ah well, a typical mini me unhinged posting. Yes, Hedges is an ass but jeez, what would anyone expect when they read the Nation? If Hedges doesn't want to pay taxes he could do what I did and leave the United States and work anywhere in the third world, and then not have to worry about paying US taxes at all, and he could probably make more of a difference in peoples lives as well. That said, invading or attacking Iran would be a really fucking stupid thing to do, so mini rants without making any reasonable suggestion as to what to do about Iran. Mini has done almost the impossible, making an idiot seem almost sympathetic. When will they relegate this bile filled crank to the Spine where he belongs?

Myself, I really do not have any idea what is the best approach to Iran, but considering how bad Bush has bungled everything he has touched a Military option should not be on the table from him. But if Obama became President and he did the military option, I would then have to believe we really had no other choice and then could far more easily support it. But does Mini have an opinion about our options,? of course not, he has some scores to settle. Mini, rail against left wing cranks (who presently have zero influence) on your own time, Please go to the Spine where I can far more easily avoid you.

blackie, Chris hedges is a truly odious specimen. His piece in Harper's that Kirchick references was one of the most noxious pieces of drivel and hysterical, fantasy-based reporting that we've seen on the Israel-Palestinian conflict in the English-language press. Which is saying _a lot_.

Loony-toons? Hysterical bag-lady type ranting?  Some accusation to make in the midst of what seems to be essentially a bag-lady type of rant -- seems almost unfair to let Hedges be criticized for such an offense by TNR's very own department of loony-toons.  The place for such writing is over at The Spine, where hysterical bag-lady ranting is expected by the reader.  

Purcellneill, wouldn't you agree that advocating tax evasion for any reason is pretty loony-toon?

Well at least you're using links now James. Although, the one on Mr Hedges didn't work.

I have no idea who that guy is but I get the picture.

What's a "Chicken-Little"? Is that a Conservative's rather lame attempt to counter the Chicken Hawk smear?

I understand The Plank is a blog, but really your first paragraph reminds me of Jack at his best.

Non payment of tax is an effective form of civil protest and has a fine history as well. From pacifists, conscientious objectors, religious groups (like the Quakers) and others.

It is also succesful and non-violent. Indian independence and American independence is a testament to that. I would have thought the non-violent aspect of it would appeal to you James but instead you cover yourself in the Bobby Sands shroud. Would you perfer opponents of attacking Iran smear themselves in their own shit?

Would that be less "Looney" for you than a tried and tested form of citizen protest that had a role in brining independence to your own country? At this point your age and rigid ideology becomes uncomfortable to read.

I have never read this Hedges chap's stuff but I'm assuming he's referring to the well documented deliberate policy of shooting children the IDF had going for a long while when he talks about "mice in a trap". (The Israeli press, international human rights organizations, and medical relief agencies have all reported on the targeting of Palestinian children by Israeli forces. Children like Saber Abu Libda, 13, was shot dead by Israeli soldiers after he left his home in Tel al-Sultan in the morning to find water for his family. He was shot in the heart. Then again Arafat is to blame for making these children get water.)

Your paragraph about Oswald, Hitler and Holocaust deniel is actually difficult to follow. I had to read it twice, which was like walking back and forcing myself to step in the big, smelly dog turd again. Not pleasent.

You end it off with the standard play of equating people who don't support a strike on Iran as terrorist supporters, which is at least a welcome change from the "they force women to wear scarfs" tactic.

You are a rigid ideologue but you are also very young. I would normally hope you could change as you get older but then again I read the Spine from time to time. that blog should serve as a warning for you Jamie.

Don't end up that bitter and twisted, turn off your computer and stop gloifying Bobby Sands and shit you know nothing about. It's embarrassing to read.

Hey Ig: I find myself intirgued by the whole deliberate targeting of children claim. Since you believe the matter to be settled beyond dispute I'm hoping you might be so kind as to describe the M.O. That an organization would see clear to make killing children central to pursuing their objectives is quite a charge. You seemingly accept this as absolute. I'd like to see the bonafides which you so easily accept.

For some reason I'm suspicious that some sort of provision has been misapplied in order to falsely represent as virulence and depravity the contending powers that be.

You'll have to ask the IDF that Boxo.

Bill Kristol says five crazier things than that every single day, before breakfast.

Igpop -- any proof? Any at all?

Ig Pop watches too many Hamas movies. You won't find the Ig condemning Palestinian terrorism.

It's not for nothing that Palestinian murderers trained with the Ireland's own terrorists.

Well, that's where this chap Ig Pop hails from.

Interestingly, Ig Pop has mentioned another tale of child-kiled-by-israelis, but hasn't mentioned Muhammad al-Durra. That story of child-killed-by-Israelis turned out to be a journalistic fabrication.

But not an innocent one. Jews were murdered in the name of al-Durra.

The Muslim terrorists who beheaded Daniel Pearl mentioned al-Durra specifically.

Watching Hamas-Al-Qaida clips while high on pot - it's not good for you!

This is getting away from defending non payment of tax as a valid civil protest but then again this tends to happen on Jamie's threads.

BTW, I read both articles and while Hedges borders on fantastical it is certainly nowhere near as hysterical as Naomi's. Although, I can't be sure as I could only read a couple of paragraphs of hers - "America as facist dictatorship" reveals more about the author than it does about the present cllimate.

On the proof rozenson.

What do you need?

Proof is sometimes hard to define in TNR land.

Sleepy - your absolutely right. Nothing like getting wasted and sittinng down to a good Hamas flick.

Iggy:  "I read the Spine from time to time."  Time to time?  To paraphrase the Streets, "You're full of shit and don't you know it."  

"This is getting away from defending non payment of tax as a valid civil protest but then again this tends to happen on Jamie's threads."  Hey, dud, you're the one who grabbed it by the teeth and ran with it.  

"You'll have to ask the IDF that Boxo."  Ooh, way to wiggle out.  Kind of sleazy, though.  

The Streets are a bit over rated, down you think Molly?

No.

Tep, I don't doubt that Hedges is an idiot, but then why give him a forum here, even if it is indirect? beyond that Kirchicks post comes across as a schizophrenic's train of thought. Mini seems to equate Hedges reasonable position that we should stay out of Iran with other nonsense he spouted meaning what I don't know exactly, (or at least I think so, or is it just Hedges position that he won't pay taxes? If that is the case who the hell cares?) Is Kirchick in favor of invading Iran? I have no idea. If Kirchick wanted to take down Hedges then he should have focused on the Harper piece only and criticize that. Kirchick seems to think that firing a verbal machine gun in all directions is somehow devastating when it just makes him look like a wildman. My 5 year old is more coherent.

thompsondavid on his worst day made more sense than Kirchick does in this post.

TNR, hire an editor please.

"Perhaps the shrillest of today's left-wing chicken littles -- no small feat, that -- ", "its sheer descent into loony-toons territory", "Hedges the Hero tells us what he'll do if", "Such hysterical, bag-lady type ranting should not come as a surprise"..

My eyes. I dont know who this Hedges fellow is, but what awful writing. Hackneyed phrases billowing with drummed up self-righteous indignation, mixed in with that blogosphere specialty of pompous condescension. The worst of what blog writing typically has to offer.

I'll gladly believe that this Hedges fellow is no good, but man, would I prefer to have the case laid out in a grown-up's words. As rational, coherent and articulate argument, rather than in the appearance of a facile, rhetorical pissing match. It would be a lot less tiring to the eyes, and stand a lot more of a chance to actually evoke my interest in the matter at hand.

Finally, I note that  I'm not the only commenter who's never heard of Hedges, which makes me wonder: whether the chap is even worth the outrage? Why even bother giving him the credence? Wouldnt it be more productive to focus one's scrutiny and writing on more important players?

Igster--it's well known that all of us Dogs of War types target children. You get extra points for them because they're smaller targets, and move faster. And of course, they're more likely to be the ones duped into charging the tank or checkpoint with a dynamite vest.

Seriously, Ig, you don't want to get involved in repeating risible propaganda like that. I can assure you that the IDF has much higher standards of behavior than they're given credit for, even by normally level-headed European bleeding hearts.

Typical Kirchick -- another rambling, insight-free rant against someone that no TNR reader would take seriously anyway.  Zero value added.

The IDF is the only army I know of that warns terrorists a half hour ahead of time by phone that their homes are going to be destroyed. The IDF is the only army I know of that has special committees to determine whether the potential humanitarian costs of an airstrike are too great for the strike to be carried out.

The IDF has failed in ways that other armies have failed, but it shines in ways that no other army does.

So, I beg you Iggy -- try to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the IDF deliberately targets children. Something credible -- not one of those "Jenin Massacre" claims.

rozenson writes:

"The IDF is the only army I know of that warns terrorists a half hour ahead of time by phone that their homes are going to be destroyed. The IDF is the only army I know of that has special committees to determine whether the potential humanitarian costs of an airstrike are too great for the strike to be carried out."

As rozenson knows full well this is a pile of steaming horse shit. I guess any old lie will do when you are trying to defend the moral depravity of the  State of Israel.

The BBC reported last year on the type of warning given Israeli armed forces gives to Palestinian civilians:

"At least 18 Palestinians have been killed and 40 wounded by Israeli tank fire in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun, Palestinian sources have said.

Palestinian officials said a barrage of tank shells hit civilian homes, and women and children were among the dead."

news.bbc.co.uk/.../6127250.stm

rozenson writes that the IDF "shines in ways that no other army does." Yes, we are all dazzled by the gold medals the IDF receives for state-sponsored terrorism and depravity.

The continuing presence of the addled Martin Peretz and the imbecilic James Kirchick in the New Republic remind me how weak Franllin Foer has been as editor of the magazine.

Bop - it certainly isn't my intention to regurgitate propaganda, from either side. I suppose tarnishing the IDF for all the ills of the conflict isn't helpful but someone has to answer for something at somepoint.

What we do know is that 700 - 850 (I've seen many different numbers)  Palestinian (does it matter if they're Israeli or Palestinian?) children have been killed since the second intafada and at least a third of those killed were shot by Israeli sharpshooters - 50% received single gunshots to the head or upper torso.

Tthe Physicians for Human Rights report (which is an Israeli NGO as far as I understand it) studyed the deaths of these kids and reported that Israeil sharpsooters deliberately aimed for the head.

Neither is it the case that these deaths occur in "combat" (kids throwing stones or bad language at tanks) situations. For example, one of the first to be killed was a 6 year old who was shot in the back as he stepped away from a window.

In 2000 a young Israeli sinper gave an interview to Haaretz. He bragged about the skill of being able to deliver a head shot from 200 yards and revealed that the IDF told them they could kill kids of 12 years or older.

This has nothing to do with being pro, anti, Zionist or  Arab anything. This has nothing to do with the "horros of war" or the injustice of occupation or the holocaust or freedom of speech or Israeli democracy or Iran or nukes or European lefties or American conservatives.

This has to do with a policy of killing chilldren. People in the IDF have gotten away with murder - plain and simple.

I'll try and produce more evidence Rozenson if you require it but it's getting late and I've got a sh*te storm waiting for me in work tomorrow.

As for the "horors of war" defence.

Look at it this way. Those deaths mostly occured over a 5/6 year period.

If American snipers had shot dead 400 odd Iraqi children in the head, would there be an investigation and charges brought? That's about 80 a year or ONE A DAY OVER FIVE YEARS.

Personally, I think there would be a public lynching of those troops, and rightly so. But that's the American armed forces - one of the most accountable in the world.

It's a sign of the level of impunity the IDF has in the occ...disputed territories that not one, not one soldier was ever charged with murder. Disgusting.

Then again, maybe I'm just an Anti Semite.

"As rozenson knows full well this is a pile of steaming horse shit. I guess any old lie will do when you are trying to defend the moral depravity of the  State of Israel."

Why do you dismiss it as horse shit? Just because it doesn't suit your views?

news.bbc.co.uk/.../6162494.stm

From the article: "Very often the air force telephones a warning 10 minutes before the strike to give the occupants time to escape and keep down casualties, our correspondent says."

I stand corrected in terms of the amount of time the army gives. But the essence of my claim is true, since you seem to believe that the BBC is a credible enough source that you would give one in your post. And in this article you provide, I see nothing of a deliberate policy of killing children. You show me one incident where Israel killed Palestinian civilians.

So to sum, you claim that: isolated incident of civilian deaths with indeterminate cause = formal policy of killing children.

Your logic is as weak as the Abbas government.

The Nation is not an obscure or inconsequential publication. A piece by Chris Hedges in The Nation ay well influence, among others, the Iowa Democratic caucusers who, according to John Edwards speaking at a private fund-raiser I attended recently, "are more liberal than people from San Francisco, and the most left-wing in the nation."

Could we please discuss Hedges piece, and Kirchick's takedown of it, on their merits.

t

Tep, the problem is it is impossible to discuss the merits of Hedges' piece as blinkered as we are by the juvenile outrage of James, who actually seems to be getting worse.   I have no doubt Hedges is an idiot, at all, but it seems to me odd that someone who is always going after communists would use essentially the same language- "looney-tunes" and (especially) "chicken little" strikes me as the same kind of cheap revolutionary language used by moral idiots the world 'round.    Although I certainly don't side with this Hedges fellow, James' total lack of restraint and his relentless beating of hobby-horses make me treat them the same way.  Alger Hiss?  The Rosenbergs?   And there is stuff like this sentence "This brings to mind the strange defense mounted by The Nation and others, for many years unto this very day, of people like the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss:"   "For many years unto this very day" sounds like something a 14-yr-old would write while trying to stretch out his paper to the length of the assignment.    And I know that sounds petty, but it isn't- hasty, self-righteous anger makes for bad writing (and saying things like "shizofrenic"- um, what?), and bad writing makes for sloppy arguments.  If this Hedges article might be influential, let us debate it on its merits.  Jamie makes that almost impossible, with his hysterics.   I think we deserve better than to have everything tied into the Alger Hiss case.  

James, I am sure you are a fan of Orwell- hard truths, standing up to self-absorbed liberals, et al.  Good.  Me too.  But please re-read Reflections on the Spanish Civil War, where he compared the right-and-left- wing newspapers, and said there was no value in either.   Your post reminded me of that.  THe piece by Hedges may well be dangerous nonsense, but your post did very little to illuminate it, and was drowned in cheap-shot outrage.  

Good points, well said, bone ill. The Spanish Civil War, Rosenbergs etc stuff should have its own version of Godwin's Law. Almost-- almost-- makes you want to listen to Obama's shtick.

Rozenson.

Your response to my "proof" please.

On taxes:

www.fcnl.org/.../item.php