Dr. Rost provides services as a pharmaceutical marketing expert witness. For more info see: Drug Expert Witness. Dr. Peter Rost email. Copyright © 2006-2013 InSync Communication. All rights reserved. Terms of use agreement, privacy policy and the computer fraud and abuse act.


Peter Rost, M.D., is a former Pfizer Marketing Vice President providing services as a medical device and drug expert witness and pharmaceutical marketing expert. Judge Sanders: "The court agrees with defendants' view that Dr. Rost is a very adept and seasoned expert witness." He is also the author of Emergency Surgery, The Whistleblower and Killer Drug. You can reach him on rostpeter (insert symbol) Please read the terms of use agreement and privacy policy for this blog carefully.

You Don't See this on U.S. Television

I guess this post will cause a minor explosion.

Hopefully not literally so.

So let me first state, that I understand the Israelis. After all, this is a country surrounded by nations committed to eradicating Israel. Not cool.

But I also understand the Palestinians. Innumerable of them have been displaced for generations and live under terrible circumstances.

There is no simple solution. Jews should have their home country and are entitled to living in peace and safety. So are Arabs.

We all watch the U.S. news.

That news is decidedly pro-Israel, more so than most of the other "Western" countries.

So, whatever you think, and I DON'T personally support what is being said in the following news clip, but I do think it helps us understand how "the other side" is thinking.

It is the kind of interview U.S. television wouldn't dare to show. And it's done by Ruper Murdoch's conservative U.K. Sky News.

And here a recent headline from Kuwait Times. Gives you an idea of how the Arab population get their news. Then again, just yesterday the New York Times had another terrible picture of a suffocated baby dug out of a house, with his mother's arm still clinging around him.

Awful, just awful.


Blogger beeta said...

I am told that criticizing Israel is a very politically incorrect thing to do in the US, but then again, I have never been politically correct in my life and not about to change either.
However, as I age and learn and read, I realize more and more that fixing blame never solves anything, and that finding common ground is the only thing that can bring peace to the world. After all, that was how I came to be in this country in the first place. I was recruited by an organization that was formed by a WWII American soldier, who felt that violence was caused by hatred and hatred by ignorance, and set out to correct this in his way. I liked his goal and joined and have tried in my own way to promote his ideas.
IN the past few days I have learned a couple of things, one gave me heart in what I am doing and one that gave me pause.
- This gave me heart,this is the introduction to an article by Mukoma Ngugi who is an African poet and author
War on Silence
When they came for the Irish, Blacks and Jews I remained silent. You see, I was yet to be born. And when it happened again, I was too young and waiting to go into college. Later when they jailed anti-war protesters, waiting to become a Doctor I could still not speak out. And when the twin towers fell and they pulled Muslim, Sikh and Turkish students from my classroom, without tenure and vulnerable I remained silent. And when they came for my colleagues tenured and waiting to be dean or provost, I would not speak out. And when they again started to shut down universities, steal elections, assassinate, detain, torture and make wars without cause it was too late. I could not speak. I did not know how. I had lost my tongue. So when they came for me, I could not scream, there was no one left to hear me. "You see" they said as they pulled out my eyes, "You! So mute and silent, how can you be trusted to keep your eyes closed?"
- And this gave me pause, parts of an article by Ira Chernus about how to talk about Israel
--"many of your friends probably feel defensive when it comes to Israel. They are defending themselves against the voice of their own conscience. Theay are morally sensetive people. That's what is so frustrating. They care deeply about social justice in every other arena. But there is something peculiar about this Israel thing that seems to throw their normal ethical compass out of whack. That "something" is a very complicated mix of factors. Part of it is a lifetime's worth of socialization. They've been raised in a community that assumes-without question, as an article of faith- that Israel really is fighting for it's life. They've been taught to see Israel as an innocent victim, surrounded by irrational, barbaric anti-semites bent on destroying it. So all Israel can do is fight back. ---At the same time, your friends still have that ethical compass. They are bound to be disturbed by the pictures they see on television.--- So they are in a deep bind. They feel sure Israel is an innocent victim. Yet they can see the clear evidence that Israel bears some responsibility- and, they're begining to suspect , culpability-for the violence. They know two things that seem obviously true yet can't both be true, because they contradict each other. Pschologists call that cognitive dissonance.---- It's too hard to try to hold both sided of the contradiction in mind at once. So they find relief by getting mentally paralyzed.----"

Blogger Moogirl said...

Doc, Doc, Doc. Isn’t this getting to be a sad state of affairs?

First, let me take off my sweet little Christian lady hat and put on my offshore sailor hat.

Who is this, um, I want to call him a really crude term usually reserved for the above-mentioned sailors. Um. Ok, I just can’t say it.

Who is this d**che bag? I was insulted by the time the second sentence came out of his mouth. I don’t know who he is, maybe someone else can tell me.

Ok, I just had to know who his guy was. I had a whole rant all prepared. Then I Googled him.

This is who he is:

And this:

Saved the best for last:

This is how I view all terrorists. They’re a rude bunch, combative, condescending (especially to women), and angry. I know they’re all wackadoos, but there is something really wrong with this guy.

I sure hope the links I’ve provided head off anyone actually trying to plead this guys case (but I doubt it will). I try really hard not take to heart anything a grown lunatic in a red leotard has to say.

I’m so glad I Googled first. Saved me a lot of typing….

Blogger Moogirl said...

Ok, so I read your post again, Doc. The video sidetracked me and I believe I missed your point. The point is propaganda.

I’m going to post two links (forgive me, I don’t know how to make them live). WARNING: the images are not for the squeamish. They are tragic and hard to look at.

As you know, the fake Reuters photos have set the blog world on fire. That’s old news by now. What isn’t old news is what’s coming out of the blog world now; evidence that many, MANY of the photos coming out of Lebanon have been staged. These people are actually dragging the bodies of dead children from place to place, staging photo ops. I won’t go into it, check it out for yourselves.

But like I said, be warned, the images are difficult to stomach.

Blogger Moogirl said...

So my whole point is, everything I read is suspect. Everything I hear is suspect. Everything I see is suspect. If one does not get one’s “news” from as many diverse sources as possible, then one runs the risk of being duped and being sucked into the propaganda of one side or the other.

If you are only getting your information from one source, or from many sources who only show one side’s story, well then you’re liable to be shown as a sucker when all the smoke clears and the truth comes out.

Doc, you said:

"That news (US) is decidedly pro-Israel, more so than most of the other "Western" countries."

Interesting observation. I am of the opinion that our news sources are are definitely not pro Israel. I’m not saying they’ve supported Hezbollah’s position, but they’re gone out of their way to make Israel appear as the aggressors. It’s usually very subtle, the way they word their headlines, the captions for their photos etc. It’s all in the wording. I’m a word girl, I tend to notice when I’m being sold snake oil.

These were the headlines some time last week. I cut and pasted them directly from HuffPo when we were all commenting on “The Dead Baby” post.

Iraqi VP: Israel Is Carrying Out “Massacres”…
Jerusalem Post: US Interested In Israeli Attack On Syria…
Tens Of Thousands Attempted Escape During Air Strike Halt…
Israel Declares 48-Hour Suspension Of Air strikes…
Israeli Strikes Kill Dozens In “Deadliest Single Attack”...
At Least 34 Children Among Dead In Qana…
Rice Abruptly Ends Mideast Trip In Wake Of Attack…
Lebanese Protesters Break Into Beirut UN Headquarters…

Don’t these headlines sound anti Israel, or at the very least, make Israel sound like barbarians? And these were the actual headlines of the leading new organizations.

But I would have to agree with you Doc, our news would naturally be more pro-Israel than the rest of the world. Israel is hated by all Arabs nations only slightly more than we are.

Blogger justanotheryblogreader said...

Iraqi VP: Israel Is Carrying Out “Massacres”…
Jerusalem Post: US Interested In Israeli Attack On Syria…
Tens Of Thousands Attempted Escape During Air Strike Halt…
Israel Declares 48-Hour Suspension Of Air strikes…
Israeli Strikes Kill Dozens In “Deadliest Single Attack”...
At Least 34 Children Among Dead In Qana…
Rice Abruptly Ends Mideast Trip In Wake Of Attack…
Lebanese Protesters Break Into Beirut UN Headquarters…

Is there something patently wrong with those headlines if they are true. How would you word them? Truth is 1 Million people have been displaced. Do you know what its like to lose your home, and not know where to find shelter and food for your family, especially when the situation is NOT a natural disaster. Over a 1000 innocent civilians have died in the last 3 weeks.

I'm glad that you don't rely on a single source of's a few more shed some more light.

And, I saved the best for the last: Robert Fisk is a british journalist who lives in middle-east.


PS: Beeta, that article by Mukoma Ngugi was very moving. Thank you for sharing it.

Blogger shooter45 said...

If you would pull your head out of wherever you lost it,

"If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." (NY Times, May 23, 2004, p. 15, section 2, column 1.) Nasrallah is one of the most admired men in the Muslim and Arab world today. Hitler made similar threats in Mein Kampf but they were largely ignored. Nasrallah has a reputation for keeping his promises.

Blogger beeta said...

Here are a couple of opinions to shed more light on the situation with Israel and Lebanon.

Gareth Porter
Asia Times online
"Israel has argued that the war against Hezbollah's rocket arsenal was a defensive response to the Shi'ite organization's threat to Israeli security, but the evidence points to a much more ambitious objective- the weakening of Iran's deterent to an attack on its nuclear sites.
In planning for the destruction of most of Hezbollah's arsenal and prevention of any resupply from Iran, Israel appears to have hoped to eliminate a major reason the US admininstration had shelved the military option for dealing with Iran's nuclear program-the fear that Israel would suffer massive casualities from Hezbollah's rockets in retaliation for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
One leading expert on Israeli national-defense policy issues believes the aim of the Israeli campaign against Hezbollah was to change the US adminstration's mind about attacking Iran. Edward Luttwak, senior advisor to the Washington-based Center for Staratigic and International Studies, says adminstration officials have privately dismissed the option of air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in the past, citing estimates that a Hezbollah rocket attack in retaliation would kill thousands of people in northern Israel.
But Israeli officials saw a war in lebanon to destroy Hezbollah's arsenal and prevent further resupply in the future as a way to eliminate that objection to the military option, says Luttwak."

Uri Avnery
"I have known him(Olmert) since he was 20-something. At that time I was a member of the Knesset, and Olmert was the book-carrier(literally) of another member. Since then I have followed his career. He has never been anything but a party functionary, a small-time politiciann specializing in manipulations, a run-of-the-mill demagogue. On the way changed parties several times and served as a mayor with a grade of D minus, until he climbed on the bandwagon of Ariel Sharon. More or less by accident he was given the empty title of "Deputy Prime Minister", and when Sharon suffered his stroke, something happened that took Olmert too by suprise: he became Prime Minister.
Througout his career he has remained a complete cynic, basically a ringht-winger but willing to pretend to be a liberal when faced with lefties.
---hard as it is to imagine, it seems that Olmert believes that this is a successful war. That he is winning. That he has radically changed Israel's situation. That he is building a New Middle East. That he is a historic leader, far superior to Ariel Sharon---. That the longer he is allowed to go on with the war, the more his stature in history will grow.
Ehud Olmert has obviously cut himself off from reality. He lives in a bubble all by himself. His speeches show that he has a very real problem.
of all the dangers facing Israel now, this is the most severe, because this man is deciding quite simply, the fate of millions: who will die, who will become a refugee, whose world will be shattered.
But Olmert's problem with megalomania is nothing compared to what happened to Amir Perez.---nine months later, a monster has been born to us.---when Olmert offered him the Ministry of Defense. ---since then Perez has become a rabid warmonger.
---Bush, Olmert and their like can incite and draw the masses behind them, until the call of "the Emperor is naked" finds receptive ears."

Blogger shooter45 said...

justanotheryblogreader said"

Now I'm convinced since chomsky is known as a bi-partisan neutral observer.

Finkelstein's hatred of Jews runs so deep that he has actually implied that his own mother, who survived the Nazi Holocaust, may have collaborated with the Nazis. If so, collaboration with evil seems to run in the family, because Finkelstein has clearly become a collaborator with Hezbollah anti-Semitism and Nazism. Finkelstein's website is filled with Hezbollah promotion, including breathless reprints of Nasrallah speeches."NOAM CHOMSKY," who works closely with Finkelstein, has said of Finkelstein that he is "a person who can speak with more authority and insight on these topics [Israel and anti-Semitism] than anyone I can think of."
The Iran-Hezbollah axis is the greatest threat to world peace, to Jewish survival, to western values, and to civilization. Those like Finkelstein, who support Hezbollah, and even those who refuse to fight against this evil, are on the wrong side of history. They are collaborators with Islamo-fascists--today's version of Nazism.

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Doc, I see you've got your own crop of neo-con trolls here.

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Doc, I see you've got your own crop of neo-con trolls here.

Anonymous Rosethejet said...

While I abhor the death and destruction I would still ask those attacking Israel how they should have responded to the murder and kidnapping of their soldiers by Hezbollah terrorists who came across the border specifically for this reason. NOT just to murder and kidnap but to set this off in the hopes or creating further hatred towards Israel.

So what should have Israel done? Tell their citizens that their government could care less if Jew hating Muslims kill them they won't respond because they don't want to get anyone in the Mid East mad at them?

Fight for their survival and tell those who step into their country for harmful reasons the retailation will be large and painful?

What would you have them do?

They are not just fighting for their soldiers but for their entire population. The muslim world has made no secret of it's desire to wipe Israel off the face of the world and to hunt down and kill every Jew they can.

So exactly what is Israel to do?

Act like they did when Hitler came for them and lie down and die?

I support Israel completely in this matter as they are indeed under attack and fighting for their very survival as a race.

And I am a proud liberal in this country who as well feels the MSM is NOT pro Israel.

Blogger Moogirl said...

JABR asks:

"Is there something patently wrong with those headlines if they are true. How would you word them?"

Glad you asked. How about not using the word "attack" in every other sentence? Last time I checked, Israel was "attacked" first. And the use of the word "massacres" was just repugnant.

Main Entry: mas·sa·cre
Pronunciation: 'ma-si-k&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French

1 : the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty

2 : a cruel or wanton murder

This was neither an atrocity, nor cruel, nor murder. By using the word massacre, the message is that Israel is nothing but a demonic killer. Rwanda was a massacre. Auschwitz was a massacre. Even New Orleans was a massacre. This is not wanton murder. This is a war.

By the way, that headline was a quote from the Iraqi VP. Since when do we listen to him? Talk about biting the hand feeds you.

You asked if I knew what it was like to be displaced. No I don’t. But then again, I don’t know what it’s like to trade recipes with a terrorist over my backyard fence either.


Israel was ATTACKED first (the proper use of the word). The Lebanese people embrace the ATTACKERS (see how easy it is to use words correctly?). The Lebanese people will most likely suffer the same fate as the ATTACKERS.

And for those of you who are still "mourning" the 34 deaths in Qana, wake up and smell the propaganda. The LEBANESE doctor who handled the casualties of that "attack" said there weren’t 34, THERE WERE 14. No screaming headlines for that little tidbit of information.

Obviously the old saying is true, the first casualty of any war is the truth.

But it’s so hard to demonize with a lower death count…

I’ll not debate the right or wrong of this war anymore. No weapon is strong enough to pierce your fact-deflecting armor (as Shooter so aptly calls it). So let’s don’t turn this thread into yet another "Israel is mean and Hezbollah is just plain groovy" debate. I’ve moved on. The war is here. Hezbollah started it. Lebanese will die because they support Hezbollah.

The more intriguing subject matter now is the spin. But I guess if you can’t see it, you won’t have much to say about the matter.

Blogger Moogirl said...

And Rose, you can ask that question til your fingers bleed. None of the commenters here will EVER give you an answer. They all just want to whine about how evil Israel is.

How about it? Will any of you anti-Israel commenters answer her? You wouldn’t last week when I posed the same question (several times).

Blogger justanotheryblogreader said...

Oh,..well it was only 14 kids killed in that bomb attack instead of 34. That makes the war more pallatable or justified.

No one over here is really taking any sides for Hezbollah. Truth is that the WAR is hurting civilians on both sides. (More so in Lebanon), and some people (the govt of Israel, Hezbollah, the powers that be in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia) are using it to further there own agenda. Be it lining pockets from war-profits or grabbing land.

And to answer the question that Rose asked, here is the answer. Don't say no one responded.

Please read it carefully :


Blogger justanotheryblogreader said...

From the earlier responses, it seems like people aren't really reading the links provided before commenting ... so I'm posting the entire text by George Monbiot below:


Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong

The assault on Lebanon was premeditated - the soldiers' capture simply provided the excuse. It was also unnecessary

Whatever we think of Israel's assault on Lebanon, all of us seem to agree about one fact: that it was a response, however disproportionate, to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah. I repeated this "fact" in my last column, when I wrote that "Hizbullah fired the first shots". This being so, the Israeli government's supporters ask peaceniks like me, what would you have done? It's an important question. But its premise, I have now discovered, is flawed.

Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.

In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation".

On May 26 this year, two officials of Islamic Jihad - Nidal and Mahmoud Majzoub - were killed by a car bomb in the Lebanese city of Sidon. This was widely assumed in Lebanon and Israel to be the work of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. In June, a man named Mahmoud Rafeh confessed to the killings and admitted that he had been working for Mossad since 1994. Militants in southern Lebanon responded, on the day of the bombing, by launching eight rockets into Israel. One soldier was lightly wounded. There was a major bust-up on the border, during which one member of Hizbullah was killed and several wounded, and one Israeli soldier wounded. But while the border region "remained tense and volatile", Unifil says it was "generally quiet" until July 12.

There has been a heated debate on the internet about whether the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hizbullah that day were captured in Israel or in Lebanon, but it now seems pretty clear that they were seized in Israel. This is what the UN says, and even Hizbullah seems to have forgotten that they were supposed to have been found sneaking around the outskirts of the Lebanese village of Aita al-Shaab. Now it simply states that "the Islamic resistance captured two Israeli soldiers at the border with occupied Palestine". Three other Israeli soldiers were killed by the militants. There is also some dispute about when, on July 12, Hizbullah first fired its rockets; but Unifil makes it clear that the firing took place at the same time as the raid - 9am. Its purpose seems to have been to create a diversion. No one was hit.

But there is no serious debate about why the two soldiers were captured: Hizbullah was seeking to exchange them for the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the occupation of Lebanon and (in breach of article 118 of the third Geneva convention) never released. It seems clear that if Israel had handed over the prisoners, it would - without the spillage of any more blood - have retrieved its men and reduced the likelihood of further kidnappings. But the Israeli government refused to negotiate. Instead - well, we all know what happened instead. Almost 1,000 Lebanese and 33 Israeli civilians have been killed so far, and a million Lebanese displaced from their homes.

On July 12, in other words, Hizbullah fired the first shots. But that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail". The attack, he said, would last for three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that "of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared ... By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board".

A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman's editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel's intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.

Israel's assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse. It was also unnecessary. It is true that Hizbullah had been building up munitions close to the border, as its current rocket attacks show. But so had Israel. Just as Israel could assert that it was seeking to deter incursions by Hizbullah, Hizbullah could claim - also with justification - that it was trying to deter incursions by Israel. The Lebanese army is certainly incapable of doing so. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive.

So it is not hard to answer the question of what we would have done. First, stop recruiting enemies, by withdrawing from the occupied territories in Palestine and Syria. Second, stop provoking the armed groups in Lebanon with violations of the blue line - in particular the persistent flights across the border. Third, release the prisoners of war who remain unlawfully incarcerated in Israel. Fourth, continue to defend the border, while maintaining the diplomatic pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah (as anyone can see, this would be much more feasible if the occupations were to end). Here then is my challenge to the supporters of the Israeli government: do you dare to contend that this programme would have caused more death and destruction than the current adventure has done?

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just a couple of facts.

The two Israeli soldier kinapping incident was preceeded by kidnappings of two Lebanese civilians (one doctor and one politician's son) a week before by the Israeli IDF. We wont even get into how many Lebanese soldiers have been kidnapped from Lebanon because the actual # is fucking ridiculous. It's be like trying to compare Israeli civilian casualties to Palestinian civilian casualties in the Infantada without using the 1 Israeli life equals 1000 Palestinian lives ratio all you crazy apologists seem to believe.

This invasion is a replay - with similar bullshit reasons - of 1982 when Israel went in and massacred civilians much to the dismay of all countries not owned by AIPAC.

What they learned from that incident was not that it was horrible to kill so many civilians in their land grab attempt, it was that they didn't have enough control over the press here and they would need to start buying out PR firms so they could spin better the policy of murder for land.

They are killing anyone in South Lebonon, be they Muslims, Christians, Canadians, Journalists, Women, Children, or Seniors.

“The pattern of attacks shows the Israeli military’s disturbing disregard for the lives of Lebanese civilians,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, in a prepared statement.

To anyone trying to defend Israel's policies to intelligent discerning people, you either sound crazy or evil. I'll let you pick.

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, for you supposed Americans who continue to defend Israel's insane policies, I have two things for you to google and respond back: Rachel Corrie and the U.S.S. Liberty. Any of you "patriots" wanna take a stab?

Blogger shooter45 said...

Moo, Rose....Why? Why do you keep banging your heads into the "alternate universe?" Is there one, just one Republican who's mind has been changed rgarding the repulsive assault on Bill Clinton and our sanity? "HE LIED UNDER OATH!!!!!!!" A penny for the billions of times the drones followed Rove's orders to spout that puke would make you the richest person on earth. And a penny for each URL these truth/logic/morality deniers have at their fingertips will get you the pentouse at Willowbrook State Psychiatric Center. They have drunk the kool-aid. They walk, they talk, if only they could think.............neo-con troll.....LOL

Blogger Moogirl said...


I’ll see your U.S.S. Liberty and raise you 241 dead marines.

You know, I wonder. And I know NONE of you would ever admit it. But I wonder just how many of you anti-Israel folks were jumping up and down with excitement and frothing at the mouth the night we invaded Iraq. Oh I know, not you , not you. But you know who you are.

And I wonder. Why are we the only ones who get to defend themselves against terrorists? Where do you get off telling another country that they can’t do the same? Or is it just Israel you have a problem. Anyone called YOU an anti-Semite lately?

How utterly arrogant of you.

And Shooter, I know….the neo-con troll comment cracked me up too. God if they only knew….

Ok, I will now back away from the keyboard...

Blogger beeta said...

I am wondering how to justify two seemingly opposite assumptions without rendering one false.
-first assumption is that the MSM has been systematicaly taken over by corporations(a free media poses a great danger to those in power who wish to keep the power structure as is) and therefore, it tends to present views that are in line with the goals of the existing power structure. This was witnessed by the lack of any kind of scrutiney over the merites of attacking Iraq. Most people to the left of the NeoCon and the Fundementalist agree to that.
-the other assumption is that this same MSM, corporate controlled, biased toward the power structure, somehow is left leaning when it comes to Israel, Which can only be explained in two ways.
1- that the MSM is somehow free from its corporate leash on the subject of Israel, which defies any logic
2- that MSM is in line with the power structure when it comes to Israel, which makes more sense, and in turn means that the power structue is anti-Israel, which it clearly is not, withnessed by its total defense of Israel in the current crisis.
How can one reconcile this quandry?
one or the other assumptions has to be false. The one that seems false by all logic and behavior and intent, seems to be that the MSM is not anti-Israel.
That can only mean that as much as the MSM would like to portray Israel in a positive light, Israel somehow still looks prety guilty. If the facts and truth of Israel's policies and behavior were to be shown by a free press(which we do not have), Israel might look a lot worse than it is looking today.

The same kind of reasoning can lead us to assume that if a person opposes the NeoCon policies and goals and methods, that said person would find suspect any action or defense of an action that the Neocons find worthy of the wrath of the entire world and sacrificing of our nations credibility and standing in the world. Clearly our government has steadfastly stood behind Israel and its attacks on Lebanon. One could only assume that this support falls in line with the goals and intentions of Neocons, for to assume otherwise, would render them at best off their game and confused.
Therefore, that said person either is "not" anti-Neocon and by extension approves of their policies, or they are at best confused and at worst a hypocrit.

Boys and Girls, this has been a lesson in "Cognitive Dissonance".

Blogger Moogirl said...

Beeta asks,

"How can one reconcile this quandry?"

Um, don't watch MSM? Look for the button on the remote that says "off". It should be right below the one that says "on". Now just push it.

I find this proceedure has worked for me in the past.

Blogger shooter45 said...

Wasn't Rachel Corrie the Moonbat that mistook the 280mm cannons on the U.S.S.Liberty for Osama's pecker and got blown to hell?

You Anon..
Go back and get your GED before coming on here and shooting your mouth off with your cut and paste new learned skills. You may come from a site where a flatline is normal, but most of us here have moved beyond "oh, yeah, what about this? and what about this? yeah,yeah so there! you're boring. Go to sleep.

Blogger beeta said...

Tnx dear, I sort of solved the nasty situation all by my lonely self. But in the spirit of lending a helping hand, I'll offer my help as well.
There is this bar like looking thing way up on your computer screen that says address, and if you type the addresses of the links that are freely and out of good will provided to you by your very good friends here who are only interested in your higher education, out pops on your computer screen like magic these incredible images and words. Now if you are not too tired to go on, try reading a little.

Blogger Moogirl said...

Thanks Beeta, I'll try this.

I only hope the sites have lots of pictures.

And just for the record, some of us got our edu-ma-cations before Wikipedia was invented.

Blogger shooter45 said...

No mas, Moo. Every time I think I hit a homer and start struttin, I get the Moo boomerang in my skull. You have found your wings, baby. I am in awe.

I better get some sleep. This blog has stepped it up a notch tonite. Gonna be tougher stayin on top.

Blogger Moogirl said...

yeah I know, gonna have to start paying attention eh?

PS, You have the utmost struttin' rights. I'm sure that's not correct grammar but hey, it's late an we're the only ones still awake.

As usual...

Blogger beeta said...

watch out, Moo is giving you one those "Heck of a Job Browny" slaps. And you know what happened to Browny!

Blogger shooter45 said...

Beeta, I can't believe it! It was in you all the time. Let it out kid, you're doing great!

As for Moo, if I am Kal-el, she is Jor-el.
Look it up.

Blogger Moogirl said...


Kal-el and Jor-el? Woooooow. That whooshing noise is the sound of that reference going right over my head. I’m not the least bit embarrassed to admit I had to look it up! Dear God man, is there end to the depth of the crevasses of your imagination? I stand in awe.

And just for the record, you have it backwards. I think the reference alone proves that I, indeed, would be Kal-el.

And now for Beeta. Ok that’s it! You and me, mud wrestling, 4:00 o’clock. Be There!

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just for shooter: and


Blogger shooter45 said...

Hey thanks anon, but I got enough problems with deer ticks up here, sand fleas are gonna have to wait. So when will the half million guys realize they're "permanently disabled?"


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home