary to their own. Because I have defended Corrie’s right to a little dignity in death – without defending her actions in life – I also must be evil, stupid, blind, warped, retarded, morally ambivalent, Stalinist or Maoist, poorly read, blah blah blah blah blah. Doubtless more insults will follow this, my final post to this thread. But there will also be gratitude because the flag-wavers can go back to crude ditties and circuitous self-pleasuring without having someone constantly asking them to prove what they claim; it will be a relief, I’m sure. In any event, I wish you all happiness and good health.

      Posted by Emily P. on 2006 04 01 at 11:36 PM • permalink


    1. …“left/liberal” device of the pre-emptive offensive denial.

      You nailed that one on the head, geoff.  Ain’t nothing here but that.

      Oh, and add in sweeping generalizations, feigned outrage, and moral relativism.

      In short, nothing but the usual turds from Dreyfuze and Emily.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 02 at 12:02 AM • permalink


    1. The swansong of Emily P. The beauty of this medium is that the record speaks fot itself.

      This is a person-

      *who has stated there is no difference between victims of cold blooded premeditated murder by racist hate gangs and the victim of an accident caused by her own stupidity or worse.#94

      *has said there is no difference between Corrie and Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman “other than one burnt the flag and the others waved it” #91

      *has claimed that the Haganah carried out years of terrorism in British Palestine. #118

      *has claimed that the Haganah murdered British and Arab civilians in British Palestine. Including children. #118

      *has inferred that the State of Israel came into existence as a result of “years of terrorism” #118

      *has asserted that the Haganah and Hamas are morally equivalent. #120

      *has implied that commenters here who attack terrorists are the same as the terrorists.#102

      *and is now applauding another commenter whose main contribution to this discussion has been to make snide remarks about “Gods Chosen” and “Gods Given Real Estate”. #150

      I did not use the phrase “poorly read” to describe this person. I used “profoundly ignorant and has never read a book on the subject.”

      I did not use the phrase “morally ambivalent” to describe this person.

      The record clearly shows I used “morally depraved” #124.

      Let’s get that straight.

      Posted by geoff on 2006 04 02 at 01:05 AM • permalink


    1. 152.. Yes, lets get it straight..
      History speaks for itself, if only people could listen and learn.
      That is unfortunately the worst flaw in the human species.. Collectively, we just can’t seem to learn from past mistakes. And as has been said before, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it..
      As to your other misinterpretations..
      #94 I can’t see where this is said.
      #91 So? What WAS the difference then??
      #118/1 They did.
      #118/2 They did.
      #118/3 Continuing existence has certainly been marked by many such crimes. Do you want a list?
      #121 Why are Hamas NOT morally equivalent to Haganah? In you answer, please leave out the words Palestinian and/or Jew.
      #102 Really can’t see this. Please explain.
      #150 Why does that offend you? That is the way all the board buddies work here, isn’t it?
      I think that you are quite wrong about the persona who is Emily P..
      I have no idea who he/she is but it is as plain as the muttz nuts that he/she has a very good graps of the subject.
      I think it is “morally depraved” to show such deliberate and utter contempt for the death of another human being, doing something that she believed in, in the face of grotesque and dangerous odds.. And no, I don’t for a moment believe Rachel Corrie was “aiding terrorists”. She was protesting an action, all too commonly used by the IDF, that is in fact, considered a crime against humanity.
      I don’t think most posters on this thread are capable of understanding what courage that took. If they do, it scares them because they know they could never hope to match it.

      Finally, Pre emption? WTF?? That is the last thing  I would want to play with… Just ask one of your heros about that..

      Posted by Dreyfuze on 2006 04 02 at 08:16 AM • permalink


    1. Whoops.. TYpo
      “..I think that you are quite wrong about the persona who is Emily P..
      I have no idea who he/she is but it is as plain as the muttz nuts that he/she has a very good grasp of the subject…”

      Posted by Dreyfuze on 2006 04 02 at 08:19 AM • permalink


    1. LLL, EmP, Dry-fuze #153 Why are Hamas NOT morally equivalent to Haganah? In you answer, please leave out the words Palestinian and/or Jew. I don’t suppose any of you have children. No, I didn’t think so. Let me try to explain, it is impossible for a normal person to strap a bomb on his/her childs back and send the innocent one out to commit suicide and to murder others. Hamas has encouraged parents to permit this horrendous act and enabled child sacrifice in this and other ways. (For the research challenged lefties that troll here, there are several key words in the last sentence that should help you get to sources).There is no record of such acts by Haganah. If there is a reliable source of such, please supply. Haganah wore uniforms, did not sneak into cities to blow up buses of innocent people, etc. You may be confusing Haganah with Irgun, which did conduct terrorist attacks against British soldiers. The Haganah put down these terrorists, something Hamas never did to its own breed of such. End of this comment. (Didn’t mention Jew or Paleo,not once.)
      Yes, I can see that you would call the IDF search for terrorist tunnels by moving dirt around a “crime against humanity”. According to your ilk, anything the Jews do in self-defense, including pushing dirt with a bulldozer, would be a “crime against humanity”  even while you bray to the moon that the Paleos sacrifice of their children is a laudable defense of——( fill in the blanks with your usual bile.) It’s no use, you have all exposed the reason you are so attuned to the muderess RC. You all share the same vicious demented hatred of western ideals (perhaps it’s your upbringing, as it was in RC’s case). It’s so easy for you all to identify with her, so easy that it is no problem for you all to use whatever tactics, lying, changing subject, moving goal posts, mis-stating what others have said, pretending not to understand questions, pretending to answer a question by giving an irrelevant ansewer (not a typo), all the silly tricks of the devoid leftoid.

      Posted by stats on 2006 04 02 at 09:56 AM • permalink


    1. On Hamas: From TB Post: 3/27/06
      Dr. Aziz Dweik, Hamas-nominated Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council:
      “OK, yes, it happened, we did suicide attacks but now there is a truce. We deplore any action where civilians are killed, yes, including Israeli civilians. We are a moderate Islamic movement. We are not terrorists. We are freedom seekers. Please, tell your readers, please help us secure this goal.”
      3/30/06 3 Israeli civilians killed by suicide bombers. See
      Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:16 AM ET
      Reuters By Nidal al-Mughrabi
      GAZA (Reuters) – The Islamist group Hamas defended on Friday a suicide bombing that killed four Israelis…

      Posted by stats on 2006 04 02 at 10:02 AM • permalink


    1. Mis-stating what others have said, Stats? Must have learned from the master himself.


      Thanks for including me with Emily. Don’t know what you mis-read in anything I’ve posted that made you think I was a Hamas-terrorist-Corrie sympathiser. But that doesn’t matter a fig you, does it, Stats?

      I may have lost relatives in Israel, but that wouldn’t matter either, would it?

      You just have to rant away and fling your filth in as wide an arc as possible.

      And you didn’t ask any questions of me, mate, so pull your head in.

      By the way, it will probably come as no surprise to you that the students I mentioned before think of you as their favourite, number one, ‘mad f..ker’ poster on these boards. A few weeks ago they thought you were funny, now most of them just think you’re scary.

      Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 04 02 at 10:38 AM • permalink


    1. OK, I’m back.  The dog gets vortex ring state but he’s still a little fuzzy on retreating blade stall.  And when I explained the height velocity diagram for about the 100th time, he just sat there and cocked his head. Not a compassionate head tilt, but more of a I don’t have a clue what you are talking about kind of canine head cock.  Which is a perfect segway into where we seem to be with our morally neutral western brethren (and sistern). All killing is bad seems to be the general thrust of the opposition’s argument.  Fair enough.  But to take that to the point of a suicide pact for Western Civilization is where most of us here part company. The reason I brought up moldy old Bolsheviks earlier in this thread was that this was one of their tacks.  “I know we’ve broke a few (hundred million) eggs in order to make a perfect omelette, but you westerners have been mean to your blackfellas and Red Indians.  So there”!  Its all the same, doncha see?  Of course to reject this argument, one has to acknowlege the primacy of Western Civilization (despite all of its warts) as the best human condition man has been able to come up with).  If that’s not common ground with our western detractors, if tribal cultures featuring honor killings, clitorectomies, child suicide murderers, Old Testament style polygamy, and virtual female and race based slavery etc are “no worse than ours”, then I would submit we have no common ground, and we are wasting our time.  And the only cure will be when our internal detractors find their homes and families under assault from the aforementioned barbarism, and they are forced to turn to the kind of crude, resolved, morally unblinkered sorts who thankfully patrol this desolate stretch of electronic medium for defense and to rejoin a culture of decency, respect and moral unambiguity.  Rachel Corrie went the other direction.  She did so out of the kind of free will which is only afforded by the aforementioned Western Civilization.  With free will comes accountability.

      Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 04 02 at 01:21 PM • permalink


    1. LaLaLa-EmPty-Dry-Fuzz: You criticized others here for commenting on RC because, according to you, such comments bring (favorable?) attention to her. To be consistent, you all should refrain from commenting here, since it brings attention to TB and to those who have only contempt for RC as well as exposing before the entire world your unbelievable stupidity.

      Posted by stats on 2006 04 02 at 02:02 PM • permalink


    1. LaLaLa-EmPty-Dry-Fuzz: “mad f..ker” is a naughty word. Be careful or Dry-Fuzz of your tri-personality will castigate you.

      Posted by stats on 2006 04 02 at 02:19 PM • permalink


    1. #150. An applicable comment might be, “One ‘lies’ and the other swears to it.” But my take is that LaLaLa-EmPty-Dry-Fuzz are all one, a tri-personality disorder. Hence, in this case, “one ‘lies’, and then posts a swearing to it.”

      Posted by stats on 2006 04 02 at 02:25 PM • permalink


    1. And because I don’t agree then I probably deserve the same fate (#67, murph’s first comment to me, suggesting I lie in front of a bulldozer…)

      That depends if you’re stupid enough to remain there while it rolls over you at 5mph…then again…

      Posted by murph on 2006 04 02 at 05:36 PM • permalink


    1. Stuts… I do not usually reply to the low level, personal, “off topic” comments of plonkers like you but I will make an exception.
      I am one persona and one alone. Emily P and LLL probably are individuals as well.. I do not know for sure and it does not matter.
      It would be as logical for others to say that you are a slightly more coherent (although as bizzare) a persona as WrongWit or Ml.
      Stay on topic. Clear enough??
      Please provide authentic validated references for your comments re Palestinian parents dressing their kids in suicide vests.
      IDF sources don’t really count.

      Posted by Dreyfuze on 2006 04 02 at 09:53 PM • permalink


    1. I believe the remains of this particular deceased equine have been well and truly “flogged” (to use LLL’s rather unfortunate choice of metaphors—a horse would have moved a foot or two out of the way of the clanking, roaring monster bearing down upon it at such a rate).

      I’ve done so much reading on both sides of this issue, most of which is a truly disgusting portrayal of misplaced allegiance and downright pathological betrayal that I am about to ‘laugh at the ground’

      All has been quite well documented and thoroughly dissected here. I say we stich (or fold) up this corpse and bury it.

      We can re-open the discussion when her Mum and Dad get smushed by a Merkava.

      Nurse! Clean apron and gloves, please…

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 04 02 at 09:56 PM • permalink


    1. Vanguard – I always thought that helicopters had aerodynamics not much different to a rock.  Get your dog and point to rock, then point to the helicopter – do that a few times and the dog should be up to speed.

      Posted by Razor on 2006 04 03 at 12:06 AM • permalink


    1. Razor, you are correct, but I don’t want to insult his intelligence…

      Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 04 03 at 12:21 AM • permalink


    1. Just as long as you weren’t treaching him to play helicopter*.

      *An acquaintance was hurled bodily out of a hostelry a few years ago and beaten severely by bouncers of Polynesian appearance for what he termed “playing helicopter- this involved opening his fly and twirling his todger around while at the bar, in a rather lame impression of said aircraft’s rotor action.

      Helicopters actually have quite a good glide ratio as long as you have forward airspeed and the tail rotor operational.

      Otherwise they posses the airworthyness of a breezeblock.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 04 03 at 02:15 AM • permalink


    1. Which is exactly why I won’t voluntarily get in one the things unless ordered to do so.

      Posted by Razor on 2006 04 03 at 02:27 AM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages