...Here you will find the truth. The ugly, gray-skied, simple, black and white truth. If you are currently on a steady diet of the blue pills, read on with caution. For once you consume the red pill, these is no going back to the comfort of the matrix. You must be careful and avoid even smelling or licking the red pill. It is potent. It is permanent knowledge that the deepest sleep or overdose of blue pills can not undue. One can not unsee the seen. Beware, you were warned.

Newer contemporary articles are posted and featured at my personal Political Blog, and at:
Memphis Libertarian Examiner | Helium.com | Associated Content.com | and Google Buzz
including titles such as:
updated 7/18/11 - Home

the content on this page
Please note: headlines are not summaries of content, they are attention-grabbers and here are often sarcasm.
-also:
also see the author's old page -  Soap Box featuring:
-also:




...the content...
.

boo-yah - The Arrogant American
a much better version of "you're either with us or against us"
What does boo-yah mean? It doesn't mean anything because it means everything. It's a composite of many different sayings rolled into one. But these sayings are thematic in nature.. Basic more generic meanings might include in your face, or hell yeah. But when a U.S. Military person says boo-yah it has even more meaning because the sentiment has a more profound implication like freedom isn't free so here's my paymentlive free or die hard, or a strong man stands up for himself but a stronger man stands up for others. See, they understand the only thing necessary for the spread of evil is for good men to do nothing. And for them, that is simply not an option. They are willing to risk it all to stand up to the bullies of the world and fight - especially for others. In fact they relish the opportunity to fight that fight. That does not make them or their civilian supporters war mongers; it makes them honorable men among men, liberators, the ultimate freedom fighters. So they fight. They fight for America. They fight because it's right.
But is America right to fight so often? What an incredibly broad question, by intent. I pose it for simplicity because the answer is as simple as the question. Trying desperately not to sound too arrogant or vain I offer the answer: yes. Always? No. But with such regularity as to boggle the imagination. Oh, there are clearly defined reasons which I will exacerbate on below. But let's first review.
America was right to expand in its infancy, despite the hardships it brought to our own indigenous peoples. To be a powerful enough beacon of light and truth and justice in an dark and unjust world, America needed to be of sufficient size to have an impact beyond its own borders, to effect and affect those outside our bubble. America is free, has been a land of free peoples since it was old enough to crawl out of the slime which was the world at its inception. We fought our own brothers in a great civil war to bring that freedom to those we had ourselves earlier enslaved. We fought our own people in the civil rights movement to finally bring that freedom in more practical and applicable form to more of our people against even the overwhelming wishes of localized communities. We fought around the globe to bring that priceless freedom to our European, southeast and northeast Asian, Pacific Islander, and Mideast brothers of all nationalities, cultures, colors, and religions in not one but two great wars in the twentieth century. We fought with the Russians and Chinese as they fought against their oppressors, then against them as they sought to enslave their neighbors. We fought against the cruel Japanese empire of the mid twentieth century as they sought to enslave all of Asia. And we were right to do so.
We fought against peoples of our own skin color and religion in eastern Europe to bring freedom to Muslims. We fought against peoples of our own skin color to bring freedom to Muslims in the middle east despite their embracing of the fascist regime that threatened to devour them. And now we fight against them collectively in that region as they seek to devour those who dare attend a church different than their own. And again we are right to do so.
Why? We are one of the very few peoples on this planet who have been free since our birth, and we deeply understand the value of that freedom. Real freedom is not free; indeed, it carries a very high price. And we send the very best of our best, over and over again to the four corners of the earth in an effort to bring that freedom to all who dwell on this planet. Why? Because only through real and engulfing freedom can this world even be what it should be, ever achieve what the human race is capable of.
We fight. We fight for right. We have never, despite what our detractors say, fought to occupy or conquer, to root and pillage. We always fight to liberate. And that point is so overwhelmingly key, for it is this cause that places us firmly on hallowed ground, rooted firmly in the right. It is also why our allies and enemies change from generation to generation. It is not our philosophy that changes. Am I arrogant? Damn right I am. I have reason to be. I have reason to be proud of my heritage, our history, our efforts - in the past and in the future. If you seek to oppress, forcibly assimilate, conquer, obliterate, or enslave others, know this: you too shall eventually feel our might for we will not cease in our attempt to bring freedom to every nook and cranny of this planet. And in the end we will always succeed for right makes might, and not the inverse. Join us in the never ending fight for truth and justice and freedom, or grip tight your hatred and your guns - for you will need them.
boo-yah!


I'm one of you
the pacifist's passport
Hey, ease up there fella. I'm one of you, my brotha from anotha mutha. Muslim? Me too! Shoot yeah. Oops, poor choice of words. I meant heck yeah. Which way is east salap salay um shalom, or however the rant, er I mean slogan, goes. Damn those infidels, one and all. Long live the infitada. Allah is great! It's all the Jews and Americans fault anyway.
Oh, you said you were Christian. My bad. Obviously that last part was just appeasement. See, I'm making that little chest-crossing sign thing right now. Damn those Arabs and Muslims, er I mean terrorists. And Lord please help those Jews and pagan Indians see the light so they face not damnation. God bless us one and all.
Oh, you're not Christian? Don't worry; I have my index cards here somewhere. Yes, here we go. What I of course meant to say is I am a Hindu Buddhist Shinto Swahili Islamic Farsi Christian Atheist Scientologist Creationist Monotheistic Pagan Skinhead Darwinist. And not only is my religion the best in the whole wide world, it is the only correct and valid religion. And all members of any other are fools and must be recruited or wiped off the face of the earth...in God's name. Of course.
There. Does that cover it? Has everyone picked out their niblet of info they can quote and take away from here to use and misuse for their own agenda? Am I safe now? Exempt from forced assimilation, violence, and death? Are we friends now? Now that we kill for the same God, am I free to pass down or cross your , er I mean our special path now? Great! You scared me for a minute there. You thinking I was one of them and all.
When really, I'm one of you.
About the Author
...Who am I? I am a bleeding heart liberal leftist to the point of anarchist revolutionist but prefer the label "reformist" with strong patriotic beliefs. So strong in fact that many republicans often mistake me for one of their own until prolonged discussion reveals otherwise (the beginning of this prose). I agree with the republican stance of a strong military and the concept of peace through strength, but disagree venomously with their anti-choice policies toward abortion and marriage, and their laissez faire (leave it alone, a.k.a. non-regulatory) approach toward big business and its abuses of the consumer public and the working poorer classes (or caste) - of which I am a member. So, virtually my entire life I have labeled myself as a Democrat, not so much by choice of platform, but more by rejection of platform. Always the lesser-of-two-evils voter. I grow tired, weary of the inadequate choices of my party, in either candidate or timing of candidate. The party of which I have been accused of defecting. When in reality it is I that have been deserted by my party. The party that has supplanted character with rhyming chorus, vision with smoke screens, substance with style, straight talk with turnspeak (spin). The party that would have you believe a true patriot and undeniable hero by even the most strict of definitions is in fact not. The party that when it can't build up it's own empty advocate tries to tear down a simply better man with raw lies. A party of newfound shame. In general I used to see the republican party as the party of "the haves" and the democrats as the party of "the have nots." The democrats tend to be more reformist in nature, and I tend to agree more with their generic platform in general, but they are really just the lesser of two evils who often pose the right questions but seldom offer workable solutions. They also tend to be isolationists in foreign affairs, and that's not going to work in the new world order where one lone extremist can kill potentially millions with a device that will fit in the trunk of a car. It is not I but my former party that has transformed from blue collar America to the elitist millionaire club. From main street to media stream. The party that won an election based on the current hourly stock market price of soy beans or oranges, or companies that manufacture nothing, and profit by shipping our jobs abroad where slave labor is still king. The have nots now have. All of my government is filthy rich now. I know because their pockets are lined with my hard earned money. How can any of them pose to represent me when not one of them knows what it's like to ponder the source of their next meal, their next paycheck? The answer is they can't. And the more they pretend the more ridiculous they appear. For the first time since my awakening I wish I could go back in time and take the blue pill. I don't want to see the real world anymore. It is far too ugly out there. Many youths have already abandoned any hopes of success in the current system. And those that are still virgin enough to espouse to the hopes once instilled in them are so uneducated and ignorant of the ways and dangers of the world they are easily duped. And their impending demise will be the catalyst for the demise of our nation as a whole. The American dream is fast becoming just that - a dream...

Feel Stupid Yet?
Wait For It, It's Coming...
Nov, 2008 (Presidential Election, er, the second appointment) - prelude here (new window)
...Well the littlest emperor, appointed by the supreme court along partisan lines, has been deposed. Our Caesar was so unpopular that the powers that be are not yet powerful enough to kill off the constitutional mandate of a free election. Unfortunately, the dog and pony show that is American politics has placed the blue ribbon on the most untested, unknown, silver-spoon-in-mouth dung slinger (lawyer) in game-show American Idol - style over substance exhibition in the history of this once great land. The new emperor whom I shall label Morpheus, for his political stances (hard to call them stands since they varied from audience to audience and across time), was created by a media machine free from governmental control, but very much a pundit of the dollar king (advertising, ratings). He was then intravenously fed night after night, hour after hour, into the jelly-soft brain of the ignorant masses, particularly our youngest, most naive, and most ignorant citizens, dead and alive, with such vigor and blatant endorsement and support, until his appointment was secure. But that was yesterday. Today the free world has a new leader. But who is he?
...Is he the radical that he has been proved to be associated with, the completely inexperienced newbie that professes, no preaches change? Or the long-established model, polished politician who can shape shift himself to fit the moment and mood of a growingly shallow and unknowing populous? Will he be a world leader or a leader of one nation? Or the mouthpiece for one party? That at least would effect some change. After almost falling off the right side, a hard steering to the left for the next four years would do this country a lot of good.
Will this second emperor, the great chanting orator, gain enough power to finally set aside an open (relatively free) press, or that nagging document that we have butchered forty-something times thus far, and abolish the little man's say to the point elections are reduced to the media-supported endorsement circuses controlled by the rich and powerful elite (corporate sponsors) like the ones in other supposed and so-called democracies?
There are so many questions as to what next they can hardly be addressed here in anything short of novel form. So I jump straight to the near future, when the masses wake up to the reality they have been duped, fed cake when they needed meat and potatoes, and ask them as the ship America drifts further towards the edge of the world: Feel stupid yet? If not, wait for it; it's coming. But don't worry; it's not important. Only today forward matters. And I am fearful of tomorrow. Fearful of the effects of the impending depression and the growing strength of our enemies, sure. And more fearful of our own collective national inability to recognize or address these facts. But fearful most that the man that is supposed to lead us through these treacherous times is nothing more than a young, inexperienced, untested elitist lawyer whose only established modus is his inability at personal character judgment over long periods of time. Jeeze. Now that's scary.
Let's all pray (while it's still allowed) I'm wrong. I have been before. Let's hope this political pundit, this front man for his party, can grow into the role, and be what he has convinced so many he already is, and not be the man he has thus far proven he is. -was? Let's all hope our collective judgment of character is better, was better, than his has been for the past twenty years. I have never wanted to be wrong more in my life. For if this man deserts out allies, and cloaks America in an isolationist veil as our enemies abroad gain strength (more on this), our Rome shall too burn. Does Obama play the heart?

Piss on the Constitution:
Most people have not read the collective works of the included and omitted parts of the Bible from cover to cover, or read all of Shakespeare's, Socrates', or Plato's works, and for similar reasons. They are so dated the language is hard to follow, and the symbolism so intense the storyline is often hard to understand. And it is such a shame for all are remarkable reading. But most persons have read or heard Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech, or Abraham Lincoln's inspiring Gettysburg Address - two of the greatest prose of individual modern men. But there is another document, collectively written, that was meant to change the world. The greatest story ever told. It is a tale of what the future should be...
Our founding fathers were truly remarkable men, by any standard. Drunkards and Creationists one and all, still they left individual religious beliefs and practices open for personal selection. They created an amazing document that spelled out privileges, rights, and even god-given guarantees of protection to some ideas and ideals that were generations ahead of their time. In this document the rights of the one versus, with, and relative to others' are spelled out in such detail and with such clarity as to distinguish this document from all others, past and present.
And yet we, the American people and government, have found the need to butcher it time and time again - forty something times. We have stripped away, piece by piece, the intent and meaning and protections so many fought and died to preserve for reasons we justified as modern improvements. Changes to reflect generational alterations in beliefs that often changes back and had to be amended then re-amended.
The constitution guarantees a freedom of religious beliefs and practices. Nowhere in the document does it say "unless such beliefs and practices differ from local or national standards."
The constitution guarantees the right of free assembly and protest. Nowhere in the document does it say "unless a peaceful protest interferes with a business' right to make money" or "but only if you have a permit issued by the local governmental body."
The constitution guarantees the freedom of the press. Nowhere in the document does it say "unless those in power do not like what is printed or said," as many now pose with a "truth in reporting" - meaning their truth.
The constitution guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Nowhere in the document does it say "with the approval of the local government" or "with an approved permit" or "but only with arms the government approves of." On this point it goes to the extreme even allowing for the people to bring arms against the government itself should that government fail in its duty to protect and preserve the rights set forth in the constitution. And it does not specify "unless the acting government labels such actions as treason."
The constitution guarantees protection for its citizenry from moneylenders, not allowing them to commit usury (charging more than 25% on a loan). Nowhere in the document does it allow moneylenders to circumvent this protection with compounded annual interest payments that triple or quadruple the total cost of a loan. Nor does it provide for lawmakers to pass special laws that allow moneylenders to charge up to 300% interest for loans to the neediest of borrowers as with the car title for money lenders.
The constitution guarantees protection for its citizenry from unreasonable search and seizure. Nowhere in the document does it say "unless the man with the badge and gun says differently," or "unless the ones to be searched do not know and fully understand their constitutional rights."
And the constitution guarantees the right of citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And again nowhere in the document does it say "unless you want to marry or have sex with those your neighbor doesn't want you too," or "unless your peaceful non hurtful pursuit of happiness is in disagreement with your neighbors or local governmental accepted standards of normalcy or morality."
And yet all these slashes, these butchers' swipes have occurred, and will continue to occur. And they have changed this once magnificent document into a plastic covered museum piece of what this country could have been. Let's just make the final cut. Cut open this long forgotten document from its laminated constraints, lay it on the floor of congress and take a collective piss on it - once and for all.

Go Geert
Unafraid Speaker of the Truth

For those who have taken the Red Pill and are now knowing masters of the obvious and thereby recognize the evil and Godlessness endorsed by the contemporary Islamic Crusades, there is at least one politician who is unafraid of the death threats Islamic jihadists have made against him as well as other speakers of the truth. His name is Geert Wilders. He is the creator of the film Fitna which exposes the unambiguous Islamic faith as intolerant, oppressive, inhuman, and therefore the antithesis of modern freedoms including democracy, press, speech, and religion. These facts are exposed by simple quotations from within the Quran itself. Muslims seek to retard any exposure to the truth about their aims and their religion because they very much rely on a veil of confusion and propaganda to propagate their forced religious expansionism. If you know Geert speaks the truth and wish to show your support of him as he faces persecution and prosecution from his own scared government, click here to sign an online petition in his defense. (click here to watch Fitna)

And now on to more important matters....




I have for the most part stopped posting to or reading the BBC's Have Your Say Department - read why here




The BBC's Story of the Year
When silence speaks volumes:
New clues about why Israeli jets struck Syria in September
One of the best, most rounded, balanced news stories from the BBC in a long, long time...
By Jonathan Marcus - Diplomatic correspondent, BBC News - read it now

04/10/2008
Stop Punishing Victoria Lindsay
...I just watched the Victoria Lindsay video. You know, the teenage girl that was beaten to serious injury by fellow teen girls as two young men stood watchout. I believe six girls are charged along with the two brave lookouts. Her injuries include a concussion, lacerations, loss of hearing and blurry vision. Apparently Victoria supposedly made some inflammatory remarks on her website. So I wondered if there was anything – anything – that could be spoken (or read) that could justify the initiation of extreme physical violence against another, especially considering the size of the attacking mob complete with sentries. I decided there was not. So I chose on purpose not to read the so-called provocation, then chose to watch the video of the attack without sound to distance myself from the argument. I wanted to observe the attack itself and the actions and attitudes of the assailants who knowingly recorded the attack to post on the net. The posturing and posing of the attackers, particularly the fat girl who prohibited Victoria's escape at the front door was graphically clear. When I first heard the story I didn't faze me that much. But then when I heard one of the charged girl's mother trying to defend her spawn it made me ill. Even the interviewer was astonished at her remarks and challenged her on same. Poor delinquent spawn is obviously from weak seed and poor parenting stock. Maybe she, they, should get a break?
...Hell NO! These hooligans planned this attack, this ambush, in a cold and premeditated fashion with prior intent to publish on the Internet. Then they ganged up on her while two cowardly eunuchs stood guard. Had that happened when I was in school I would have stopped it – period! Even if it meant I had to take on the entire football team and the cheerleaders. Now I'm tough, but not that tough, so I might have been beaten up too. But I could have slept well that night and all that follow – a luxury I hope the two yellow dog sentries don't enjoy.
...YouTube was right to post it, right to remove it, and right to ban the user and the sending IP address if they do or did so. Censorship and blaming the tools the wicked use is not the answer. Neither is isolating Victoria for the rest of her school childhood with home schooling. Making her miss her prom allows the cowards who conspired in her attack another and unnecessary blow. If there were any real justice left in Florida, any real  young men at her school, and any real leaders running that school, things would be different.
...Victoria should be invited, begged, to come back to school and attend her prom by school administrators – and to a hero's welcome. Real men, gentlemen, should line up to offer her safe escort. The six villains and the two wimps should face real charges – adult charges – for kidnapping (not allowing her to leave), aggravated assault and battery with intent to cause severe bodily harm (30 minute assault), conspiracy, complicity, and any other felonies the District Attorney can think of. This is not about kids going overboard, no hazing gone awry. This is dastardly criminal adult behavior and needs to be treated as such. Thank God Victoria had the good sense not to fight back. No doubt these cowards would have ganged up on her all at once, particularly had Victoria actually gained an upper hand against one of her attackers. Then God only knows what these jellyfish might have been capable of in their group gorging feeding frenzy.
...I write this prose in hope that someone, anyone, will do the right thing now – since no one has to this point. It seems so wrong to keep punishing the victim.
back to top

10/03/2007
Annotation to the headline story from BBC News/Americas (10/03/2007)
Billionaire President Vetoes Poor Children Health Bill
Of the People, By the People, and For the People? After some two and a half centuries we're still working on it. It seems Our Fearless Leader, in true lame duck fashion has defied the will of some 70% of the population, a two-thirds majority in the Senate, and a clear majority of the House and vetoed a bill set to become law that would provide 35 billion dollars to help insure 10 million children from lower income families - an absolute necessity in a 'developed' (?) country that has no state health service and where children die from abscessed teeth (ref. Deamonte Driver) as they did four and five millennia ago in Egyptian times. Bush said he wanted only a $5 billion increase in funding for the scheme. This after he supported a recent increase in funding for the so-called wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the tune of $150 billion – again in defiance of the will of the people to withdraw from those regions. He argued that expanding its coverage further would encourage people currently covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage - and that was too costly, even though the money to pay for the coverage would have come from higher tobacco taxes and not from current coffers. The House of Representatives, which approved the bill 265-159, was well short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. Democrats in the House say they will seek to persuade sufficient Republican congressmen to change sides to be able to override Mr Bush's veto. But House Republican leader Roy Blunt said he was "absolutely confident" that he would be able to prevent that happening. Many Republicans are likely to feel the pressure of public opinion ahead of congressional elections in November next year – elections they are sure to lose along with the White House. And yet the party genuinely seems confused as to why they have or will lose control of all three branches of the American government. Could there possibly be further proof of just how out of touch the party and its leaders are with the will of the people? For the record the Republicans have also repeatedly voted down a raise in the minimum wage for these same lower-income families in recent years. The haves intend to keep a firm grip on what they have, and keep the have nots scrapping for a subsistence living. But fear not good people of the USA for their day of reckoning will soon be upon them. YOU can and MUST make a difference in the upcoming elections. Simply vote the Democratic ticket. The aristocratic members of that party at least pretend to care about the “little man” and his children, and will make enough changes to at least make that claim. Lesser of two evils and such. Hillary, for the sake of posterity in general, and my child, please save us!

.
AP News headline from 10/01/07:
Afghan Boy With US Dollars Hanged

Taliban militants hanged a 15-year-old boy from a tree on Sunday in Helmand, the most violent province in the country and the world's #1 poppy-growing region because he had U.S. money in his pocket, and they stuffed five $1 bills in his mouth as a warning to others not to use the commonly used dollars, police said Monday. Taliban militants elsewhere killed eight police. --- By Noor Khan
-----------
Thank you Taliban for reminding the civilized world just why you must be crushed. Did they bother to ask the boy where he got the money, or how, or why during his trial? Oh wait, stupid me, trial? That was funny wasn't it? Also, in Sangin on Saturday, the Taliban shot and killed another man who had sought farm assistance and seeds from an international aid program claiming he was a spy. They also ambushed and murdered eight Afghan police officers. This is the same group that destroys Mosques and statues of Buddha. And the President of Afghanistan wants to incorporate these terrorists into the current government? President Karzai's position is somewhat understandable as he is trying to rule from a position of weakness. He realizes full well if America pulls its troops before the Taliban is crushed (as they have done on very short notice to other groups in the past [ref. Kurds and Vietnam to name but two]) he and his government will fail. And yet he impedes and criticizes the very troops he needs to remain in country because of any "civilian" death (collateral damage) while not once acknowledging that the terrorists often fight from behind the skirts of innocent civilians. In essence he is his own worst enemy.  For its part the Taliban want all foreign troops gone before they negotiate with the government for this very reason. Setting this impossible condition to the posed ridiculous offer to join the government creates the necessary stalemate for the conflict to continue - a typical ploy of Islamic terrorist crusaders [ref. Syria, Palestinians, et al.]. The world will be far better off, and the prospect for relative peace more possible, only when the Taliban and similar groups are dealt with in the only way they can be - at the point of a gun. Some things are not negotiable, and tolerating or trying to incorporate organizations such as the Taliban (and every single other terrorist group including "elected" ones) into the political and ruling classes should be among them.

 


.
Fox News headline from 9/29/07:
Ahmadinejad Welcomes Bush to Speak at Iranian University
-----------
Tit for tat, right? Wrong. There's a BIG difference. University presidents, students, journalists, citizens, etc. won't face secret arrests, torture and beatings, unlimited detentions without charges (due process of law), or other life-threatening or life-changing repercussions for statements or questions made at an American University. Nor will the audience be infiltrated with participants who try and dictate events or identify participants for later persecution, or address issues pro bono for “the state” or be barred from entry based on hair length, facial hair, sexual orientation, gender, religion, etc. Get the point? Participants in such an event in Iran could and most likely would. And in any case would definitely fear possible ramifications which would hamper any such “free” forum. There can be no free forum in a society that is so blatantly not free. Plus there would be no freedom of the press to report on how things went or what was said. And Ahmadinejad and Iran are fully aware of all these problems that would make such an event impossible. The invitation is a mock one intended to polarize those in Iran who are already so indoctrinated by the limited information they have received in their lifetime that the truth as they know it is not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You can't even get THAT at the BBC or anywhere else including news from any one source in the USA. So what would be the point? No such “open” forum is possible in any Islamic, Communist, or dictatorial military state. Ahmadinejad thought he could use his supposed intelligence to effectively argue his positions with the intellectual social class in the US, but he was wrong. He was made a fool of, and it wasn't that hard. All he had to do was talk. Anyone, including our own incumbent dungslinger, would only prove themselves a fellow idiot by even accepting such an invitation. Oh, did I mention the issue of security. Iran, like so many other Islamic states, is a militarized zone, meaning the general public is free to have a wide variety of weapons making security nearly impossible. Let's leave free forum debates to the free states of the world where open dialog is somewhat possible, and let the Islamic states host the state sponsored predetermined propaganda dialogs they are most accustomed to and comfortable with.


The following exerts are from posts to the BBC News Division's Have Your Say department.
Some (80+) have been published on their website.  I have included some of my favorites
below but have stopped posting to the site - here's why

Why I stopped writing snippets at the BBC

in short:

Although the BBC News service remains a viable left-of-center counter to the far right news services in the USA, its Have Your Say Department - as an open forum for debate - has proved useless and self serving. Only read and post to the Have Your Say Department if you seek polarized confirmation of predetermined, prejudiced, and rigid views. They claim they reject posts only if they "violate" some term or condition in the posting bylaws, but this is simply not truthful and is possible to verify by checking noted posts below. In fact the so-called moderators often reject posts at whim and with wildly varying and obviously personal guidelines often way out of sequence and within time frames that clearly denote preferences in content or quota. Other posts (mine and others) that test or even 'violate' the BBC's guidelines have been published. Further I have had posts rejected within minutes (almost unheard of), then published when resubmitted hours or days later, again suggesting the random whims of differing moderators. It just depends on which "side" of the issue the current reading moderator is on. To further complicate the matter is the apparent fact that any position that does not coincide with the BBC's views or anti-American agenda, or that may "upset" the large Muslim population in the U.K. almost always go unpublished or rejected. And this despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the most recent posts are becoming more and more, day by day, more pro Israeli and more anti-Muslim extremists (and so-called Palestinians) in sheer volume and content suggesting the world is finally coming to grips with the real causes and effects of the current Mideast conflict. The BBC's continuing narrowmindness in such matters is why I stopped (for the most part) posting to the inflammatory and slanted forum. Their policies have of course reduced the forum to nothing more than a hate mongers (and anti-USA/Israeli) blog and seriously discredited both the have your say department and the news site in general.

This is the best example of the randomness and slanted censorship by the BBc's so-called moderators. I posted the following post and it was rejected within hours even though it broke no rules - despite other posts that heve been "under moderation" for more than a month. So I resubmitted it word for word and it was "published" within hours. Of course unless one's post is published within the opening hour of a new topic, said post is so far buried in the list no one will ever see it. Here is that post:

DEBATE:
SENT:
02-Jan-2009 01:14
COMMENT:
Holy cow! 14 out of 15 of the "most recommended" posts agree, at a popular clip of 7,000 versus 400. And that opinion is split 14 ways while the desenting opinion is grouped under one response - and guess what, it's a Muslim poster, no doubt endorsed by a 99% Muslim, and therefore endoctrinated base. The "world has awakened" to the FACT that Hamas are terrorists, and Israel has a right to defend itself. Grasp the reality and truth BBC - and REPORT THESE FACTS! and stop catering to the bad guys.
Click to view comment
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
---------------------------------
DEBATE:
SENT:
01-Jan-2009 16:50
COMMENT:
Holy cow! 14 out of 15 of the "most recommended" posts agree, at a popular clip of 7,000 versus 400. And that opinion is split 14 ways while the desenting opinion is grouped under one response - and guess what, it's a Muslim poster, no doubt endorsed by a 99% Muslim, and therefore endoctrinated base. The "world has awakened" to the FACT that Hamas are terrorists, and Israel has a right to defend itself. Grasp the reality and truth BBC - and REPORT THESE FACTS! and stop catering to the bad guys.
COMMENT STATUS:
Rejected

in detail:
Is the Mideast Quartet failing Palestinians? A topic on the BBC News site's Have your say department. I started to read the posts but couldn't make it past the first page. I was literally blinded by the ignorance of fact and history. Don't believe  me? - take a look:

USA wants “to save an illegitimate and illogical state for the European Jews who could not get along with Christians”
 - Naveed Khan, San Jose

“It is time for Israel to give full rights of citizenship to all residents of its sovereign territory including the West Bank and to invite those who were driven out by ethnic cleansing to return”
 - Pat, Boston

“UN - Pro Palestine because it tells the truth”
 - Shoaib Bagdadi, Frankfurt

WOW! Say What! See what I mean? Three posts with a collective IQ of 15 and NO CONCEPT of HISTORY! Then I looked at the names of the posters and realized: one misinformed and/or obviously uneducated American and two Muslims. Ah, I thought to myself. THAT would explain the distortion in facts. Then I read this post:

I've read the HYS since the outbreak of the first infitada -- and its all the same, all the time, the same hatred, the same accusations, the same hypocrisy -- these forums 'don't express public opinion' but inflame it. I would rather see a forum of  Arabs and Jews -- FORCE them to talk it out...Instead we have the American right and the European left duking it out over  their own idealogical ends. I hope the BBC understands this acheives nil -- it just causes hatred on both sides.
 - Joe, San Diego, CA

I realized of course that Joe is very close to the truth - and in a clever way: in-fit-ada instead of intifada. And he probably used the word hypocrisy in its correct usage meaning he understands the term turnspeak, but is open minded enough to see fault at every angle. He then offers a solution and takes a parting cynical jab at the powers that be. In other words he's an educated free-thinker. And here he just happens to be right. The problem with the posts at the BBC is it is far too limiting. One can not respond to (refute) a post (no such option exists) unless on quotes them in one's own post. And that's rather difficult in these snippets since only 500 characters are allowed. That only allows for a sound byte (to show just how limited such a count is the next 500 characters will be in red-colored type). So there is no dialog or communication or debate - just snippets of polarized hatred based on at best ignorance or misinformation and at worst the disseminate of  disinformation. But even Joe failed in his "facts." I assume he was referring to the current administration when he referred to the American right (wing) but he omits that administration did not win the mandate of a popular vote when it came to power, or the fact the approval rating for this administration has dwelled in the 20-30 percentile range for years now. So all 300 million Americans are not to the political 'right.' Neither, I'm sure, can all of Europe be stereotyped into the left corner. But his points about the futility of the forum are very valid. No countering = no debate. Selective publishing = trying to form or change opinion. No adherence to facts = personal blogs - might as well just provide links to polarized myspace pages. Below I managed to crunch down a collective 500-character snipe to the ignorant three (since the masses can't be reached) quoted above:

Collective Response: Yeah, them darned Jews can't get along with with anyone. Imagine them not wanting to give up all their possessions and take those free train rides to all those nice Jews-only camps. And imagine them not wanting to create yet another terrorist state next to them in the west bank so it can work hand-in-hand with the others (Gaza, Syria, Hezbollah aka Lebanon, Jordan). And everyone knows the Palestinians (Muslims) always tell the truth – they call it “turnspeak” (look it up).

But as I read it for errors (something most posters there obviously don't do) I realized I sounded pretty polarized myself. I consoled myself with the argument that such was necessary to rebuke the ludicrous. So I rewrote it without the 500 character limitation to see if I could do better:

Yeah, them darned Jews can't get along with with anyone - the Christian later turned atheist Hitler and his fellow atheist communist buddy and butcher Stalin. Hell (oops sorry, THAT doesn't exist does it) they couldn't get along with the Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, or anyone else in Europe either. Imagine them not wanting to give up all their possessions and take those free train rides to all those nice Jews-only camps. And imagine them not wanting to create yet another terrorist state next to them in the west bank so it can work hand-in-hand with the others (Gaza, Syria, Hezbollah aka Lebanon, Jordan, et al) AND invite back all the terrorists who want to "wipe Israel off the map" to become citizens of Israel. And hey Pat, the last time I heard of the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" (outside of Muslim controlled African states) was when Hitler decided on the final solution. Jews were the TARGET of ethnic cleansing NOT the culprits of same. And that leads us to Shoaib's truths: "everyone knows the Palestinians always tell the truth." Muslims use “turnspeak” - look it up, no free history lessons here.

So, is that better? No, not really; still pretty polarized. But then again it has to be, for the polar opposite of uninformed is informed. The opposite pole from uneducated is educated. The inverse of understanding and tolerance is hatred and ignorance. The opposite of wrong is right. So if I am the polar opposite of the three authors above, then good for me. What happened in 1948, 1953, 1957, 1967, 1971, 1974, and since, and for whatever reasons, has already happened. That's why it is referred to as history. It cannot be changed. There is no such animal as revisionist history - that's just rewriting history to suit ones own needs or agenda. What happened happened, including the Holocaust. The wars of aggression imposed on (and not initiated by) Israel, and the fact that Israel and a large portion of the "west" has been subjected to (and not guilty of) terrorism are historical facts. Again, don't take my word for it, look it up. Do your own research in ANY FREE forum or place of factual reference. And it's not my fault if that's going to exclude almost every single Muslim-controlled dispenser of news or information service. But said information is available - in abundance - for those with minds open enough to digest it. The finality of the argument or conflict in the middle east is as simple as it is undesirable and politically incorrect. There can be no peace without a consensus as to what is peace. Peace to Israel is a lack of war and terrorism against its
citizenry. Peace to Islam is the destruction of the Israeli state and subsequent assimilation, extermination, or expatriation of all the Jews. Any 'peace' will only come from the next and inevitable war in the region, and only if those certain to win do so WITH "disproportionate force" and finality. You can not negotiate with those who won't even hold discussions unless a text specifying concessions to them is agreed to first, while offering none of their own. Two state solution? It's another pipe dream of the current American administration's limited vision - an attempt to write to the pages of history some grand victory to overshadow what it is already sure to be written of this corrupt, inept, partisan-appointed and out of touch presidium.

Now, I feel better. It took a few more than 500 characters but it IS factual. And I would rather spread these truths to a handful of readers than spew snippets of laughbox hatred to millions so they can use it as fodder for polarization and the spread or rationalization of misinformation. I will be a voice of reason and truth and not a tool of ignorant consumption. Whether or not it is popular is of absolutely no concern to me. Might (majority) is not always right. That is why simple majority rule is not equative to democracy. True democracy is backed by rule of law and basic rights of ALL citizens, including public safety. One (nation or individual) cannot be free unless the government in power is representative of and accountable to its citizens. There is a difference between a president and a presidium - look it up. Regardless of how a "free" society selects its representatives, those representatives must adhere to these principles AND by prerequisite come to power by some means other than the point of a gun. If they do not their platform is corrupt as are they. Therefore their inclusion to any so-called democratic process (especially an election) is an abomination to the democratic process itself. Thus, (attention: Naveed), Hamas (Gaza) is the only "illegitimate and illogical state" in Canaan. But it is not the only "illegitimate and illogical" Islamic state. Just look at the so-called presidents, presidential terms, and how these men came to and hold on to power - reference Egypt, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Sudan, etc. And you can add Afghanistan and Iraq to that list if they incorporate terrorists into their respective governments. For the record there are other non-Islamic (infidel) illegitimate regimes: China, N. Korea, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela, and others.

I know he will disagree, and I don't care. I do not consider it my patriotic or religious duty to blow him up, or force him to accept my beliefs. But in a world where any one nutjob with a bomb that will fit in a briefcase murder millions of innocent civilians whose only crime was the refusal to go to a prescribed church, I am forced to realize who he is, be aware of what he thinks, limit his powers of movement and access to emerging technology, and finally and unfortunately be prepared to blow his brains out if it comes to that. And the way they are pressing things as of late, it may be coming to that much sooner than many think. It's time the "civilized world" comes to grips with the reality of the modern political world and the ground-gaining war of cultures between the Islamic and non-Islamic (infidel) worlds. It's time to boy-scout-up. Hope for the best (through dialog and diplomacy) but prepare for the worst - a war with an end game, and the strength and commitment to finish the task. I was always taught the truth shall set you free. If more of us boldly proclaimed an understanding of these truths regurgitated here and showed a stronger will when confronting the dissimulators,  they might back off. If not? Well, then human nature will take its inevitable course...to war.

Here are some of my favorite snippet posts
(no longer or very seldom updated)
these torts are limited to 500 characters so please excuse grammer, abbreviations, etc...
* denotes my personal favorites, many of which were unpublished



*
DEBATE:
Should illegal music file-sharers face fines?
A US woman has been fined $220,000 for illegally file-sharing music on the internet. Was it the right decision?
A US jury says Jammie Thomas from Minnesota should pay for offering to share 24 specific songs online - a cost of $9,250 per song.  However, contesting the charge and losing will cost Ms Thomas almost a quarter of a million dollars. Her lawyer said she was reduced to tears by the verdict. Each year millions of households illegally share music files which the music industry views as a serious threat to its revenue. Do you think that Jammie Thomas should have received such a large fine? Are record companies right to pursue such cases? Is it possible to control music file-sharing? Do you work in the industry?

Read the main story (from the BBC) --- * Read more on the downloading issue here *
MY COMMENT SENT: 05-Oct-2007 22:48
absolutely not! and the fines are absurd. the music industry is just trying to make an example of one lone person in order to intimidate others. and of these 24 songs how many are played totally free of charge across airwaves every day? probably all. plus the software's default setting may have shared them in her stead. were they sued? no. will YOU be sued for recording songs off the radio and having others listen in as you play them at home? what next big brother? someone should help her appeal
COMMENT STATUS:
Awaiting moderation - then rejected within hours and out of sequence
The BBC selected this post way ahead of others awaiting moderation and rejected it almost immediately obviously because it is afraid of the recording and music industries deep pockets and itchy trigger fingers when it comes to litigation. Apparently they are afraid of stirring the waters and being targeted for same. My  comment in no way violated the posted rules set forth by the BBC as others' published posts have done and I have complained to them on this matter. But since prior complaints have gone unanswered, and since this topic has possible repurcussions, they have opted to cower before the powers that be. So much for the free press at the BBC.
Annotation (Oct 11): To their credit they seem to be taking a longer look at this issue. I resubmitted it hours after the original rejection and now 6 days later it is still "awaiting moderation." Will keep you posted...
Annotation - Conclusion (Oct 24):The 'longer look' at this and other issues was really just a backlog of uncensured posts that the BBC finally just tallied as "unpublished."  This apparently is their way of clearing out said backlogs rather than screening them for comments that support their preconcieved positions.
*DEBATE:
SENT: 24-Apr-2008 14:56
COMMENT:
the frog, leary of crossing the high & fast waters of the river, was even more leary of accepting a ride across from the offering snake. "you will eat me" he said. after many denials and negotiations the frog finally accepted. halfway across the snake bit & began to eat him. "you said you wouldn't" said the frog. "you knew i was a snake when you dealt with me" replied the snake. deal with terrorists who you know have NEVER even ONCE and WILL NOT NOW honor their pledge & get what you deserve.
Click to view comment
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
*DEBATE:
SENT: 09-May-2008 14:28
COMMENT:
in a word - yes. but it will be short. hezbolla will soon control Lebanon. any government not backed by its army is just a lot of polititians in offices and no match for armed terrorists. and any nation that allows free movement of armed terrorists will fail. ask afghanistan, pakistan, iraq, iran, & now lebanon. peace thru weakness does not work. with a terrorist country to its south, and now one to its north, what sane person really expects Israel to allow the formation of yet another to its east?
Click to view comment
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
*DEBATE:
SENT: 08-May-2008 21:24
COMMENT:
peace will only come to the region once the non-muslim (infidel) world accepts the obvious conclusion that contemporary Islam is the latest colonialistic, crusading, organized religion bent on forced assimilation and the destruction of all societies and persons that is not "them" - just as catholosism was at the turn of the first millinium, then christianity in the 16th to 19th centuries. fortunately for the civilized world they too shall fail... the sooner "we" fight back, the quicker it ends
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished - held for 11 days in "moderation" meaning they didn't want to publish it because it would offend Islamists, but could not reject it because it broke no rules - a very typical action on their part.
*DEBATE:
SENT: 08-May-2008 21:14
COMMENT:
with the rediculous proportional split the dems use the margin of victories is irrelevant, AND it's THE ONLY reason Obama is even in the race at all since Clinton has won EVERY BIG state save his home state. IF it were winner take all AND Michigan & Florida "counted" Clinton would hold the majority of popular vote AND already secured the nomination. But with the current system, the dems are poised to self destruct and give away their 3rd straight "gimme" white house. Obama cant win REAL election
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished
DEBATE:
SENT: 02-May-2008 22:34
COMMENT:
The world powers can't ease the Palestinians' suffering because they have all sided with Israel, they are already biased  - Thierry, Canada
-------------
true enuf, but then again right is right - wrong is wrong. besides Arab states have pledged $770M in palestinian aid yet delivered ony $153M. that's half a BILLION dollars undelivered pledge money. let them help themselves FIRST! then beg, no demand, money from those they would just as soon see dead. hypocrites - the lot!
Click to view comment
COMMENT STATUS:
Published

DEBATE:
SENT: 18-Feb-2008 01:41
COMMENT:
The USSR is dead and its former puppet states, once held together against national, ethnic, and religous wishes, and at the point of a gun, are sure to continue to splinter. If it serves the will of the people, can be done without renewed bloodshed, and establishes a government representative of and accountable to its citizenry, NO OTHER STATE should be allowed to impede it - Period! - for ANY reason - and that particularly includes non-free states including China. Let Freedom Reign...
Click to view comment
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
*DEBATE:
SENT: 29-Jan-2008 09:04
COMMENT:
What I see from these postings is that those who speak up for Israel seem to know their facts and those on the side of the arabs need to go back to school and get educated on the facts.
Teresa, Philadelphia
-
well said. click on the "readers recommended" tab instead of "most recent" and see the OVERBEARING support of MOST readers FOR Israel's position. Hamas/Palestinians are "innocent victims" only in the eyes of the BBC and the indoctrinated brainwashed arab world. free-thinkers KNOW better
COMMENT STATUS:
Rejected - another and perhaps the most rediculous rejection yet, violated in no way any posted rules, so-called moderators censure at whim and with wildly varying and obviously personal guidlines. Plus I was commenting on an already posted comment in a cordial and supporting way! absurd rejection! other posts that test and even break the BBC's limits have been published - just depends on which "side" of the issue the current moderator is on. I could understand not publishing this post for the sake of time or space, but to reject (an action supposedly reserved for "breaking" the rules which it blatently did not) the post not only invalidates the BBC's protocols but illustrates their bias for, and coddling of their large muslim population - too scared to have the truths they try to hide countered by the overwhelming majority of their own posts! funny really... compare this 'rejected' post to the 'published' one by salem below which is grossly innacurate, war-mongoring, supportive of terrorism, and even threatening. just plain rediculous!
*DEBATE:
SENT: 29-Jan-2008 08:30
COMMENT:
The aggression began when Jews from all over the world started immigrating and taking Arabs lands...No we didnt loose yet, it is a 60 years war, proof is the Qassams rockets.
you want it to stop we offer you to go back to 67, and return of refugees. it will never END FACE it -- salem, Saudi Arabia
-
corrections: UK lands partioned off by UN, VAST majority went TO arabs. tiny sliver went to Israel. So-called occupied lands WON in multiple wars of self defense ARE LOST. And it WILL end and soon.
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY: 16 people
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
*DEBATE:
SENT: 13-Feb-2008 14:12
COMMENT:
Syria? He was hiding in Syria? I am shocked. I never would have thought that Syria was a haven or hideout for terrorists.---Dan, Frederick
---
LOL, very good Dan. BBC omits he was "hiding" in a nice house, in a nice neighborhood, with the full awareness and blessing of a terrorist regime. AND he probably had an office on main street in Damascus, right beside the many others there...
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY: 39 people
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
*DEBATE:
SENT: 13-Feb-2008 13:49
COMMENT:
"military leader" ??? come on BBC, are you so afraid to print the truth? the death of this terrorist is not only a milestone victory for "USA and Israel" as BBC claims, but a victory for the UK and the rest of the civilized world as well. another mass murderer will hide behind the skirts of women and children to murder innocents no more. -- print this truth if you dare....
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY: 117 people (13th highest recommended)
NOTE: The "Recommended" status of a post is irrelevant in any individual sense. Posts are often 'hung up' in "moderation" status for very long periods of time (while others are posted within minutes) and by the time they are published they are 47th in the "most recent" list and dead last in the "most recommended" list, so very few will ever see or read them - much less recommend them. With such inconsistency the "recommended" numbers can only attest to the overall collective affirmation or disagreement of posts allowed quickly though the publication process, such as when 37 of the "most" recommended 40 posts with literally thousands of recommendations agree or not with a certain position. And this is often the case as readers and posters typically disagree with some wording of the typically biased and slanted statements, premises, and ensuing questions posed by BBC.
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
*DEBATE:
SENT: 13-Feb-2008 13:41
COMMENT:
history has proven that the USSR never was the military power we all believed she once was, and today's Russia most certainly is not. and pointing missles at friendly non-aggressive nations further illustrate Putin's (and Russia's) futile and sad ambitions. it's so sad to think of their limited resources being used to create a new arms race in which they have no chance of "keeping up" instead of the social and political reforms at home they are in such desperate need of. old habits die hard
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished
*DEBATE:
SENT: 12-Feb-2008 16:09
COMMENT:
it cannot fix or heal lost generations or make right past sins. but it can, and does show that this open and free state can, and is acknowledging that it once did wrong, and is pledging to do better in future. it's more than Japan or Germany did after WWII, and more than the USA ever did for its original natives. I believe Canada plowed this virgin trail, still, I say kudos to the Aussies....
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY: 24 people
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
DEBATE:
SENT: 11-Feb-2008 19:17
COMMENT:
It is their country & their religion. It is up to the majority to decide. If it leads to a greater role for Islam in public life, then that too is their issue! Why does this even come up as a HYS? --[MaxMaxmilianMaximusI], Indian Caesar in, Singapore
-----
would you let your child eat ice cream till s/he vomits and is ill? majority does not equate to democracy. democracy refers to point of laws and protection - even from oneself - and secular government is priority #1 in any FREE state!
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished
DEBATE:
SENT: 10-Feb-2008 20:05
COMMENT:
Although Turkey is doing it the 'wrong' way - namely military influence and pressure on the government - it continues to seek, and so far maintain a TRUE secular democratic government in an Islamic state, and has since its creation. This is an otherwise unprecedented scenario with the notable yet arguable exception of the Philippines . They deserve our respect and any assistance we can offer.
Click to view comment
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
DEBATE:
SENT: 07-Feb-2008 21:35
COMMENT: LOL -
separation of church and state is alive and well in the civilized world of whick the UK is not only a member, but a proud sponser. want proof? just look at the OVERWHELMING string of consecutive and virtually unapposed comments and the number of "reccomend" -ations under the "most recommended" tab. see what happens when you cater to religious extremists? now they live among you, and use YOUR system of free speech and laws to oppose you. better nip this nut in the bud while you still can.
Click to view comment
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
*DEBATE:
SENT: 07-Feb-2008 21:10
COMMENT:
"Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to face up to the fact that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system"
----
hmmm. so change the laws to appease them, huh? and what if the UK does not? Jihad? cower before extremists in fear? how did appeasement work for Europe in the 1930's? Face it people, you - we - ARE in a war of cultures against FORCED assimilation from religious extremists -the new colonialists. lead, follow, or step aside...
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY: 45 people
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
* * The Debate Question: Is education in Arab world "falling behind"?
Premise: The World Bank says education in the Arab world needs urgent reform. What needs to change to improve the region's education systems? Why do you think improvements have been slower in the region than elsewhere? What is at stake? - also read The Miseducation of Faarooq
MY COMMENT SENT: 05-Feb-2008 18:41
I've been waiting for this one for a long, long time. and the answer is ... duh, ya think? but don't fret; it's an easy fix. the good doctor's prescription is: just drop 4th period "Jihad on the infidels" and replace it with "Historical Religons and Mythos," drop "WMD Economics 101" and go with "Advanced Cutltural Diversity," Small Arms Management for Math, etc. - GUARANTEED CURE; effects felt within first decade, cure by 1-2 generations, refillable.
pay the nurse on the way out. next...
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished
DEBATE:
SENT: 04-Feb-2008 20:03
COMMENT:
Even though Hamas asked for a ceasefire it was only in order to tighten its hold over Gaza --Gadi, Israel
---
plus they were getting their rear end kicked and losing face and infrastructure. by getting the UN to stop the war they could claim victory just by surviving. plus they knew they wouldn't have to honor any agreement they made to stop the war. they're fanatics, not stupid, and they're smarter than UN. too bad you'll never get to read this cause it's not pro-hamas or anti US/Israel enough
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY: 22 people
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
*DEBATE:
SENT: 02-Feb-2008 18:27
COMMENT:
Well heck no. What should a European care about madmen in another country trying to wipe people off the map because they go to another church? Doesn't affect me in my back yard. They are not my people. The USA isn't going to “press” me into fighting a foreign war
Analysis: wasn't this the EXACT question of the day all through the 1930's all over the world AND the EXACT answer? How did that work out for you? ALL peoples should be Free! Better Question: will you learn from history or repeat it
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished - (shame shame on BBC - excellent post, held for days and days in "moderation" status to avoid publishing)
*DEBATE:
SENT: 28-Jan-2008 21:17
COMMENT:
Egypt should remover the border. Hamas should continue their fight. Israel should discontinue their terrorism. U.S. should stop funding israel terrorist..rest of Muslim nations should assist Palestinians in ending this perverse massacre of Palestinians. Then perhaps Muslims, Christians and Jews can live next to one another in peace. Can't see that happening. But I am not the all knowing either.
Ishaq Shelton, Madison, United States
--
your last statement is the only accurate one you made
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished
*DEBATE:
SENT: 28-Jan-2008 21:02
COMMENT:
I ask myself what is terrorism? It is the killing of people..randomly..for personal and state gain..about 5 times as many Palestinians have died compared to Israelis..terrorist is the one chalking up the numbers. Self-defence shouldn't be cover for ethnic cleansing
Erwynne Palmer US ex-pat in UK
----
you forgot religious gain = extremists motive. And numbers are irrelevant, INTENT (as in killing innocents) is the point. And labeling Israel as “ethic cleansers” is beyond scope of intelligent debate
COMMENT STATUS:
Rejected (almost immediately) - rediculous rejection, violated in no way any posted rules, so-called moderators censure at whim and with wildly varying and obviously personal guidlines. other posts that test BBC's limits have been published equally as quick. just depends on which "side" of the issue current moderator is on...
**DEBATE:
SENT: 28-Jan-2008 17:26
COMMENT:
Why not talking to the election winners? (Hamas) and insisting talking to the losers? Israel is achieving nothing by spliting Palestinians into 2 parts...
rabsha rabaash, Muscat, Oman
--
the lack of historical knowledge in these posts  - particularly among Islamists (see education post above in a new window - won't lose your place here)  - is amazing. Israel didn't "split" palestine, UN then hamas did! and palestinian gaza has NEVER existed, it was part of Egypt that it has declined to "take back" ever since. plus it is now "occupied" by terrorist hamas - not Israel. jeez, people learn the FACTS!
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY: 39 people
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
**DEBATE:
SENT: 28-Jan-2008 17:09
COMMENT:
If Europeans recognized democratically elected (No foul play at all) government of HAMAS, this incident, wouldn't happen. My question to European and American government, what happened to democracy? What is democracy?
Nuri Bulut, Nashville/TN
---
democracy is not popular madate, that's mob rule, can even be done by terrorists like hamas. REAL democracy involves point of LAWS and EQUAL protection of citizenry under those laws - leaves hamas out! doesn't it - they don't care squat about their citizens
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY: 33 people
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
**DEBATE:
SENT: 28-Jan-2008 00:46
COMMENT:
it is indeed wonderful to see that the most "recommended" posts are now more and more pro Israel and more and more anti-Hamas and its terrorist-supporting citizenry. the world is waking up and finally digesting the real truths in the region. the colonialist islamic extremists are not the freedom fighters many claim, they are war-mongering baby killers and their popularity is waining under the heavy burden of truth. surely their days of deception are now clearly numbered...
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished - another rational post ineligible for rejection so held for over a week to avoid publication
DEBATE:
SENT: 27-Jan-2008 18:38
COMMENT:
it is indeed wonderful to see that the most "recommended" posts are now more and more pro Israel and more and more anti-Hamas and its terrorist-supporting citizenry. the world is waking up and finally digesting the real truths in the region. the colonialist islamic extremists are not the freedom fighters many claim, they are war-mongering baby killers and their popularity is waining under the heavy burden of truth. surely their days of deception are now clearly numbered...
COMMENT STATUS:
Rejected (almost immediately) - almost unheard of in the screening proccess. "Rejected as opposed to "unpublished" means the comment "violated" some term or condition in the posting bylaws, which of course is not true. You can read the terms set there and verify my claim. The truth is (remains) any position that does not coincide with the BBC's views or that may "upset" the large muslim population in the U.K. almost always go 'unpublished' or in this case rejected. Another rediculous rejection by the so-called moderators that censure at whim and with wildly varying and obviously personal guidlines. Other posts that test BBC's limits have been published equally as quick. It just depends on which "side" of the issue current moderator is on.
DEBATE:
SENT: 27-Jan-2008 18:25
COMMENT:
egypt should respond to the terrorist citizenry and so-called government of hamas just as they are. by cowering and submitting to their force and bullying. that way they teach them that is the way to meet their goals. plus if egypt decides not to submit to the will of the terrorists they can always open more dialouge - lol - what a joke the question - and this forum - are...
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY: 14 people
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
* DEBATE: Can dialogue work without the participation of Hamas? Can Middle East talks deliver peace?
COMMENT SENT: 28-Nov-2007 11:25
 What a rediculous question. For my Muslim brethren the below comment is called SARCASM!
Of course not. No peace can be achieved without the inclusion of a terrorist entity. To proclude terrorists from talks mean NO TALKS with PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Quida, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iran, etc. And if we exclude participants based on gender or religion add Saudi Arabia, Kuwait -- jeez, this is going to be a long list.....
COMMENT STATUS:
Rejected - An "overnight" rejection - almost unheard of in the screening proccess. "Rejected as opposed to "unpublished" means the comment "violated" some term or condition in the posting bylaws, which of course is not true. You can read the terms set there and verify my claim. The truth is (remains) any position that does not coincide with the BBC's views or that may "upset" the large muslim population in the U.K. almost always go 'unpublished' or in this case rejected. It appears I have in effect been blacklisted by the site for my non conformist views which more often than not counter the BBC's agenda. Their narrowmindness in such matters is why I stopped posting to the inflamitory and slanted forum. Said policy has of course reduced the forum to nothing more than a hate mongers (and anti-USA) blog and seriously discredited both the have your say department and the news site in general.
**DEBATE:
COMMENT SENT: 29-Oct-2007 10:50
I don't know what's more stupid, the question itself or the pretense that the UN action, make that ANY UN action will cause anything, anywhere. It's a toothless, useless entity with an unmatched record of failures which Iran, N. Korea, Israel, USA, AND ALL Islam IGNORES and taunts! The sooner that soapbox for the ignorant masses is disbanded, the better...and the quicker the real problem solvers can get down to business...
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished (Any position that does not coincide with the BBC's views or that may "upset" the large muslim population in the U.K. almost always go 'unpublished')
*** DEBATE:
COMMENT SENT: 22-Oct-2007
What?!? Say it ain't so Joe. Terrorists trying to affect political change by killing innocent people? no, no. they're militants, freedom fighters aren't they. no, no, that's not right cause they killed muslims so they're terrorists. they're only martyr heros if they murder innocent infidels, especially Jews, right? sorry, I forgot the turnspeak rules there for a moment. my bad...
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished (Any position that does not coincide with the BBC's views or that may "upset" the large muslim population in the U.K. almost always go 'unpublished')
COMMENT SENT: 22-Oct-2007
Amazing how toothless a tiger the IAEA is when dealing with Israel but it suddenly develops teeth, horns, and a pointed tail when dealing with Iran!
 ---Imran
TURNSPEAK! (goggle "turnspeak" in a new window)- Translation: Israel is not rogue state that wants to "wipe" anyone of any map. author "demonizing" IAEA because it is targeting rogue state and legitimate target who happens to be Islamic - therefore IAEA (infidel) is the devil. and of course it's Israel's fault. and the U.S.'s too - I'm sure...
THEY need a new harp...
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished (Any position that does not coincide with the BBC's views or that may "upset" the large muslim population in the U.K. almost always go 'unpublished')
DEBATE:
Is the MidEast Quartet failing Palestinians? (A high-ranking U.N. dungslinger, who just happens to be muslim, has denounced the Quartet and the USA - an automatic qualifier to get published at the BBC)
COMMENT SENT: 15-Oct-2007
LOL...the UN doesn't need the Quartet – now THAT's the pot calling the kettle black! LOL...Checkpoints “purpose” is to harm so-called Palestinians? LOL...UN “lending credibility” to Quartet? LOL...bring Hamas into peace talks? Jeeze, where to start. It's the UN that has ZERO credibility. It's a toothless, useless entity with an unmatched record of failures which Iran, N. Korea, Israel, USA, AND ALL Islam IGNORES and taunts! The sooner that soapbox for the ignorant masses is disbanded, the better
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished (Any position that does not coincide with the BBC's views or are anti U.N. almost always go 'unpublished').
DEBATE:
...Jews have a program in place to "squat and jam" this message board
--- Jim, London
--- We Jews have to control the world's finances from our secret bunker in the Swiss Alps, make Hollywood films to corrupt your children. After lunch, we have to poison your wells and spread the bubonic plague. [No time for posts...]
---Rachel Harpaz, Boston
----- LOL- Witty, but satire is lost on the uneducated. So many of “Them” will just go “see?, see?” But then again THAT will provide levity too...
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished (Any position that does not coincide with the BBC's views almost always go 'unpublished').
*DEBATE:
COMMENT SENT: 11-Oct-2007 20:42
Nope. War tore apart europe twice in the last century and 2 atomic bombs ripped open the earth in Japan yet both continents rebounded just fine. It's not war, poverty, hygene, race, or religion that has raped Africa - it is education, or the lack thereof. Proof? - Bishops condeming condoms yet advocating genital mutilation for birth control. With examples like this what can we expect from the average person?
Give a child a fish s/he eats for a day; TEACH a child TO fish and s/he eats for life.
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
DEBATE:
COMMENT SENT: 11-Oct-2007 20:24
This problem was solved long, long ago. it's called a secular government. Leave religion in the hearts, minds, homes, streets, and churches (mosques, synagogs, temples -whatever) and OUT of government, diplomacy, politics, and state-to-state relations. and THAT is the problem because Islam WILL NOT DO THAT - with very, very few exceptions. The very letter even sets conditions (1 god) and makes veiled threats (world peace). I'll trade tolerance (even segregation) for understanding at this point...
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
DEBATE:
COMMENT SENT: 10-Oct-2007 19:50
In a word - no. Considering the proximity and size of the average European country a consensus of money (the Euro) and free travel is important. But every free nation, as long as it's government is representative of and accountable to it's citizenry, should be free to decide how it's citizens should behave, and what to do with those who don't – without interference, condemnation, or retaliation(s) from any other free nation.
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished (Europe and the U.K. do not believe in the Death Penalty so any position that does not coincide with the BBC's views almost always go 'unpublished').
* DEBATE:
How decisive is the North Waziristan battle for Pakistan? (read more: Pakistan Army fighting Taleban)
COMMENT SENT: 10-Oct-2007 14:13
The Taleban, Hamas, Hezbolla, Osama's hitmen, and all like them are not "militants" - they are terrorists. You can close your eyes and ears to the truth if you choose, and do nothing. THAT has been done before - it's called "history" - and if WE repeat it, the consequences will be repeated. Negotiations with, inclusion and tolerance for, or isolationism from terrorists will only allow them to get stronger (ref. Hitler). Fight them now or HOPE the ones you now blame are in a position to help when you need them...
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
DEBATE:
Should President Karzai hold talks with the Taliban?
COMMENT SENT: 09-Oct-2007 21:11
Mr President, Incorporating the Taliban in ANY government will be your undoing, ask Gaza. Don't you realize that when the “foreign” troops leave, the Taliban will turn on you and continue to seek their agenda–an Islamic fundamentalist state backed by terror and not the rule of law? Collateral damage is a terrible side effect of any war; the innocent are always the ones that pay the biggest price, but using it as an excuse to court the Taliban will only alienate your true friends and liberators
COMMENT STATUS:
Published

DEBATE:
Will there be permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula?
COMMENT SENT: 04-Oct-2007 06:24
nope. they have done this before, conceed to get aid then when bellies and coffers are full, they will shut down the country again, and shut out the world. you can't buy peace from a murdering madman (ref. Arafat). "we" should let them wilt of attrition; they can't continue to spend what they don't have. eventually the indoctrinated masses will realize they are a century behind the rest of the world and press for internal change. THEN we should help THEM instead of bailing out the corrupt regime
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
* DEBATE:
How should the world help Burma?
COMMENT SENT: 04-Oct-2007 06:14
The army defied a 1962 election and placed the winner under house arrest ever since, and the UN stood by. Now democracy cries out again, and the UN does nothing. The people have spoke out, and are doing so again. Burma has resources the "west" covets so why do "WE" stand by as an army defies the peoples clear mandate for democracy? The UN will do - nothing - again. It is up to free nations to interviene and there IS a mandate in place to support military intervention. Burma should be liberated!
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
* DEBATE:
Will power sharing between Bhutto and Musharraf work?
COMMENT SENT: 04-Oct-2007 22:48
No way, there is no natural possibilty for a two headed being, Just imagine the stress [and streets] in the middle.
Mario Enrique La Riva Malaga, CUSCO, Peru
 ---
OK, I'll try. Let's see... Fatah, Hamas, Gaza, West Bank....ring a bell? And that's why the "West" is dealing with Fatah. It is not perfect partner for peace but is definately the lesser of two evils that currently "rule" the geo-political areas known as Palestine. go to dictionary.com and type Palestine for a quick history lesson.
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
***DEBATE:
Will power sharing between Bhutto and Musharraf work?
COMMENT SENT: 04-Oct-2007 20:22
This is not chess - it's checkers. One only need know where to emphasize. Issues: pm'S, president, open yet boycotted elections, autonomous regions with tribal warlord leaders, hiding terrorists, dictators, elected leaders in exile, etc. Solution: ONE election open to ALL. ONE winner. ONE leader. one SET term before the NEXT scheduled OPEN election. a WORKING system of checks of power. a VOLUNTEER army. a DEMILITARIZED society. a FREE press. an EDUCATED citizenry. it gets simpler as we go on...
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
DEBATE:
Should President Putin be prime minister?
COMMENT SENT: 03-Oct-2007 04:20
He has the right to manipulate the system to try and stay as powerful as possible as long as he plays within the rules set forth by the constitution. Putin's not the problem, the system is. Russia has not been free long and the new system is a mess, PMs, FMs, Presidents, symbolic posts. who is the true leader and who or what checks his powers? the more complex the system the more room for confusion. as long as the people have their say it's no ones business but the Russian voters and citizens...
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
DEBATE:
Who should form Ukraine's next government?
COMMENT SENT: 03-Oct-2007 04:08
This party leads but another has more votes? coalitions? snap elections? every year or so? jeeze, that's messy-er than the USA elections where who carries what state means one can win without popular vote majority - like Bush. whatever happened to 1 person - 1 vote? one popular vote. one party's nominee wins and viola - one president for one SET term. get your "checks of powers" elsewhere in the government including a constitution. the more complex the system, the more room for problems.
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
* DEBATE:
Should Syria abstain from peace talks?
COMMENT SENT: 02-Oct-2007 16:14
Syria and peace in the same sentence? Syria is right up there with Iran as major state sponsor and safe harbor of terrorism (don't argue – look it up). Giving them back anything would only reward bad behavior. Fortunately their military couldn't defeat the Dallas Cowboys. Syria is a non-factor in war AND peace. If they don't want to attend – fine – less rhetoric and misinformation can only help. Their absence will be the first positive contribution they have made in the region since, uh, ever?
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
**DEBATE:
Should Syria abstain from peace talks?
COMMENT SENT: 02-Oct-2007 16:00
USA created Israel. They should now be looking after themselves not USA and the West babysitting them and being blamed all over the world. Look after yourselves
Peter Rob, LA, USA
 ---
Uh, Rob, you ever actually been IN a history class? UN (not US) created Israel AND Jordan from Trans-Jordan with Israel getting only 17% of what it was supposed to, then fought 3 defensive wars WITHOUT U.S. intervention. They don't need babysitting or help. In fact it is USA that restrains Israel - repeatedly.
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
DEBATE:
Who's got the best vision at the UN General Assembly?
COMMENT SENT: 28-Sep-2007 22:39
UN's goals SHOULD BE to safeguard human and civil rights, and deter war, which it has never been able to do. It is a toothless, useless, forum which allows illegitimate regimes to have equal say and power with representative and accountable ones – a serious flaw. 1 nation=1 vote can never work either for the same reason. The majority is not always right! UN will never work until membership is an earned privilege instead of a gift and Veto requires 2 permanent PLUS majority of security council.
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished
DEBATE:
Burma: How should the world react?
SENT:
27-Sep-2007 22:19
COMMENT:
this situation is such a mess, and a bigger shame. since this government is not representative of or accountable to its citizens (military dictatorship) how is one to measure how strong the push for democracy really is there? do they want help? do they want OUR (USA) help? I know it's a "soverign nation" but aren't the basic human and civil rights of the people there more important than the dictator's? too bad the UN is so inept in political and military matters, THIS should be their focus...
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
DEBATE:
Will black empowerment help Zimbabwe?
SENT:
27-Sep-2007 22:11
COMMENT:
yes, eventually. I see nothing wrong with the partial even majority nationalization of former colonial infrastructure. it's a shame it is being done as it is, but is there really any way to do it that some current entities won't like? of course not. if their government is representative of and accountable to its citizens, and this is what they want, then i think we (USA) should try and assist in some way. we give so much money away to our enemies, why not try and make a friend somewhere instead?
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
***DEBATE:
What can the Iranian president achieve in his US visit?
SENT:
27-Sep-2007 03:02
COMMENT:
Bush and Ahmedinejad, Ahmedinejad and Bush.... the world's most dangerous leader and the world's most stupid. But which is which, people?
Darius, Tehran
 ---
dude! that was beautiful man. and punctuated by being from Iran. We the people here are not that different from you the people there. And neither are our leaders; they are both hilariously rediculous and they both kill in the name of their God. I'm not particularly religous but i doubt that's what HE had in mind...
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
***DEBATE:
What can the Iranian president achieve in his US visit?
SENT:
27-Sep-2007 02:43
COMMENT:
I think the way he, as a guest, was treated by the Americans says far more about America than his own words could ever say.
[MrGrieves], manchester, UK
---
spot on ole chap, but I'll spell it out for the others: we educated and informed few, in proper form and forum, did applaud the efforts of a clown, with appropriate expectable behavior. we laughed. just as we laughed at our own dung-slinger when he preached of civil liberties and human rights hours later. but pray, tell us of our error.
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
* DEBATE:
What can the Iranian president achieve in his US visit?
SENT:
26-Sep-2007 14:15
COMMENT:
He's managed, without even trying, to make the elite of the USA look like a bunch of uncivilized, wide-eyed, war mongering, zealots.
Steve, London
 --
Why? because educated and informed children laughed at a clown during his performance? Are you suggesting his comments we NOT hilarious? Shut your mouth and open your eyes and ears to the truth, then persons like this idiot can be funny for you too...
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished
DEBATE:
What can the Iranian president achieve in his US visit?
SENT:
26-Sep-2007 13:46
COMMENT:
A democracy is not the rule of the masses or majority. Nor do they rule at the point of a gun to its citizens. That is mob rule. A democracy is ruled by the point of law, with the rights of its citizens protected by laws. Under this correct definition most so-called democracies are in fact not. The word is intentionally misused in an attempt to legitimize illegitimate regimes - like the former USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Egypt, Pakistan...the list goes on and on...call Iran what it is...
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished
DEBATE:
Who's got the best vision at the UN General Assembly?
SENT:
26-Sep-2007 13:33
COMMENT:
The UN is a toothless, useless, and worthless forum. Iran is not the first to blatently "ignore" it's resolutions. In fact has one EVER been adhered to? Did Lebanon disarm Hezbolla? Did Hezbolla release the 2 soldiers? Has Syria stopped supporting terrorists? The political proccesses of the UN are pointless. They should relegate themselves to humanitarian aid, the only sphere they have ever had any success at - albeit only somewhat.
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished
* DEBATE:
What can the Iranian president achieve in his US visit?
SENT:
26-Sep-2007 12:58
COMMENT:
He is no more elected by than he is representative of his people. And his '"democracy" is about as democratic as that of China. All that was missing in his prose to the UN and Columbia U was the white face makeup, the size 30 shoes, and red button nose. But the funniest thing of all is he probably actually believes most of what he said. How could educated, informed persons have any other response than laughter? Give a clown a stage and he performs. Their press will respond-as they are told to.
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished
DEBATE:
Is Palestinian state now a real possibility?
SENT:
24-Sep-2007 02:10
COMMENT:
Why can't Jews and Muslims live peacefully together in the same country, as they used to?
Sherif Mohamed, Cairo, Egypt
 ---
in one word? - terrorists... you support them, you encourage them, you finance them, you hide them, they fight your battles, they die for you cause you won't fight for yourself. no problem, we have lots of bullets...and more importantly the ability to make millions, make that billions more, and the nads to use them. YOU wanted this war of cultures. bring it on...
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished
**DEBATE:
Is Palestinian state now a real possibility?
SENT:
24-Sep-2007 01:50
COMMENT:
The myth that somehow a Palestinian state ever existed is something that has to be quashed. The myth that their country was taken from them has to be exposed. These lies and misinformation have almost rewritten history. It is outrageous that people actually think the Palestinians had a state.
Pop eye
 ---
Nice to see someone else was awake during history class. When the UN divided the region Israel only got 17% but the muslims want it all and are willing to murder babies to get it.
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished
**DEBATE:
Is Palestinian state now a real possibility?
SENT:
23-Sep-2007 16:38
COMMENT:
i don't know why i joined this forum as a member - they still won't include my comments which are more based in fact than most i read. i guess i'm not anti-american enuff - oh well, here goes another wasted few minutes... To JD in seattle... you said "Arabs had nothing to do with killing 7 million Jews" you need to brush up on your historical knowledge, or lack thereof. Try referencing Arafat's uncle, turnspeak, and the Nazi-Muslim connection. There was even a TV documentary on it recently...
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished
 ***DEBATE:  Is Palestinian state now a real possibility?
the questions posed in this premise led me to join the forum so I could post to it. Many of the words in my response below are repeated over and over is subsequent posts in varying ways. Why? because ultimately the so-called crisis in the middle east has as simple a solution as the baseness of the dillema - for masters of the obvious any way
COMMENT: SENT: 23-Sep-2007 02:06
We have enough terrorist states as it is. The so-called innocent civilian population of Gaza elected a terrorist group to represent it. That says a lot for those who will listen. The West Bank, Syria, Lebanon and others want "peace" but only if they get all their demands while Israel gets none. That's not negotiation - it's blackmail with terrorism as the alternative. And which 'agreement' have the terrorists honored? Oh, that's right - not one! Not even the one that stopped the war in Lebanon.
COMMENT STATUS:
Unpublished
 
Home