Best-selling journalist Antony Loewenstein trav­els across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, Papua New Guinea, the United States, Britain, Greece, and Australia to witness the reality of disaster capitalism. He discovers how companies such as G4S, Serco, and Halliburton cash in on or­ganized misery in a hidden world of privatized detention centers, militarized private security, aid profiteering, and destructive mining.

Disaster has become big business. Talking to immigrants stuck in limbo in Britain or visiting immigration centers in America, Loewenstein maps the secret networks formed to help cor­porations bleed what profits they can from economic crisis. He debates with Western contractors in Afghanistan, meets the locals in post-earthquake Haiti, and in Greece finds a country at the mercy of vulture profiteers. In Papua New Guinea, he sees a local commu­nity forced to rebel against predatory resource companies and NGOs.

What emerges through Loewenstein’s re­porting is a dark history of multinational corpo­rations that, with the aid of media and political elites, have grown more powerful than national governments. In the twenty-first century, the vulnerable have become the world’s most valu­able commodity. Disaster Capitalism is published by Verso in 2015 and in paperback in January 2017.

Profits_of_doom_cover_350Vulture capitalism has seen the corporation become more powerful than the state, and yet its work is often done by stealth, supported by political and media elites. The result is privatised wars and outsourced detention centres, mining companies pillaging precious land in developing countries and struggling nations invaded by NGOs and the corporate dollar. Best-selling journalist Antony Loewenstein travels to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, Papua New Guinea and across Australia to witness the reality of this largely hidden world of privatised detention centres, outsourced aid, destructive resource wars and militarized private security. Who is involved and why? Can it be stopped? What are the alternatives in a globalised world? Profits of Doom, published in 2013 and released in an updated edition in 2014, challenges the fundamentals of our unsustainable way of life and the money-making imperatives driving it. It is released in an updated edition in 2014.
forgodssakecover Four Australian thinkers come together to ask and answer the big questions, such as: What is the nature of the universe? Doesn't religion cause most of the conflict in the world? And Where do we find hope?   We are introduced to different belief systems – Judaism, Christianity, Islam – and to the argument that atheism, like organised religion, has its own compelling logic. And we gain insight into the life events that led each author to their current position.   Jane Caro flirted briefly with spiritual belief, inspired by 19th century literary heroines such as Elizabeth Gaskell and the Bronte sisters. Antony Loewenstein is proudly culturally, yet unconventionally, Jewish. Simon Smart is firmly and resolutely a Christian, but one who has had some of his most profound spiritual moments while surfing. Rachel Woodlock grew up in the alternative embrace of Baha'i belief but became entranced by its older parent religion, Islam.   Provocative, informative and passionately argued, For God's Sakepublished in 2013, encourages us to accept religious differences, but to also challenge more vigorously the beliefs that create discord.  
After Zionism, published in 2012 and 2013 with co-editor Ahmed Moor, brings together some of the world s leading thinkers on the Middle East question to dissect the century-long conflict between Zionism and the Palestinians, and to explore possible forms of a one-state solution. Time has run out for the two-state solution because of the unending and permanent Jewish colonization of Palestinian land. Although deep mistrust exists on both sides of the conflict, growing numbers of Palestinians and Israelis, Jews and Arabs are working together to forge a different, unified future. Progressive and realist ideas are at last gaining a foothold in the discourse, while those influenced by the colonial era have been discredited or abandoned. Whatever the political solution may be, Palestinian and Israeli lives are intertwined, enmeshed, irrevocably. This daring and timely collection includes essays by Omar Barghouti, Jonathan Cook, Joseph Dana, Jeremiah Haber, Jeff Halper, Ghada Karmi, Antony Loewenstein, Saree Makdisi, John Mearsheimer, Ahmed Moor, Ilan Pappe, Sara Roy and Phil Weiss.
The 2008 financial crisis opened the door for a bold, progressive social movement. But despite widespread revulsion at economic inequity and political opportunism, after the crash very little has changed. Has the Left failed? What agenda should progressives pursue? And what alternatives do they dare to imagine? Left Turn, published by Melbourne University Press in 2012 and co-edited with Jeff Sparrow, is aimed at the many Australians disillusioned with the political process. It includes passionate and challenging contributions by a diverse range of writers, thinkers and politicians, from Larissa Berendht and Christos Tsiolkas to Guy Rundle and Lee Rhiannon. These essays offer perspectives largely excluded from the mainstream. They offer possibilities for resistance and for a renewed struggle for change.
The Blogging Revolution, released by Melbourne University Press in 2008, is a colourful and revelatory account of bloggers around the globe why live and write under repressive regimes - many of them risking their lives in doing so. Antony Loewenstein's travels take him to private parties in Iran and Egypt, internet cafes in Saudi Arabia and Damascus, to the homes of Cuban dissidents and into newspaper offices in Beijing, where he discovers the ways in which the internet is threatening the ruld of governments. Through first-hand investigations, he reveals the complicity of Western multinationals in assisting the restriction of information in these countries and how bloggers are leading the charge for change. The blogging revolution is a superb examination about the nature of repression in the twenty-first century and the power of brave individuals to overcome it. It was released in an updated edition in 2011, post the Arab revolutions, and an updated Indian print version in 2011.
The best-selling book on the Israel/Palestine conflict, My Israel Question - on Jewish identity, the Zionist lobby, reporting from Palestine and future Middle East directions - was released by Melbourne University Press in 2006. A new, updated edition was released in 2007 (and reprinted again in 2008). The book was short-listed for the 2007 NSW Premier's Literary Award. Another fully updated, third edition was published in 2009. It was released in all e-book formats in 2011. An updated and translated edition was published in Arabic in 2012.

The plan

Graham Usher, Al-Ahram Weekly, March 2-8:

In fact Israel has a well-honed strategy for the future. It was being implemented long before Hamas came to office and will continue regardless of whether it stays there, falls or even submits to the “three conditions”. It was authored by Sharon and propounded by Olmert. They called it “separation” but it boils down to Israel’s final, unilateral determination of its borders.

There are three planks. The first is to complete construction of the West Bank wall, which – if the current route is adhered to – will incorporate 10 per cent of the West Bank, including “Greater Jerusalem”, into Israel. The second is to ethnically cleanse the Jordan Valley of its Palestinian residents so that it, too, will become “effectively annexed” to Israel. The third is the effect a permanent severance between the West Bank and Gaza, with the latter becoming the de facto Palestinian “state” with the life support courtesy of its crossing into Egypt. All three of these policies are well advanced, and were so before the 25 January Palestinian Authority elections.

47 comments ↪
  • Chris

    Items one and three seem to be in the best interests of the Israelis, and it is not up to the citizens of Israel to be concerned about the best interest of the Palestinians.

    Let the UN assume control of their lives.

    Item #2 is puzzling. I have not seen anything stating this goal except from sources that would not be considered reliable. I don’t even know why it should be done. Jordan certainly is no threat to Israel.

    As for these plans being drawn up prior to Hamas being elected; Why shouldn’t a government make plans for all possibilities? Are you upset that the Israelis were ready? Are the Israelis required to operate on the level of the Palestinians?

  • Jim Dodrill

    Chris, It is not even remotely “in the best interests of the Israelis” to continue the internationally deemed illegal occupation of the West Bank. This land was invaded and illegally occupied by Israel in 1967. It was never offered as, or intended to become part of the Jewish state by anyone.

    Israel has no right legally, politically or morally to continue building their Berlin Wall styled “Separation Wall” on Palestinian land. The International Court of Justice in The Hague determined that all parts of the barrier not on the green line violates international law because it has been built in occupied territory. Israel’s own Supreme Court in 2005 stated, “We were completely unconvinced that there is a decisive military-security reason for placing the route of the fence where it currently runs”.

    Also, under the Geneva Conventions, the military occupation forces (Israel) are very much legally responsible for the welfare and safety of the local population (the Palestinians). Failure to adhere to this principle is a war crime. If Israel punishes, transfers or appropriates land from any part of the Palestinian population of the West Bank, then Israel is guilty of high crimes. The Separation Wall falls into this category. Ordinary Palestinians are losing land, being cut off, denied basic services and facing even harsher conditions than previously because of the construction of this wall.

    Try as they may to do otherwise, the Israeli political establishment will only gain international legitimacy when they have met the basic conditions of ending their illegal occupation, withdrawing to the 1967 Green Line, and allow the return of the Palestinian refugees, forced out by Israel since 1948. Then and only then will Israel fulfil its obligations and start to be recognized fully by the rest of the international community.

  • orang

    I assume if they are target’s they only have to look over 12?
    Hey you! Beast on two legs – how old are you?
    Eleven
    BANG! – You look 16!!!

    Waaahhhaaaaaaa!!!!!

  • edward squire

    Welcome to Chris’s Planet Might-Is-Right (even if it’s completely immoral).

    Let’s re-word Chris’s first response (Mar 6th, 2006 at 11:36 am). Is it still acceptable?

    Take Indonesia. Occupies East Timor. Re-settles Javanese in East Timor. Army entrenched to protect and support loyal ‘settlers’. Unilateral dictation of terms to East Timorese people. Labels its political leaders as Communist Terrorists hell-bent on destroying the Republic.

    “It is not up to the citizens of Indonesia to be concerned about the best interest of the East Timorese.

    As for these plans being drawn up prior to Fretlin being elected, why shouldn’t a government make plans for all possibilities? Are you upset that the Indonesians were ready? Are the Indonesians required to operate on the level of the East Timorese?”

  • Chris C

    Oh I am going to love Chris’ answer to the question we all seem to have simultaneously asked!

  • Chris C

    Chris,

    I think in your mind the only evidence capable of making our questions/assertions “supportable” is video footage of Olmert saying:

    “My Government will ethnically cleanse the Jordan Valley and annex it to Israel”,

    although I think even then you would find some wiggle room and declare that because Al-Ahram did not quote Olmert verbatim that it was not in keeping with the spirit of what he meant!

  • Chris C

    Chris,

    Are you for real?

    I wonder if you would be so supportive of Operation Barbarossa or the Final Solution, just because they were "so well-planned".

    The point is not that the Israelis are planning (which in the abstract is a prudent thing to do).

    The point is that the plan rides roughshod over UN resolutions, international law, and the Palestinian's right to justice and self-determination.

    I wonder how powerful Israel has to be before you apologists will acknowledge that it does not need to acquire more and more territory to be secure. Probably when all land between the Nile and Euphrates has the Star of David fluttering over it.

    As for your throwaway solution, "Let the UN assume control of their lives", the Palestinians do not need the UN – all they need is the Israeli jackboot to get off their necks.

    I think you find Item 2 puzzling because even you find it over the top – the fact is that Olmert alluded to exactly that – read it in Haaretz.

  • Chris C

    You know what I hate – is that Israel and her apologists will not let the Palestinians become citizens, but then will not also let them get on with their lives, by stealing more land, destroying their livelihood, submitting them to a concentration camp existence.

    Where does Israel expect these people to go? To neighbouring Arab states in which they hold no citizenship??

    PALESTINE WAS NOT UNPOPULATED IN 1948!!!!!!!!

    When will Israelis understand that?

    Why doesnt Israel just throw them into the sea – then the cycle of abused-becomes-abuser that commenced in the 1930s will become complete.

    And people find it difficult to understand why the Palestinians fight back?!! I am just amazed that it took many decades for them to do so!

  • Chris C

    "Let the UN assume control of their lives"

    Indeed!

    Substitute League of Nations for UN and this could have been a callous reply by the Fuehrer to demands that he stop killing Jews.

    Followed up by:

    "What?? I am just transporting them elsewhere – its not my fault they walk into gas chambers", as if they were not being forced in there by Nazis with rifles.

    Just like Palestinian children carrying schoolbags are easily mistaken for heavily armed "terrorists".

    Oh well, they are targets if they are over the age of 12, according to the IDF.

  • Chris

    I am for real. It appears you are not. What 'more and more' territory are you talking about? Honestly, you ramble so between half-points and unsupported nonsense that it is hard to make heads or tales of the jibberish.

    Settle down, take a deep breath, and place your thoughts on paper in a coherent and logical manner. Then post it. Right now, it's really not worth the effort to comment on so much junk.

  • Chris

    Israel has every right, legally, politically and morally to continue building their “Separation Fence” on the land that is under their control.

    The conventions you refer to do not apply to this situation and have no affect whatsoever.

    However, Israel is complying with the rulings of its Supreme Court, as they do apply.

    It is in Israels best interests to complete construction of the West Bank fence, which will incorporate a small percentage of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, into Israel. And to affect a complete and permanent severance between the West Bank and Gaza, with the latter becoming the whatever Palestinian state, with the life support courtesy of its crossing into Egypt, that the inhabitants desire.

  • Jim Dodrill

    >>Israel has every right, legally, politically and morally to continue building their “Separation Fence” on the land that is under their control.

    Did Soviet East Germany have the right to build their wall across Berlin? At least the Soviets allowed a link road to Berlin unlike Israel who stubbornly refuse to allow a link between Gaza and the West Bank.

    Perhaps Israelis don't realize that their wall is doing as much harm to themselves as it is to the Palestinians. It is a PR disaster. It further portrays Israel as belligerent, brutal and unlawful to most of the international community. It has become a dark symbol of oppression and state violence against an innocent civilian population, regardless of what effect it has on militants.

    >>The conventions you refer to do not apply to this situation and have no affect whatsoever.

    Says who? As recently as July 15, 1999, the UN General Assembly voted 115-2 regarding the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits population transfers in occupied territories, to settlements in Israel.

    Chris we cannot even begin move forward on granting legitimacy to Israel while Israel obstinately refuses to meet its legal obligations.

  • Chris C

    I notice Chris that you have nothing to say about the annexation of the Jordan Valley??

    I also notice that you distinguish between the West Bank and Israel proper in terms of where the fence runs, hence:

    "It is in Israels best interests to complete construction of the West Bank fence, which will incorporate a small percentage of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, into Israel."

    Why only a small percentage? Why not the whole damn thing? Why do you distinguish between the West bank and Israel?

    And by what recognisable legal right does Israel have to build the fence in this West Bank? Or settlements for that matter?

    Be specific. PS – the Torah is not an answer.

  • Stev

    Israel has every right, legally, politically and morally to continue building their “Separation Fence” on the land that is under their control.

    Given there is no concrete moral code on which we can all draw, and that international politics and legalities are blurry at best, I think it would be prudent to add the caveat 'I believe' to the above statement. 'The land that is under their control'? Is that along the lines of 'possession is nine tenths of the law'?

    How honourable that Israel has chosen to comply with its own Supreme Court. Hardly seems particularly impartial though now does it? Surely the conflict of interest there is clear to see. Given the attitude Israel seems to have towards the UN (don't get me wrong, I'm not the biggest fan of the UN myself) I have to wonder if you believe Israel should be answerable to anyone but themselves.

    Only time will tell whether the 'fence' is in Israel's best interests. I will concede that such a security measure may decrease attacks on Israel, though I would venture such a decrease would be marginal. After all, where there's a will, there's a way. Just as 'stony limits cannot hold love out' nor can they hold out hate, an equally strong emotion. You believe this action is in Israel's best interest, I believe that the slight reduction in attacks will not outweigh the international condemnation for such an action.

    As I say, though, only time will tell.

  • edward squire

    Chris Mar 6th, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    Israel has every right, [a] legally, [b] politically and [c] morally to continue building their “Separation Fence” on the land that is under their control.

    I assume [a] is justified by the fact that it does not contradict Israeli law. Assuming the Wall and its location does conform to Israeli law, this does not constitute a genuine legal justification. If that were a justification, then you would be compelled to argue (assuming you are consistent), that the Nazi government had every legal right to engage in genocide because this was in conformity with German law at the time. Do you accept this is the case?

    I assume [b] is justified by the mere fact that the Israeli state can do it and is in conformity with the rules of Israeli democracy (the party instituting it was duly elected). If that is so, then you would have to argue (assuming you are consistent), that Hitler's vicious anti-Semitism was politically justified because the Nazi party came to power in accordance with the rules of German democracy at the time.

    I can't see any obvious justification for the most important point – i.e. [c] – moral right. You refer to it being in the "best interest" of Israelis, but that in itself has never been considered a moral justification of anything by any moral philosopher. Could you please elaborate on the moral justification for the building of the Wall beyond, say, the pre-67 borders? Thanks.

  • Chris

    The UN does not have the right to violate legal rights of other nations by vote. The UN General assembly is not the vehicle by which it is determined whether or not International law applies.

    Israel does not depend on, nor require you granting legitimacy on anything, anywhere, at anytime.

    And it seems it is Squire's make-believe world he comments on. So there is no need for an answer, is there?

  • Progressive_Atheist

    Chris,

    You are talking like a Nazi apologist advocating the extermination of the Jews. It is people like you who make Leunig's cartoon comparison between Nazi Germany and modern Israel tragically accurate.

  • Chris

    You'll have to prove that. I have not advocated killing anyone.

    You are a wonderful example of why people believe that knee-jerk reactions are ridiculous. I suggest you ice your knees and let them rest while you post something supportable.

  • Chris C

    Chris – how pathetic.

    Looks like I was right the first time – your answer is THE TORAH MADE ME DO IT!!!!

  • Chris C

    Find and replace Israel with the Third Reich:

    "[The Third Reich] does not depend on, nor require you granting legitimacy on anything, anywhere, at anytime."

    … and six years later, 50 million dead.

    The complete replacement of morality with power.

    Who said Israeli apologists learnt nothing from their former Nazi overlords?

    By that logic, Chris, you should have no MORAL opposition to Iran acquiring nukes, correct?

  • Chris

    Still haven't iced those knees?

    Chris C

    Mar 6th, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    I notice Chris that you have nothing to say about the annexation of the Jordan Valley??

    *********************************

    You must not have read my initial post. I have not read anything from any reliable source stating that this action is contemplated.

    The rest of your unsupported assertions are not worth bothering with, are they?

  • Chris C

    " I suggest you ice your knees and let them rest while you post something supportable. "

    Eg, statements like:

    "Israel does not depend on, nor require you granting legitimacy on anything, anywhere, at anytime."

    "Israel has every right, legally, politically and morally to continue building their “Separation Fence” on the land that is under their control."

    "The conventions you refer to do not apply to this situation and have no affect whatsoever."

    "It is in Israels best interests to complete construction of the West Bank fence, which will incorporate a small percentage of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, into Israel. And to affect a complete and permanent severance between the West Bank and Gaza, with the latter becoming the whatever Palestinian state, with the life support courtesy of its crossing into Egypt, that the inhabitants desire."

    Like THESE supportable comments, for which no supporting evidence has been furnished once anyone questions them?

    Hey, Ant, can you set up a kiddies forum – I reckon Chris could get some great use out of it.

  • Chris

    Leave your petty insults at home.

    My comments are supportable, yours are just blanket accusations thrown in a hodge-podge method guaranteed to elicit refutation.

    They are not worth bothering with. It is almost as if you keep a list of accusations handy to toss out when you've run out of reason. Kiddy forum, what a joke.

  • Chris C

    Chris,

    Olmert's quote re: Jordan Valley:

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/682399.html

    Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's declaration that Israel "cannot relinquish control over Israel's eastern border."

    Or is Haaretz not reliable enough? Why dont YOU tell us what is a reliable source?

    As for the rest of what I said, there were no assertions (unsupported or otherwise), only questions.

    Questions, which like those from everyone else here, you have thus far refused to answer.

    To repeat:

    {{{{{{I also notice that you distinguish between the West Bank and Israel proper in terms of where the fence runs, hence:

    “It is in Israels best interests to complete construction of the West Bank fence, which will incorporate a small percentage of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, into Israel.”

    Why only a small percentage? Why not the whole damn thing? Why do you distinguish between the West bank and Israel?

    And by what recognisable legal right does Israel have to build the fence in this West Bank? Or settlements for that matter?

    Be specific. PS – the Torah is not an answer.}}}}

    Which part of the above is an assertion??

  • Chris C

    MY COMMENTS ARE SUPPORTABLE!!!

    Oh well I guess saying so makes it so.

    Just like:

    ISRAEL HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING THEY WANT, AND THE WORLD CAN GO JUMP!!

    "just blanket accusations thrown in a hodge-podge method guaranteed to elicit refutation"

    Ooh ooh, GUARANTEED to elicit refutation?!!!!!

    Oh, please do Chris, please refute my comments!!!

    And while you are at it, dumbarse, look up "comment" in the dictionary, then turn to letter Q and look up "question".

    Once you are firmly convinced of the difference, look at my posts again, and understand that they are questions, not comments.

  • Chris C

    Guess what, Chris – this pathetic "might/Torah makes right" reasoning you use might win the debates on the Haaretz chatroom, but over here in Australia where people are a bit smarter, it is quickly exposed for the rubbish it is.

    You have thus far REFUSED TO ANSWER EVEN ONE QUESTION OR REFUTATION posed by anyone on this whole topic today.

    YOU are unsupportable.

    PS – suggest you try this link:

    http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/ZionistKiddiesF

  • Chris

    There is nothing in the article that states what Loewenstein posted regarding the Jordan Valley. So your statement is unsupportable.

    Again, unsupportable accusations are not worth refuting. The accusations are meaningless. Your clumsy attempts to elicit heated refutation are rather ridiculous.

  • Chris C

    Note to Chris:

    In general, assertions do not end in question marks.

    In general, questions end in question marks.

    That is, in general, assertions DO NOT EQUAL questions.

  • Chris

    In general? I did not know that generalities were involved or that anyone was restrained by any such generalities. I am not restricted by any such generalities, and certainly no generalities in which you are the deciding factor.

    Generally speaking.

  • Chris C

    Brilliant Chris, you are finally responding to our QUESTIONS!

    "There is nothing in the article that states what Loewenstein posted regarding the Jordan Valley."

    That is:

    "ethnically cleanse the Jordan Valley of its Palestinian residents so that it, too, will become “effectively annexed” to Israel."

    Oh, OK, well if Olmert's direct quote:

    "That Israel cannot relinquish control over Israel’s eastern border", does not mean that then you are more doe-eyed than I thought.

    And before you ask me to support my assertion, I have the precedents of: Al-Quds, West Bank Settlements, Golan Heights where Israel has enacted the following:

    1) Decided that the territory is indispensable;

    2) Commenced settlement;

    3) Eventually cleared any Palestinians.

    If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and expropriates like a duck, its a fu*king duck

  • Chris C

    Honestly Chris, the dictionary is easy to navigate:

    A is for assertion

    C is for comment

    Q is for question

    Good to see you have mastered the word "general" though. Thats good.

    G is for general.

  • Chris C
  • Chris

    “The second is to ethnically cleanse the Jordan Valley of its Palestinian residents so that it, too, will become “effectively annexed” to Israel.”

    There is still no reliable source proving this allegation.

  • Chris

    Many of your unsupportable assertions remind me of the unsupportable semi-quotes supplied by others on this blog.

  • Addamo

    By unsupportable, does that mean you are not willing to believe them or hat they are false?

  • Chris

    Unsupportable in that the references used were not direct quotes, or no references are given, or that they were jokes. They are false in the same way your infamous liberty statement was false.

  • Addamo

    As do asserino fo th efinancial concerns leading to the postponement of the Rachel Corrie play, and the assertino that her alledged pregnancy drove her to suicide.

    See, we all do it Chris.

  • Chris

    All I did was put forth suppositions which have neither been proved nor dismissed. They remain as theory. It is likely that the theatre would suffer a financial loss as no theatre that I know of has not capitalized on controversy as a way of selling more tickets and turning a play of little value to a success do to the controversy.

    That this theatre group decided to turn it down was more likely due to anticipated poor sales. Most likely because of the repugnancy of the subject. Who cares about some misguided fool who likely substituted the responsibility of taking her own life, with all the complications, with allowing a bulldozer to take the place of a gun or noose placed by her own hands.

    Any autopsy reports giving the certainty of her status, other than dead?

    Regardless, none of this has been stated as fact. They they are in no way related to orang's false reports.

  • Addamo

    You have not explained how anticipated poor ticket sales woudl casue the theatre comnpany to postponing the play as opposed to turning down the producrtion altogether.

    You insist that corri took her own like when even Israel's own investigation deduced that she was killed by falling debris. Death by pre-cognition? Sometimes you back yourself into t acorner so blindly Chris, that i wonder if your brain has shut down and som e auto-pilot software has not overtaken your resposnses.

    In both these examples, you strayed entirely from the available evidence.

  • Chris

    I don't need to explain it, merely to speculate about it.

    You seem to have strayed far from the fact that orang, C, and yourself have posted false statements.

  • Addamo

    In that case, we don’t need to explain our statements either. By your scrambled reasoning, it’s enough just to make a statesmen, preface it with “it appears” and insisted it was speculation. In the face of evidence, we can all branch of into incoherent tangents and stray from topics all we like.

    Where would that lead? How producrtive would that be?

  • Chris

    Statements, not opinion, theories, or allegations. The reasons were given for such and require no further explanations.

    Your statements, on the other hand, which are treated as facts (even though you tend to manufacture them) do need explanation.

    If you'd rather not explain them, then they will be cast aside. There is nothing else to be done with them. You can certainly cast aside my opinions. It matters little to me.

  • Addamo

    The Eastern Wall
    Closing the Circle of Our Ghettoization
    http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Secti

  • Chris

    Still nothing reliable. Nothing is hidden. the ZMag article is over 2 months old, and nothing from the very liberal press. Therefore it appears not to be true.

  • Addamo

    2 months old means what? That it is no longer true?

    So unless it appears on Fox of NBC (which rarely reports anything about what takes place in teh opccupied territories anyway) it isn't taking place?

    Didn't that lieral press also seel us BS abotu WMD, 911 links to Iraq and Al Qaeda links to Saddam?

  • Glenn Condell

    Chris

    does the phrase 'wriggling on a pin' mean anything to you?

    There are no shortcuts out of the corner you have backed yourself into, but we'll all have fun watching you try.

  • Chris

    It means that it apparently was never true.