Confederate States Of America (2005)

But there is no question of choosing between Israel and America, because we are on the same side. The American taxpayer gives more money to Africa than to Israel, penny for penny, our monetary support for Israel amounts to very little.

I wish Americans who are opposed to Israel would wake up to the fact that they are our allies in a region crawling with traitors, terrorists, and enemies. Perhaps you don't like Israel because they are Jews..but please, put aside this prejudice for the sake of our national security. It was not the Israelis who danced and cheered when we were attacked. Their enemies are our enemies, too. They could be very helpful to us in the war on terror, and they have a well-trained military accustomed to the tactics of islamic terrorists, the same people who would see of all us dead.
I realize this is off-topic a bit, but it makes me very sad to see conservatives acting like the leftists--they also hate Israel and wish them all dead.

Thanks for letting me vent.

That would be the German Unification of 1871, when Saxe-Cobug Gotha became part of the German Empire.

No. Like neighboring Bavaria, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha retained its monarchy past Bismarck's unification of the northern Germanic states in 1871. This lasted until the end of World War I and in 1918 Saxe-Coburg and Gotha merged with Bavaria and Thuringen, who then joined Weimar Germany.

I was asked, without cause, [M. Espinola #1523] "6) If an elected official has a proven conservative voting record would you still vote for them if they were an African American seeking higher office?"

I responded clearly, without mystery conditions, [nc #1524] "Yes, up to and including President. I would not mind Justice Thomas as Chief Justice, but my preference would be Justice Scalia."

I would equally vote for a Jewish candidate or a Black candidate or any other candidate.

In response, I posed a similar question to M. Espinola [nc #1524] "2) If an elected official has a proven conservative voting record would you still vote for them if they were an Arab American seeking higher office?"

M. Espinola finds himself incapable of providing a straight answer such as I provided to his question.

What M. Espinola [#1578] said was, "If the Arab American elected official supported Israel, of course I would vote for him."

What must the candidate pledge to show that he has "supported Israel?"

I asked a series of questions to find out, among them, "Does it mean providing military equipment and personnel to support Israel should Israel make a pre-emptive strike against an Arab nation..."

[M. Espinola #1673] Damn good idea, as in nuclear threatening, Persian Iran. Go IDF!!

In context, M. Espinola will not consider voting for any Arab-American candidate unless said candidate for UNITED STATES elective office first promises to support ISRAEL if Israel makes a PRE-EMPTIVE strike against an Arab nation and further pledges UNITED STATES troops and equipment to fight a war started by said PRE-EMPTIVE strike.

Note carefully that the condition is NOT if Israel is attacked and responds, but if Israel engages in a PRE-EMPTIVE strike.

If Israel expects U.S. military support, they had better provide the specifics of the need for their attack and request assurance of U.S. assistance before starting a shooting war.

We cannot promise that the full force of the U.S. MILITARY will be deployed based on a decision made by ANY foreign government.

[ariamne] But there is no question of choosing between Israel and America, because we are on the same side.

We are NOT always on the same side. We hold many many mutual interests. However, were we totally on the same side, and the interests of Israel and the United States always one and the same, Israel would never have had any Jonathan Pollard's committing espionage against the United States Government for the benefit of Israel.

[ariamne] Their enemies are our enemies, too.

Perhaps this is largely so. But the U.S. has huge business and national interests not shared by Israel. Many of their enemies sit on top of a huge pot of oil. A number of the rulers are propped up by the U.S. and other foreign interests. The U.S., among others, has a significant interest in keeping that oil flowing and keeping the price affordable. It is a fact of life that must be dealt with. We have, and will continue to have, significant dealings with Israel's enemies.

I have nothing against Israel, nor have I said one word against Israel. What I have spoken against is putting the interests of ANY foreign nation over the interests of the United States.

No candidate for elective office in the UNITED STATES should have to pledge U.S. MILITARY support for a PRE-EMPTIVE strike by any FOREIGN nation against a third nation.

While the USA, in its history, has entered into various Mutual Defense agreements, with mutual agreement to aid each other in case of attack upon any member of the agreement, I know of no instance where the USA publicly pledged its military support to another nation in the event the other nation unilaterally chose to make a pre-emptive strike upon a third nation. A treaty to such an effect would provide a foreign nation with the power to take the USA to war at their discretion.

The claim of M. Espinola that he would vote for an Arab-American candidate who publicly pledged such support is as meaningful as a pledge that one would support a Jewish candidate upon condition that he or she first pledges support for the right of return of Palestinians to Israel.

I suppose it is even possible to make a good sounding case that the Palestinians were there for a few thousand years, evacuated due to war, and should have a right to return to their homes. I am sure Israel would be quick to point out that such would be tantamount to Israeli suicide. If I recall correctly, this is approximately the impossible condition which Yasser Arafat used to frustrate peace talks. He would only agree to peace on the condition that Israel agree to commit suicide, however more nicely it may have been phrased.

No American who puts America first should have any problem condemning Jonathan Pollard who, as an American citizen, committed espionage for a foreign government. It does not matter that the foreign government was Israel. Jonathan Pollard was working against the interests of the United States.

I will yet again repeat the VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT submitted by the attorneys for the people of the UNITED STATES:

"The specific instances of damage to the national security caused by Mr. Pollard's offense will be described in a classified damage session affidavit to be submitted to the Court in camera. Generally, it can be said that the breadth and scope of the classified information compromised by Mr. Pollard is among the greatest of any espionage operation uncovered by Federal authorities. Thousands of pages of Top Secret and Sensitive Compartmented Information were sold to the Israelis by Mr. Pollard. As explained in detail in the government's in camera affidavit, Mr. Pollard's unauthorized disclosures have threatened the U.S. relations with numerous Middle East Arab allies, many of whom question the extent to which Mr. Pollard's disclosures of classified information have skewed the balance of power in the Middle East. Moreover, because Mr. Pollard provided the Israelis virtually any classified document requested by Mr. Pollard's coconspirators, the U.S. has been deprived of the quid pro quo routinely received during authorized and official intelligence exchanges with Israel, and Israel has received information classified at a level far in excess of that ever contemplated by the National Security Council. The obvious result of Mr. Pollard's largesse is that U.S. bargaining leverage with the Israeli government in any such further intelligence exchanges has been undermined. In short, Mr. Pollard's activities have adversely affected U.S. relations with both its Middle East Arab allies and the government of Israel."

[arianme] Perhaps you don't like Israel because they are Jews...

You assume a great deal. I have never said I do not like either Israel or Jews. I have said I place America first, ahead of Israel or Jews, or British or Irish or Russian, or Mexican or anyone else.

I have seen folks recently debating what fighting force was the best man-for-man and championing Confederates and Zulus if I recall correctly. A case could be made for the Israelis in their first couple of wars. Attacked the day it was born, Israel fought against great odds and prevailed. In another go-round, things were not going so well at the start and then it was turned around and again Israel prevailed. IIRC, a certain general named Ariel Sharon played a major part.

[ariamne] They could be very helpful to us in the war on terror, and they have a well-trained military accustomed to the tactics of islamic terrorists, the same people who would see of all us dead.

Their greatest assistance would probably be in the area of intelligence in their area of the world.

Because slavery was weakening the farther North you went.

Mr FTD claimed that (no slavery) = (no war).

I would always put the interests of the United States before ANY other nation, including Israel. Though I am an ardent Zionist, I am an American FIRST. Unlike the followers of islam, who must put loyalty to their religion before their loyalty to their country, no matter how vile a form those religious views may take (the laws of shari'ah for example).

Furthermore, I don't support anyone spying on America, including Jonathan Pollard; I never said I did. I don't think his actions, despicable as they were, endangered national security the way the spying of the Chi-Coms or Al Qaeda did. But I do condemn his actions wholeheartedly.

Despite Pollard, Israel is one of the United States closest allies. We share the same danger and the same enemy. We would do well to share intelligence and work to destroy the network of islamic terrorists that threaten us all.

I don't see how that can be construed as my putting another nation before my own. Perhaps I misunderstood you. I hope so. I have two cousins in the marines, currently deployed, fighting for our beloved country by battling the terrorists over there, so that we don't have to do it here. It may sound cliched to you, but they believe it with all their hearts and so do I.

Perhaps Israel and America have different interests, but we do share the same values: democracy and freedom from terror. America comes first in my heart, but I will never be convinced that Israel is America's enemy. That is just what our real enemies, the jihadists who are trying to install a global caliphate, and the neo-nazis who are unfortunately sprinkled here and there on this wonderful forum, want us to believe.

I'm not buying it.

How can you {deliberately} confuse Israel out of this comment? ...'support Iran' or 'support al Qa'ida'.. You might as well use Iceland, Bulgaria or Chad while you're at it. :):):)

10-29-2004 M. Espinola created

11-24-2004 Ariamne created

[Ariamne #1705] Furthermore, I don't support anyone spying on America, including Jonathan Pollard; I never said I did.

Nor did I say you did. I explicitly detailed and quoted from the conversation between myself and M. Espinola who went completely off-topic in virtually every post to get to this topic. I explicitly asked him about Pollard and I explicitly demonstrated his avoidance of any clear response. The two of you singing in diversionary harmony will not change that.

The diversionary non-response of M. Espinola [#1683] was "Your question on Jonathan Pollard is very tipical by those which have deep rooted problems with the either the Jewish people or the state of Israel. I do not read any concern relating to demented Hamas bus bombers from you. Why is this? In terms of your preoccupation with Pollard being a 'traitor' that's funny considering your repeated support for Confederate traitors. Were the Confederate secessionists traitors when they shelled a United States fort?"

[Ariamne #1705] I don't think his actions, despicable as they were, endangered national security the way the spying of the Chi-Coms or Al Qaeda did. But I do condemn his actions wholeheartedly.

[Ariamne #1705] Despite Pollard, Israel is one of the United States closest allies. We share the same danger and the same enemy. We would do well to share intelligence and work to destroy the network of islamic terrorists that threaten us all.

The USA and Israel do work together. I never said otherwise or you would have quoted me saying so. You did not.

[Ariamne #1705] I don't see how that can be construed as my putting another nation before my own. Perhaps I misunderstood you. I hope so.

You apparently have not misunderstood me at all. You have misstated me. I was explicitly speaking of the conversation between myself and M. Espinola. It would be difficult for me to have been speaking of a conversation between myself and yourself as we had not had one. I explicitly QUOTED from the conversation I was addressing.

What I actually did say was:

I have nothing against Israel, nor have I said one word against Israel. What I have spoken against is putting the interests of ANY foreign nation over the interests of the United States.
No candidate for elective office in the UNITED STATES should have to pledge U.S. MILITARY support for a PRE-EMPTIVE strike by any FOREIGN nation against a third nation.
While the USA, in its history, has entered into various Mutual Defense agreements, with mutual agreement to aid each other in case of attack upon any member of the agreement, I know of no instance where the USA publicly pledged its military support to another nation in the event the other nation unilaterally chose to make a pre-emptive strike upon a third nation. A treaty to such an effect would provide a foreign nation with the power to take the USA to war at their discretion.
The claim of M. Espinola that he would vote for an Arab-American candidate who publicly pledged such support is as meaningful as a pledge that one would support a Jewish candidate upon condition that he or she first pledges support for the right of return of Palestinians to Israel.
I suppose it is even possible to make a good sounding case that the Palestinians were there for a few thousand years, evacuated due to war, and should have a right to return to their homes. I am sure Israel would be quick to point out that such would be tantamount to Israeli suicide. If I recall correctly, this is approximately the impossible condition which Yasser Arafat used to frustrate peace talks. He would only agree to peace on the condition that Israel agree to commit suicide, however more nicely it may have been phrased.
No American who puts America first should have any problem condemning Jonathan Pollard who, as an American citizen, committed espionage for a foreign government. It does not matter that the foreign government was Israel. Jonathan Pollard was working against the interests of the United States.

Notably, you cannot respond citing any example of any time in the history of the United States "where the USA publicly pledged its military support to another nation in the event the other nation unilaterally chose to make a pre-emptive strike upon a third nation."

That was the condition, the litmus test, of M. Espinola to which I took issue. Such a pledge would probably be an unconstitutional usurpation of Congressional power, and would surely be insane foreign policy.

[Ariamne #1705] I have two cousins in the marines, currently deployed, fighting for our beloved country by battling the terrorists over there, so that we don't have to do it here. It may sound cliched to you, but they believe it with all their hearts and so do I.

I did my own 20 years of active duty.

[Ariamne #1705] Perhaps Israel and America have different interests, but we do share the same values: democracy and freedom from terror. America comes first in my heart, but I will never be convinced that Israel is America's enemy.

Nor did I say Israel was America's enemy. If I had said that you would have quoted me saying it. You did not.

[Ariamne #1705] I'm not buying it.

I am not buying that you missed the fact that I repeatedly cited and quoted M. Espinola and was referring explicitly to my conversation with him. In case you missed it, I will quote it so nobody else misses it.

I was asked, without cause, [M. Espinola #1523] "6) If an elected official has a proven conservative voting record would you still vote for them if they were an African American seeking higher office?"
I responded clearly, without mystery conditions, [nc #1524] "Yes, up to and including President. I would not mind Justice Thomas as Chief Justice, but my preference would be Justice Scalia."
I would equally vote for a Jewish candidate or a Black candidate or any other candidate.
In response, I posed a similar question to M. Espinola [nc #1524] "2) If an elected official has a proven conservative voting record would you still vote for them if they were an Arab American seeking higher office?"
M. Espinola finds himself incapable of providing a straight answer such as I provided to his question.
What M. Espinola [#1578] said was, "If the Arab American elected official supported Israel, of course I would vote for him."
What must the candidate pledge to show that he has "supported Israel?"
I asked a series of questions to find out, among them, "Does it mean providing military equipment and personnel to support Israel should Israel make a pre-emptive strike against an Arab nation..."
[M. Espinola #1673] Damn good idea, as in nuclear threatening, Persian Iran. Go IDF!!

In context, M. Espinola will not consider voting for any Arab-American candidate unless said candidate for UNITED STATES elective office first promises to support ISRAEL if Israel makes a PRE-EMPTIVE strike against an Arab nation and further pledges UNITED STATES troops and equipment to fight a war started by said PRE-EMPTIVE strike.

Note carefully that the condition is NOT if Israel is attacked and responds, but if Israel engages in a PRE-EMPTIVE strike.

If Israel expects U.S. military support, they had better provide the specifics of the need for their attack and request assurance of U.S. assistance before starting a shooting war.

We cannot promise that the full force of the U.S. MILITARY will be deployed based on a decision made by ANY foreign government.

[ariamne] But there is no question of choosing between Israel and America, because we are on the same side.

We are NOT always on the same side. We hold many many mutual interests. However, were we totally on the same side, and the interests of Israel and the United States always one and the same, Israel would never have had any Jonathan Pollard's committing espionage against the United States Government for the benefit of Israel.

[ariamne] Their enemies are our enemies, too.

Perhaps this is largely so. But the U.S. has huge business and national interests not shared by Israel. Many of their enemies sit on top of a huge pot of oil. A number of the rulers are propped up by the U.S. and other foreign interests. The U.S., among others, has a significant interest in keeping that oil flowing and keeping the price affordable. It is a fact of life that must be dealt with. We have, and will continue to have, significant dealings with Israel's enemies.

I have nothing against Israel, nor have I said one word against Israel. What I have spoken against is putting the interests of ANY foreign nation over the interests of the United States.

No candidate for elective office in the UNITED STATES should have to pledge U.S. MILITARY support for a PRE-EMPTIVE strike by any FOREIGN nation against a third nation.

While the USA, in its history, has entered into various Mutual Defense agreements, with mutual agreement to aid each other in case of attack upon any member of the agreement, I know of no instance where the USA publicly pledged its military support to another nation in the event the other nation unilaterally chose to make a pre-emptive strike upon a third nation. A treaty to such an effect would provide a foreign nation with the power to take the USA to war at their discretion.

The claim of M. Espinola that he would vote for an Arab-American candidate who publicly pledged such support is as meaningful as a pledge that one would support a Jewish candidate upon condition that he or she first pledges support for the right of return of Palestinians to Israel.

I suppose it is even possible to make a good sounding case that the Palestinians were there for a few thousand years, evacuated due to war, and should have a right to return to their homes. I am sure Israel would be quick to point out that such would be tantamount to Israeli suicide. If I recall correctly, this is approximately the impossible condition which Yasser Arafat used to frustrate peace talks. He would only agree to peace on the condition that Israel agree to commit suicide, however more nicely it may have been phrased.

No American who puts America first should have any problem condemning Jonathan Pollard who, as an American citizen, committed espionage for a foreign government. It does not matter that the foreign government was Israel. Jonathan Pollard was working against the interests of the United States.

I will yet again repeat the VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT submitted by the attorneys for the people of the UNITED STATES:

"The specific instances of damage to the national security caused by Mr. Pollard's offense will be described in a classified damage session affidavit to be submitted to the Court in camera. Generally, it can be said that the breadth and scope of the classified information compromised by Mr. Pollard is among the greatest of any espionage operation uncovered by Federal authorities. Thousands of pages of Top Secret and Sensitive Compartmented Information were sold to the Israelis by Mr. Pollard. As explained in detail in the government's in camera affidavit, Mr. Pollard's unauthorized disclosures have threatened the U.S. relations with numerous Middle East Arab allies, many of whom question the extent to which Mr. Pollard's disclosures of classified information have skewed the balance of power in the Middle East. Moreover, because Mr. Pollard provided the Israelis virtually any classified document requested by Mr. Pollard's coconspirators, the U.S. has been deprived of the quid pro quo routinely received during authorized and official intelligence exchanges with Israel, and Israel has received information classified at a level far in excess of that ever contemplated by the National Security Council. The obvious result of Mr. Pollard's largesse is that U.S. bargaining leverage with the Israeli government in any such further intelligence exchanges has been undermined. In short, Mr. Pollard's activities have adversely affected U.S. relations with both its Middle East Arab allies and the government of Israel."

These postings are becoming so long winded in order for one to totally digest much of the non-stop dribble about Arab Americans seeking higher elective offices, but they must not support preemptive strike against an Arab nation, then the thing bounces off another wall and lands on allegiance to Israel, spies & more spies, but deleting any mention of Muslim spies probably lurking down the street, then an additional U turns ranting on & on & on about legal beagles of the Supreme Court's Jewish ethnicity, segregation in the South was "Aryan (white) supremacy by way of Japanese ethnicity, or you continue to evade, then back to Robert E Lee and not remaining on the issue of the Civil War, coupled with the Supreme Court relating to pernicious consequences of that VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT just because of Mr. Pollard's Japanese ethnicity leading to his wild activities over the similarities to Nazi Germany in relation to Wahhabist Saudis Uniform Code of Military Justice was all due to great exigencies of government all boils down to YOUR DEFINITION of what "support Israel" means included in your litmus test of allegiance is not to the United States first, back to The Supreme Court ruled that abortion is lawful since I wouldn't know what concerted efforts the governments of Jordan and Iraq are making regarding the Confederate side of all this insanity!! LOL

In closing if one continues attempting to focus on this verbal blather one shall miss the results of the Iraqi elections, the downfall of Tehran's mad mullahs, the entire summer, as well as the next New Year's Eve in Times Square!

Enough is enough........

Thanks for the explanation, KP. It is disconcerting to find such attitudes here, since they are the same ones I abandoned on the left. The jewhaters here have more in common with the radical left than they realize. It is strange to me that some see joos as a greater danger than the sleeper cell jihadists, but deep rooted prejudices are hard to break sometimes. I think I will stick with my infidel friends on the islamic terror threads and my buddies at Freeper Canteen. We all must seek our comfort zones. Shalom.

Perhaps it may have been clearer had you posted to us separately. I assumed you were lumping us together in your responses, even though you tried to delineate who said what, it did get a bit confusing. Frankly, I don't know why you have a problem with me or anything I said. I am a loyal American who happens to be a Zionist. There are many of us here, as evidenced by the FReep I attended with FReepers bringing American AND Israeli flags when we counter rallied against the leftist "peace" creeps. So I will thank you for your service to this country with all respect and bid you good night.

A minority of neo-confederates remain livid about pro-slavery secessionists losing the Civil War.

......a real sick

Impeccably well stated! Bravo!

-United in combating the common enemy to the civilized world-

Eric Margolis, The Toronto Sun, Jan.14, 1999

LINK
After years of denials, Israel finally admitted Pollard, a U.S. Navy civilian analyst, was not a "rogue agent," as it originally claimed, but a spy for Israeli intelligence.
Pollard caused enormous damage to U.S. national security. He gave Israel top-secret U.S. military intelligence and diplomatic codes; names of nearly 100 U.S. agents in the Mideast, who were then "turned" by Israel; NSA code-breaking techniques and targets; intercepts of foreign communications; and U.S. war-fighting plans for the Mideast.
According to CIA sources, Pollard provided Israeli intelligence with names of important American agents inside the former Soviet Union and Russia who had supplied information on East Bloc weapons and war plans. How the agents' names were linked to the secrets they supplied - a major breach of basic intelligence security - remains a mystery.
Some of the enormously sensitive secrets stolen by Pollard may have been either sold, or bartered, by Israel to the Soviet Union.
A number of key CIA agents in the East Bloc were allegedly executed as a result of Pollard's spying. The KGB likely gained access to top-secret U.S. codes - either directly from Israel, or through spies in Israel's government. In short, Pollard's treachery caused one of the worst security disasters in modern U.S. history.
* * *
With remarkable chutzpah, Israel, which receives up to $5 billion in U.S. aid annually, refuses to return documents stolen by Pollard, or allow U.S. intelligence to debrief Mossad agents who ran Pollard in order to learn the full extent of the disaster.

Denise Noe, The Jonathan Pollard Spy Case

LINK
Pollard was soon spying on a regular basis for Israel. He leaked thousands of pages of highly sensitive documents to the Israelis. He was a most valuable and efficient spy for, as Carl Tashian wrote, “no one has stolen so much classified information so quickly.” Many in Israeli intelligence, who knew of Pollard’s work but not his real name, dubbed him “The Hunting Horse.” In Elliot Goldenberg’s book of the same title, he says that “’Hunting Horse’ is a transliteration from the Hebrew, and loosely means he would ‘hunt’ up information on request and that he was a ‘horse’ for his handlers; an exceptional agent on whose back his handlers [could] ride up the promotional ladder.”
LINK
Weinberger’s memorandum wrote of Pollard’s actions in the most damning terms. Among many other things, it said, “It is difficult for me . . . to conceive of a greater harm to national security than that caused by the defendant in view of the breadth, the critical importance to the United States and the high sensitivity of the information he sold to Israel . . . I respectfully submit that any U.S. citizen, and in particular a trusted government official, who sells U.S. secrets to any foreign nation should not be punished merely as a common criminal. Rather the punishment imposed should reflect the perfidy of the individual actions, the magnitude of the treason committed, and the needs of national security.” The word “any” is underlined in the original, reflecting Weinberger’s belief that Pollard should not be given leniency because he spied for a friend.
LINK
However, in 1988, the American Jewish Congress investigated the Pollard case and concluded that anti-Semitism was not a factor. Said Phil Baum, their executive director, “We made an independent effort and we could not document any charges of anti-Semitism, no evidence that he was treated differently.”

C'mon, you're what.... 5 years old?

You seem to be very ignorant with respect to your own posting history. Here's a clue: each post does not initiate a new thread:

[M.E] You really think my question 'do you "support Israel" was too broad? If someone asked you or I if either one of us 'support Iran' or 'support al Qa'ida' the response would be quick and too the point in an obvious 'no!'

A minority of authoritarians are livid about any attempt to defend and uphold the law, and their inability to defend the actions of union leadership with anything but sand-in-the-eyes and bayonets.

Let's try to remain in the no-spin zone

Then why'd you trip off into Fantasyland? But yeah, let's try to get it right. I'll be happy to correct you. I won't even charge for it.

I equated 'American Klansmen' to 'Wahhabist jihadi scum' since both burn churches. Is that not correct?

No. The church burnings people were upset about a couple of years ago were due to a wide variety of causes. Most Klansmen don't run around burning churches. If you have the names of a few that did, please put them up with the names of all the other people who committed arson against churches in the last five years, and let's see if your generalization stands up. After all, we owe it to the idea of candor to remember that it's possible to lie about even the Klan, and to accuse them of stuff they didn't do.

Most people have enough on their plates to accuse the Klan of stuff they did do, so why do you have to make things up?

Most of the jihadi religious attacks have been aimed at Shia Moslems, but a few have attacked churches in e.g. Pakistan and synagogues in France and Turkey. But their animosity is rooted in Koranic exhortations to strike unbelievers, rather than ethnic animosity such as the Birmingham church bombing 40 years ago. So there is no equation there.

Both give the nazi style salute. Review at the photos. Correct?

In your photos, they do -- but then, how many photos are there of Wahhabist scum giving the Hitler salute? These are the first I've seen. And furthermore, is it modelled on the Nazi salute? At the 1936 Berlin Olympics, the marching Olympians gave an Olympic salute, which closely resembled the Nazi salute but wasn't one -- the German crowd responded enthusiastically with the German version. Both were based on the old Roman salute -- and the Romans are completely innocent of having ever been members of the NSDAP.

The Klan picked up the Nazi salute from the ANP in the 50's, proof positive that they love losers and losing. That is the real Nazi salute, but again, they give it for reasons unconnected to whatever the Wahhabists are doing. That's because American Klansmen aren't remotely Arab or Koranic or Wahhabist or Middle Eastern in their thinking. They're home-grown problem children, but home-grown all the same.

Your tendency toward categorical thinking and 1984-style ranting at groups is beginning to worry me. How about parsing the equities, if you want to talk about equity? Oskar Schindler was a member of the NSDAP, too. Wrinkle, wrinkle, wrinkle -- you're getting wrinkles in your cloak of selfrighteousness, bud.

Both wear hoods when committing cowardly acts of terrorism. Correct?

Yes, the jihadi scum do, but when the Klan shot Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner, they didn't. They didn't when they shot Viola Liuzzo, and they didn't when they shot Medgar Evers. So far as I know, James Earl Ray wasn't even a Klansman, and he certainly didn't wear robes the day he shot MLK.

Both have a doctrine based on blind hate. Correct?

No, the jihadis have a doctrine based on the Koran. The Klan has a doctrine based on racial identity -- identity politics, if you will, the politics of your favorite junior senator from New York. Most of it is chuckleheadedness, and some of it is the product of witting malevolence by people who know how to use Scripture to stir up ethnic hatred for various reasons -- but don't indulge it for its own sake. IOW, the worst ones are the ones who don't believe the hate literature, but are using it to lead dimmer lights. The jihadis, OTOH, don't think at all, but simply follow Koranic scripture. People like Bin Laden are not so much using the Koran in a Straussian way, as immersing themselves in its ancient validation of hostility against unbelievers. There's a difference. Your minimizing the differences isn't doing anything for understanding either.

Both try and prevent the normal voting process. Correct?

No, not correct. The Klan never tried to stop an election. They have tried to keep blacks from voting (see the 1870's SCOTUS Cruikshank decision, concerning the arrest of some Klansmen for having violated the Force Acts and the Civil Rights Act of 1866), in order to prevent blacks from getting political power over them (blacks tend to fire white public jobholders indiscriminately, or perhaps it's "discriminately", when they get elected -- but then you knew that, from the experiences of New York teachers back in the 1960's, which was my first indication that the civil-rights movement wasn't entirely on the up-and-up). But I've never heard of the Klan actually trying to stop an election. Even they aren't that stupid. The jihadis are. Another difference, contrary you.

You just want to make the black-propaganda equation "Southerner = Neoconfederate = Klansman = Al Q'aeda scum", which I explained to you is the "bracketing" technique. Instead of taking your medicine, you renewed your attack with increased vigor and malevolence. Nice try. No cigar.

So, here's the deal, Espinola. If you start indulging your hatred of Southerners publicly, and trying to equate them to the scum of the earth for polemical reasons, using black-propaganda techniques even after the techniques have been noticed and brought to your attention with the strong suggestion that you knock it the hell off, then you become as bad as the Klan itself, capiche?

You're a knucklehead. Don't try for fanatic.

Two states, Missouri and Maryland, voted against secession and remained with the North.

Oh, my. Oversimplification-as-deception ping.

Looks like I'm going to have to call your daddy on the subject of Missouri, boy.

I hope when you go to Confession you confess your lying and slander.

LOL-- bite me, Cardinal Ratzinger.

Lincoln did only want peace and freedom, ....

No, he didn't -- he engineered a war as a way around the Constitution.

...it was the South who chose to go to war in order to keep some men as slaves.

Wrong again. Lincoln engaged the South in warfare to get the Southern States back into the Union, after they'd seceded in recognition of the violent and implacable hostility of Lincoln's faction and the growth of anti-Southern regional sentiment in the North.

If there had been no slave issue, there would have been no civil war.

If there had been no slave issue, the Republicans would have had to invent something else to knock down Southern competition for political power. They meant to rule the country, and they didn't want to put up with Southern agriculturalists' obstruction. Big money was at stake. The South got in the way of a New York payday -- and got run over.

....and the neo-nazis who are unfortunately sprinkled here and there on this wonderful forum, want us to believe.

The guy who was posting neo-Nazi stuff, #3Fan, got kicked off.

We knew there was a neo-Nazi creeping around because someone following links had found a further link to a neo-Nazi site and seen a post there by someone bragging that he was putting "our material" up on FR. It was the person you are posting to, nolu chan, who ran the search that exposed #3Fan and his material and applied essence de zot to his squeezings. The AM's were so torqued they pulled a 4000-post thread rather than go through all the droppings post-by-post to root out #3Fan's "contributions".