Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on January 6, 2009 6:05 PM Given the chap's virulent message and execrable spelling, I wonder whether he might be a TC member.

I don't know whether the guy with a message in his hands is a TC member but the spelling in this case is perfectly correct. At least according to his purpose: it's simply a smart attempt to avoid criminal responsibility for public rousing of national hatred which is prohibited under the US legislation - this demonstration took place in NYC... 

NK

Yes, Nik, that's exactly right.

Nanna

Would you care to cite the "US legislation" in question?

I recommend instead reading e.g. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

I'd still like to believe he wants to submit Simpson to a Sharia "court"...but that's probably wishful thinking on my part.  I suppose he really just wants, you know, death to all Jews.

Originally written by Ann-Christine Nassar-Pateffoz on January 6, 2009 4:43 PM Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on January 6, 2009 5:05 PM Well, then maybe Mr. Abbas will run into this model citizen (legal resident; illegal alien) during his visit.  Have you seen his papers? Do you know anything about his legal/illegal situation? And what do you know about a "model Palestinian citizen"? Do enlighten us! Ann-Christine

Where do I use the word "Palestinian"?  Remind me never to ask you to proofread....

Hell...maybe he's just a typical tourist, enjoying the taverns of NYC.

If they bomb buses in Jerusalem with children going to school, mothers going shopping, some people going to work, others to romantic encounters or to the movies, or to drink in a bar;  if they use their own children as suicide bombers, indoctrinate them and use them as worthless weapons, pure flesh to be sacrificed for a missed idea; if they bomb hospitals and schools, United Nations objects, used as shelters, from their airplanes - this is what I mean as a total misconception of handling the problem.

These are  the innocent lives, I had in mind.

As far as pure defense goes, the only defensive war I am absolutely sure about that it was justified was the fight against nazism. The other wars I am not that sure about, perhaps because I do not know enough about them. I think that in the majority of cases there is a different way out, but people very often resort to war.                                                                                                          

I object to violence and do not feel that you can justify some types of violence by categorizing some people as "innocent" and others as "not-innocent."  The mother going shopping is not "innocent," she is supporting an economy and pays taxes on her purchases, the proceeds of which are used to manufacture bullets that may kill a Palestinian child.  The persons on their way to a romantic encounter are not "innocent," by turning away from the horror around them and focusing on themselves they become complicit in the atrocities committed in their name.  Children on their way to school are not "innocent," they will grow up to be soldiers and taxpayers who will support Israeli agression.  Even as children, they provide emotional support to their parents, and thus enable their parents to continue to function as cogs of the Israeli war machine.  When a country is at war, no one is "innocent" if he or she participates in that society.  The only exception to this would be people who are actively resisting the state, such as tax protesters or people in prison.

One of the reasons the cycle of violence continues is because people keep making exceptions to what they claim to be their general abhorence to it.  Dividing the population up into the "innocent" and the non-"innocent" only feeds the beast.

All people are innocent until proven guilty. All people are innocent unless they turned themselves into monsters.

The problem is not about innocence: it is about killing.

To avoid the linguistic analysis of the word innocent and turn the attention to the real problem, I should have just said people. This is what I basically meant, people, young and old, good and not so good in the standard meaning of this word, believers and non-believers, self-absorbed young romantic lovers and activists of the local community with no lives of their own.