Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iraqi Move Puts Israel In Lonely U.S. Corner; Peres: Ousting Saddam a 'Must'
The Forward ^

Posted on 09/19/2002 4:28:48 PM PDT by RCW2001

Iraqi Move Puts Israel In Lonely U.S. Corner

Peres: Ousting Saddam a 'Must'

By MARC PERELMAN
FORWARD STAFF

UNITED NATIONS — Saddam Hussein's surprise acceptance of "unconditional" United Nations weapons inspections put Israel on the hot seat this week, forcing it into the open as the only nation actively supporting the Bush administration's goal of Iraqi regime change.

Israel and its supporters have insisted for weeks that while they sympathize with the administration's hard-line stance toward Baghdad, they were reluctant to advocate any position openly. The reluctance was fueled by fears that critics would claim the United States was going to war on Israel's behalf — or even, as some have suggested, at Israel's behest.

But Israel's diffident stance appeared untenable this week after most capitals welcomed the Iraqi announcement Monday that it would accept the return of weapons inspectors without conditions. The Iraqi gambit seems to have reversed the momentum created by President Bush's forceful speech to the U.N. General Assembly on September 12 and left only Jerusalem, and to a lesser extent London, backing Washington in its determination for regime change in Iraq.

"The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must," Foreign Minister Shimon Peres flatly told reporters this week in New York, after a meeting with Secretary of State Colin Powell. "Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors."

"Saddam Hussein is the dictator with the worst record," Peres said. "This is not a war against Iraq. It is a campaign against Saddam Hussein."

While the dramatic shift at the U.N. has pushed Jerusalem closer to Washington, diplomats and observers warned that it might increase American pressure on Israel — both to moderate its stance toward Iraq and to soften its views on talks with the Palestinians.

In particular, observers pointed to heightened American fears of an Israeli retaliation to an Iraqi attack provoking a regional escalation — especially at a time when the U.S. appears to be unexpectedly isolated in its confrontation with Baghdad.

"The U.S. would not welcome Israeli participation because it is not needed and would only complicate the political reaction from the Arabs," said Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counter-terrorism division. "It would also likely hurt Kuwait and Qatar, two Arab countries from which U.S. force will be deployed."

The same dangers would exist, several observers said, in the event of a total collapse of ongoing Israeli discussions with the Palestinians. Arab politicians, including King Abdullah of Jordan, have speculated that Israel might use the disruption of an American-Iraqi war to move against the Palestinians, warning that such an Israeli move would provoke "chaos."

Israeli officials acknowledged this week that they had received indications of American nervousness, though it was unclear whether or not there had been a formal American request for Israeli restraint on either front.

In the months leading up to this week's U.N. drama, Israeli officials have warned more than once that Israel would retaliate in the event of an Iraqi strike, hinting that they believed Washington would not object. Last week, however, Israel's military chief of staff, Lieutenant General Moshe Ya'alon, told the Knesset foreign affairs and defense committee that "America would be very happy if we are not involved in this attack, at least at this stage."

"Let them do the job alone," Ya'alon told lawmakers, according to Israeli news reports.

Israel's new ambassador to the United States, Danny Ayalon, quickly responded to Ya'alon's reported comments by telling reporters that Washington had not asked Israel to stay out of any military action against Iraq.

Gregg Sullivan, a State Department spokesman, confirmed that there were "no indications" that Washington had asked Israel to refrain from retaliating to an Iraqi attack.

"I suppose we'll talk about implications later on," he added.

Peres, asked whether Washington had made a formal request for Israeli restraint, remained vague.

"I would leave it to the circumstances," he said. "There are so many variations that it would be unwise to elect one."

He said that in the event of a war, however, Israel would behave as a "responsible soldier and a loyal one."

"There will be one war and one command," he said. "We don't suggest there will be two wars and two commands. Within that, Israel will take all the measures to defend itself and Powell said the U.S. would also take measures to protect us."

On Friday, an Iraqi cabinet minister threatened that Baghdad would attack Israel if it took part in an American military strike. Israel "will suffer a profound and an unforgettable strike if it interferes in the war," Iraqi Trade Minister Mohammed Mahdi Saleh told the United Arab Emirates newspaper Al-Khaleej.

In another nod to Washington's concerns, Peres said Israel would not halt ongoing discussions with the Palestinians in the event of a war.

"The Israeli policy is clear. We are not going to link the Palestinian issue to the Iraqi one, and we will continue our talks with the Palestinians no matter what happens," he said.

Sullivan, the State Department spokesman, said Washington had asked Israel to continue discussions with the Palestinians regardless of whether or not there is a war with Iraq.

Last weekend, Americans started providing security training to some 30 Palestinians, mostly members of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, with Egyptian and Jordanian assistance and partial Saudi financing.

Diplomats agreed that Iraq had managed at least momentarily to halt the momentum created by Bush's speech last week at the U.N.

"Saddam was very clever on this one," a diplomat at the U.N. told the Forward. "He knows that most countries want the inspectors back in quickly but that only America and to a lesser degree Great Britain are demanding regime change."

After Iraq agreed to admit U.N. weapons inspectors without conditions, Washington dismissed the move as a tactic meant to split the Security Council and called for a new council resolution spelling out in precise terms the steps Iraq needs to take to meet U.N. demands.

While British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw expressed what he called a "high degree of skepticism" toward Iraqi compliance, Russia and China said the Iraqi acceptance of inspections was a victory for concerted international efforts.

"Now our main task is to ensure that the inspectors can get to Iraq as soon as possible and start their work," Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told reporters.

France held the middle ground, saying that the U.N. must take Iraq at its word and send inspectors, but that the U.N. must also hold Saddam to his words.

Despite the swirling debate, Sullivan said there were no substantial differences among council members. While he acknowledged Washington was the only country openly advocating regime change, he said it was a natural consequence of U.N. resolutions.

Nevertheless, he said the administration was willing to give the inspections "one last chance."

"We are ready to do it, although we are very skeptical and we believe Saddam will thwart them like he did in the past," he added. "When he fails, we will need to use other means."

The diplomat at the U.N. said that even if Washington agrees to the return of inspectors, there would still be a strong likelihood that disagreements would surface between Washington and Baghdad, either during negotiations over the scope of the inspectors' mandate or after the inspectors hit the ground in Iraq.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Israel
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 09/19/2002 4:28:48 PM PDT by RCW2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
"France held the middle ground." With that evaluation the author's argument comes crashing down around his ears.

It is quite obvious that events are moving too quickly for the Lefties to respond intelligently. Bush is playing a game of "rapid transit" chess and they can't think fast enough. Unprincipled, the Left doesn't know what to say or what move to make from day to day--and it shows.

2 posted on 09/19/2002 4:36:16 PM PDT by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001; SJackson; dennisw
Actually, that corner doesn't seem all that lonely - what with the UK in it, the Scandinavian NATO members, and more climbing aboard :).

In other news, I saw your other home, LibertyForum, got tagged with an official hate site classification today. Way to go, and congrats to the employers who won't have their productivity impaired by employees hobnobbing with David Duke wannabes.

3 posted on 09/19/2002 4:41:57 PM PDT by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cachelot
congrats to the employers who won't have their productivity impaired by employees

I'm not sure why you are "congrat..ing" the employers as I'm sure they had very little to do with it.

I must agree however that employees shouldn't have their hand in their employers pocket by 'surfing' on company time.

And finally, yes LibertyForum.org is an entertaining and open forum where debate isn't stifled, hence some of the rhetoric gets a bit 'overbearing'.

I can deal with the 'overbearing' but I can see how some, such as yourself perhaps, would require that some special committee and filter decide for you...what you can view and access. If your comfortable with that, well...so am I.

4 posted on 09/19/2002 5:06:11 PM PDT by RCW2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
I'm not sure why you are "congrat..ing" the employers as I'm sure they had very little to do with it.

This is a benefit to them, so why are they not to be congratulated? I mean, that particular filter seems to be aimed mostly at businesses, even though it also seem to share data with all the others.

hence some of the rhetoric gets a bit 'overbearing'.

Rotfl.

5 posted on 09/19/2002 5:17:02 PM PDT by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cachelot
What happened...did your mommie update the 'filter' on her computer and now you can't 'join in the fun' anymore??

LOL...

6 posted on 09/19/2002 5:24:41 PM PDT by RCW2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Bush didn't lose a beat after Saddam's shuck-and-jive this week. The gang at the liberal Forward needs to grow a set, know what I mean? And it's damn cozy in the U.S. corner. Right, might, what better friend could Israel have, and vice-versa?
7 posted on 09/19/2002 5:28:29 PM PDT by veronica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
What happened...did your mommie update the 'filter' on her computer and now you can't 'join in the fun' anymore??

Oh, I can always join in the "fun". Ain't a filter built that applies to me ;).

No, as for what happened, I just noticed LF was behaving like an anthill that someone poured gasoline on. It's positively heartwarming :)).

8 posted on 09/19/2002 5:33:32 PM PDT by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: veronica
And it's damn cozy in the U.S. corner. Right, might, what better friend could Israel have, and vice-versa?

It's the ONLY corner Israel has as an option...beggers can't be choosers, eh?

9 posted on 09/19/2002 6:37:30 PM PDT by RCW2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cachelot
behaving like an anthill that someone poured gasoline on.

pouring it on isn't the "fun of it"..."tossing the match" is!

10 posted on 09/19/2002 6:41:35 PM PDT by RCW2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: veronica
Who WOULDN'T want to be in the same corner as the biggest and best power going? Is this column supposed to be some kind of rebuke? The US is now on par with...Belgium as a world power?

I am amazed at those that have embraced weakness as a virtue to be emulated.Just look at my country ;-)
11 posted on 09/19/2002 6:43:01 PM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
So, its begging to side with the US, versus such staunch allies Israel has throughout its region?

Anyone that goes against the US will LOSE, as it should be.
12 posted on 09/19/2002 6:44:50 PM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Even Shimon Peres thinks Sadaam must go now...and he doesn't even think that of Arafat!

What does that say about the sordid, craven, fools in the U.N. (Kofi Annan, France, Russia and Schroder) and the American Left?

13 posted on 09/19/2002 6:49:04 PM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
It says so much about you that you think there is something wrong with being an ally of the United States. Why don't you try defending America and it's allies occasionally? That is if you can tear your lips from Saudi butt.
14 posted on 09/19/2002 6:52:49 PM PDT by veronica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: veronica; Cachelot; dennisw; RCW2001
Fetid water, poor circulation, fish feces, oxygenated algae rises to the top as pond scum.

Really stinky, slimy, smelly stuff (I know, there are those in Berkley who think it can be converted to energy).

The LF versión of “free speech” is, in fact, anarchy, and the pond scum rises to the top, as in any small, fetid pond. Consolation for the skunks and skunk apes of the internet, I’m sure.

The cure, the light of day, circulation, sunshine, healthy plant and fish life.

Natural filtration.

Hate site, I’m sure it’s a symbol of pride to the denizens of LF, they can brag to their like minded friends (the only ones allowed) about their versión of liberty.

Seig Heil, Madame Defarge.

15 posted on 09/19/2002 6:53:14 PM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Ousting Saddam a 'Must'

Gotta spend more time with those 'Hooked on Phonics' tapes, I thought it said OUTING Saddam a 'Must'.

16 posted on 09/19/2002 6:54:51 PM PDT by pbear8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
So, its begging to side with the US?

Apparently, to some. ;)

17 posted on 09/19/2002 6:55:22 PM PDT by veronica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
It's the ONLY corner Israel has as an option...beggers can't be choosers, eh?

FNA RCW. Beggers can't be choosers, so they choose America. You don't seem very proud of America and her allies. You don't seem to like America much.

Oh well, I suspect America will survive without the support of the RCW's of the world.

Don't forget to chect SFgate and Haaertz in the AM, good hunting, I look forward to your posts, though I admit there are better things than the smell of liberal theology in the morning.

18 posted on 09/19/2002 6:58:56 PM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: veronica
It's the same lingo the Soviet apologists used for several decades as well.
19 posted on 09/19/2002 7:03:01 PM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: veronica
Saudi butt

Clean it up please, this isn't a porno site.

20 posted on 09/19/2002 7:04:04 PM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Hate site, I’m sure it’s a symbol of pride to the denizens of LF

I'm sure it is. But still, they were upset and bent on telling this filtering site off. JD wrote a "press release" which he proceeded to press into the grubby little hands of folks like Madrussian, NimbleBunny, kudzu, Voegelin et al with a plea to spread the word to all cyberspace.

SurfControl. Test www.libertyforum.org

21 posted on 09/19/2002 7:06:42 PM PDT by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
pouring it on isn't the "fun of it"..."tossing the match" is!

Geeez. You a firebug or something?

22 posted on 09/19/2002 7:09:24 PM PDT by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever; Scott from the Left Coast; veronica; SJackson
"unconditional"?

Apparently the Backward didn't get the memo.

So the Backward prefers Iraq and Saddam's corner?

Deathwish. Saddam is going down.

Will O.D. on B-2.

23 posted on 09/19/2002 7:10:29 PM PDT by PhilDragoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cachelot
I'm sure it is. But still, they were upset and bent on telling this filtering site off. JD wrote a "press release" which he proceeded to press into the grubby little hands of folks like Madrussian, NimbleBunny, kudzu, Voegelin et al with a plea to spread the word to all cyberspace.

I’m sure they were upset, and bent.

Madrussian, NimbleBunny, kudzu, Voegelin; yes, those are some grubby hands, I wouldn’t press their hands, even if I was running for office. My keyboard rebels as I write this, it forgot them.

Nothing like being banned. It will generate hits, of the SamFran, NatVan, Duke variety, but to some a hit is a hit.

America seems to be moving the other way. Wonder what happens when the power goes off in Iraq.

24 posted on 09/19/2002 7:16:35 PM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
Deathwish. Saddam is going down.

Yup.

25 posted on 09/19/2002 7:17:53 PM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
On the one hand you have Israel and Israelis standing with the US and fighting terrorism. On the other hand (or finger) you have...
26 posted on 09/19/2002 7:27:31 PM PDT by veronica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: veronica
On the one hand you have Israel and Israelis standing with the US and fighting terrorism. On the other hand (or finger) you have...

Handsome dude, love the shirt, the fingers, and especially the napkin (from Shoneys, I suspect) on his head. Bad attitude, though, good thing he was "interacting" with the press, wouldn't want him to break his keyboard fingers. Some forums would be out multiple hits.

Think we know him?

27 posted on 09/19/2002 7:33:40 PM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
I’m sure it’s a symbol of pride to the denizens of LF, they can brag to their like minded friends (the only ones allowed) about their versión of liberty.

In fact, LF has been open to all since late August.

Does JimRob know you waste his bandwidth trashing on other sites?

28 posted on 09/22/2002 5:48:03 PM PDT by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cachelot
LibertyForum, got tagged with an official hate site classification today.

SurfControl realized their error and reclassified the site as a news site.

29 posted on 09/23/2002 3:18:02 AM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
The LF versión of “free speech” is, in fact, anarchy...

So, you're an advocate of censorship then?

The spam posts are often rated down and people have the ability to adjust their view threshhold so they don't even see it.

30 posted on 09/23/2002 3:21:26 AM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
SurfControl realized their error and reclassified the site as a news site.

I'll bet you a cigar that the "reclassification" won't last ;).

31 posted on 09/23/2002 7:12:36 AM PDT by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman; Cachelot
So, you're an advocate of censorship then? … The spam posts are often rated down and people have the ability to adjust their view threshhold so they don't even see it.

Oh, please, if you fall off that high horse you might hurt yourself.

I don’t have a lot of interest in a long winded discussion of the merits of LF.

Re your “censorship” nonsense, free speech doesn’t guarantee publication as I’m sure you well know. That's why your skunk isn't below the fold on the NYT. Competing media providers, whether print or internet, enforce standards of what they wish to publish, or what commentary they wish to include on their site, and consumers exercise choice as to whom they wish to patronize. That’s not censorship any more than the fact that my local Ford agency doesn’t sell Chevies is restraint of trade.

Some sites, like FR or LP use their own standards of content propriety in determining what they will allow to be posted.

LF used restricted membership (past tense, I know, it’s open now) to control the viewpoint of it’s membership, and uses the LF mob to rate (censor, in your terms) the “spam” posts.

Same result. Posters can vote with their keyboards as to which method they prefer.

32 posted on 09/23/2002 7:39:37 AM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MadameAxe
Does JimRob know you waste his bandwidth trashing on other sites?

Is this a particularly pathetic attempt to have the facts about "LibertyForum" hidden?

Let's have a few facts. Kudzu, by her own admission from Saudi Arabia and an avid antisemite, has close to 20% of all posts on the forum. Texoma, known to many of us, have around 14-15%. Laconas, old nazi, is #3, I think. These three would seem to be close to 50% of all posts on LF. In addition, there's handful of hi-volume posters with more or less Nazi/Jihadist views - Skunk with his slimedripping holocoust celebrations, Voegelin with his Jews under every bed, and JRadcliffe with his screeches about "going to KILL everyone trying to get him to obey a law he doesn't like" are quite representative of the forum overall tone.

Think you stand a snowball's chance in h*ll? I don't.

33 posted on 09/23/2002 9:08:57 AM PDT by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MadameAxe
Is discussing other sites verboten at FR? God knows they spend hours and hours navel gazing about FR at LF.
34 posted on 09/23/2002 12:00:55 PM PDT by veronica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
LF used restricted membership (past tense, I know, it’s open now) to control the viewpoint of it’s membership...

False. LF used a restricted membership during its beta testing phase only to test the software, server load, etc. It wasn't restricted to control any viewpoint.

...and uses the LF mob to rate (censor, in your terms) the “spam” posts.

False. Users can set their rating threshhold to the lowest setting and see every post including the spam. No posts are deleted.

35 posted on 09/23/2002 12:33:31 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: veronica
Is discussing other sites verboten at FR? God knows they spend hours and hours navel gazing about FR at LF.

That's why it's important to save bandwidty, global warming shortage (or is it controled by a worldwide conspiracy) you know.

Navel gazing? That like cow tipping?

Navel?

or Navel

or Naval?

????????????????????

36 posted on 09/23/2002 2:56:54 PM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: Tropoljac
I'm not fond of the anti-semites.

So it's true what I hear, there are anti-semites, or should I say Jewhaters, there. Not many here anymore. Most of them migrated I guess. :)

38 posted on 09/23/2002 6:06:40 PM PDT by veronica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: Tropoljac
I'm not fond of the anti-semites, but they're easy to put down in argument

Actually, they're not. Usually, it goes something like this:


Mr. Normal:   Normal, sane argument.
Mr. Joohater: But the Joooos......
Mr. Normal:   Another piece of sanity.
Mr. Joohater: But the Jooooos.....

Ad infinitum.

Your classic or garden variety Antisemite has a Jewish problem which can only be solved in the way Hitler sought to, or if he is put down. Literally. His Jewish problem is over when all Jews are dead or when he is dead. He is mentally as incurable as a pedophile (and there is probably a considerable overlap between the two groups).

40 posted on 09/23/2002 7:28:56 PM PDT by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

To: SJackson
LF used restricted membership (past tense, I know, it’s open now) to control the viewpoint of it’s membership

Actually we were closed due to the software development effort, not for the reason you assert. And, I quite agree with you that some of our posters express views that I for one certainly find repugnant. But, that's the price of allowing everyone to express their views. It's not actually "free speech", if it's only defined as "speech I agree with", is it? That's what our site's about.

I think there's plenty of room on the 'net for all three of our sites - FR, LP, and LF. I don't see why people waste their time pursuing inter-site flame wars. Isn't that what the AFers have always been looked down upon for, and the DU disrupters? Why be like them?

42 posted on 09/23/2002 7:57:37 PM PDT by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cachelot
I'll bet you a cigar that the "reclassification" won't last ;).

Really, will you be attending to that personally?

Actually, I have to thank all of you for that temporary classification. We couldn't have bought better publicity for the site. Thanks for the boost.

You all have a good evening.

43 posted on 09/23/2002 8:00:20 PM PDT by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tropoljac
Ah, Skunkie...more mentally unbalanced than a teeter-totter

Indeed. You should see his usenet postings. Now, there is some startling stuff ;).

It's quite obvious you're referring to him....

Well, not only him. There are others almost reaching his "sane as a hatter" level. I'd say that people producing between 60-80% of the forum output is in that unfortunate cathegory.

As for "merit" of arguments - LF isn't exactly a "meritocracy" in that respect. More like bedlam, actually :).

44 posted on 09/23/2002 8:05:14 PM PDT by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: MadameAxe
We couldn't have bought better publicity for the site.

Yes, I noticed that your Nazi section seemed rather proud of beeing a "house of ill repute".

You all have a good evening.

And a good evening to you too, Madam.

46 posted on 09/23/2002 8:11:13 PM PDT by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MadameAxe
Really, will you be attending to that personally?

Are you kidding me? The "reclassification" would be because of an email action from your critters, and would be normal procedure while SurfControl did a verification of the site. After verification they would probably have read their fill of Skunk, Voegelin, Madrussian, Kosciusko and similar. Guess what the normal outcome would be?

So it seems I won that bet. Since I'm not about to give out a snail address to people who feature this guy:

http://www.giwersworld.org/

as an invited (he would have to be invited, yes?) guest, you can send any cigars - exploding or not - to Mr. Clintoon ;).

47 posted on 09/25/2002 2:34:20 AM PDT by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Cachelot
Since I'm not about to give out a snail address to people who feature this guy:

http://www.giwersworld.org/

as an invited (he would have to be invited, yes?) guest, you can send any cigars - exploding or not - to Mr. Clintoon ;).

Sorry, I'm not following you. What is the relevance of your link, and who is asking you for a snail address?

48 posted on 09/25/2002 2:53:08 PM PDT by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MadameAxe
Sorry, I'm not following you. What is the relevance of your link, and who is asking you for a snail address?

Ah, I thought you had read the preceding posts since you got into the conversation between that other fellow and me. Anyway, the cigar thing was my bet :). I won it. LF is now "hate speech" on SurfControl again.

As to the link: that is one of your members - a guy who git in there at a time he had to be invited. Par for the course, it seems you have used the "test period" to seed the place with all the scum of the earth. I think his forum name is "Iron8webmaster". His real name is Matt (Matthias) Giwer, and he is just the kind you seem to be happy to host. More on him can be found here:

Giwer

So, who sponsored that particular Nazist kingpin? Just curious ;).

49 posted on 09/25/2002 4:25:33 PM PDT by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Cachelot
I thought you had read the preceding posts since you got into the conversation between that other fellow and me.

Well, I just kind of focused on your slams on LF and didn't really pay attention to the other details.

he is just the kind you seem to be happy to host.

Ridiculous. As you are no doubt aware, JD has chosen to make LF a free speech site; we don't ban anyone. Even the most obnoxious moron will not be turned away (although they may quickly end up in the FAME basement with their posts coming out at low ratings).

What will happen that is so horrible if the few "haters" out of our 800+ forum members says something hateful on our site, besides making people disgusted with the "hater"? Don't you believe that people can think for themselves, and will recognize a knuckle-dragging scumbag by their knuckle-dragging posts? Why wouldn't you want their propaganda to be refuted? You're welcome to sign out an ID there and do so yourself, but be warned that "flamebait" posts containing personal attacks are rated down often.

So, who sponsored that particular Nazist kingpin?

Kingpin? No matter; I really don't care because I am not in any way trying to stick up for this person but rather for a site I am fond of. It doesn't break anyone's confidence to tell you that it wasn't me, though.

50 posted on 09/25/2002 7:39:42 PM PDT by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson