Top general calls homosexuality 'immoral'

george, after accusing cyclo of exaggeration, goes on to say

The poor bastards lived large portions of their lives without Starbucks and electric potato peelers. It's shakespearean, this level of the tragic.

george said, in response to advocate's baby-killer question

It was an out of line question/indictment. But there's no reason to be ashamed on the basis of being American, as if Americans individually or in toto are somehow exempt from moral ugliness...that's dangerous nationalist delusion. It was out of line because you pointed specifically at george, tarring him with one of the worst acts of immorality we might imagine, with no good reason to do so. And, it ought to be noted, you have seemed absolutely hesistant to say anything like that about Israeli soldiers' acts in Lebanon.

My daughter (she's 23) phoned me from Vancouver last night. She called because she had been watching a documentary on CBC which dealt with soldiers in Iraq speaking about their experiences, specifically about acts they had committed as soldiers after having been trained to act in direct contradiction to their most deeply held moral convictions and values. We aren't supposed to kill others. She was crying when she called me. She's a smart girl and was overwhelmed by the victimization of almost everyone in war. I read her a quote, to help clarify the deeply complex...

On the eighteenth of March 2003 Barbara Bush was interviewed by Dianne Sawyer on ABC and she said that she would not watch coverage on TV of the war. "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths, and how many, what day it's going to happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

Or something like Walter Reed hospital? Or something like a quarter million blown to hell?

Wonderful, S. Nam was proclaimed a state by Ngo Dinh. He happens to be the Jesuit we pulled out of a seminary in Maryland and installed as our puppet president of this so-called new country.

BTW, it is a fact that our forces bombed and shelled many civilian villages and cities in Nam, and seemed to have a great time doing this. Looking back, isn't it fair to say that our officers, at least, acted in a criminal manner.

Israel was under constant attack by the Arabs from even before it became a nation. It did only what it had to do in defending itself. But the Arabs, and others, call that defense criminal. What a joke!

I believe the conjunction of these two statements demonstrates not only a vast ignorance of war generally, and the facts of the conflicts in Vietnam and the Middle East in particular, but also a profound gulf in the ethical and moral values the author so selectively applies to the United States and to Israel. Hypocrisy is hardly an adequate term for it.

Though I don't agree, that is, at least a self-consistent position that can be defended, without contradiction, by reasonable argument.

Israel has never done anything similar to our actions in invading Nam and Iraq. But, don't let truth get in the way.

Have you forgotten the campaign of murder and terror through which the state of Israel was created, or the active measures to drive out the Palestinian inhabitants of the land during the 1948 war?

More tellingly. how would you categorize Israel's unprovoked invasion of Sinai and Suez in 1956 (in conjunction with France and Britain) ? How about the incursion into Beirut? How about the denial of basic human rights to the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank in an occupation that has lasted almost 40 years - a territory seized in the 1967 War, a War in which all of the parties were complicit, but which Israel itself started in preemptive attacks on Egypt, Jordan, and Syria..

George, you must know that all you say is a pack of lies.

Israel begged the Arabs to stay in Israel, and many did and prospered. (Interestingly, Jews are not allowed to live in the Arab areas.)

Israel was in an active war with Egypt (and Nasser) when it joined in on the attack at Suez. (Is that similar to our unprovoked wars with Nam and Iraq?)

Israel's attacks on Lebanon were the result of continuing attacks (including incursions and rocketing) on Israel. (I don't remember Nam or Iraq ever attacking us.)

Jordan, Egypt, and Syria joined together to attack Israel in 1967. Before Israel attacked Egypt's forces marching on Israel, Egypt blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, an act of war.

Your statements are so ridiculous -- aren't you concerned about your credibility?

It just occurred to me -- Ann Coulter is writing Gen. Pace's material.

My credibility is quite intact. You have gone to great lengths to damage yours.

Suez was an unprovoked war, and no threat to Israel preceded it.

Jordan and Syria did not initiate the conflict with Israel in 1967 -- Israel attacked them without notice. Egypt's forces were not "marching on Israel in 1967 as you wrote. Nassar merely expelled the UN observers on Egypt's side of the border -- Israel had never allowed UN peacekeepers on their side of the divide, so their objection was rather hypocritical.

The 40 year Israeli opression, exploitation, and theft of the property of the non Jewish populations of the West Bank and Gaza ranks as one of great crimes of the modern era. It has left Israel friendless and alone.

I can tell you for a fact that it drives me away from supporting a people who I would normally support.

Cycloptichorn

george
How on earth can your write everything up to that sentence in red, and then go on to write that sentence in red? Israel acts as it does because it has the unfailing support of the US. Israel is friendless and alone except for that one other nation which has a comparable ethics level.

In this stupid and destructive nationalist blindness, you and advocate are equals .

No matter what the thread, one can rely on George, Blue, and Cyclo to find a way to unfairly denigrate Israel. I now see Bernie is jumping on the bandwagon. Yeah, Israel is largely friendless and alone, and that is because it lacks oil, and has a population slightly lower than that of the combined Arab countries.

The US has been a good friend of Israel because Israel's cause is just and it has served as a valuable ally of the US.

I agree that Israel has been a good ally. For the amount of money we put out as aide, Israel is the only country that seems to give us any return. They provide the US with intelligence reports about the region which is more then others have done.

Unfairly? That's a laugh.

What exactly does Israel do for us? What is their cause which is 'just?'

Cycloptichorn

My last post is questionable insofar as it might be interpreted to claim that Israel and the US are at the bottom of pile in national ethics. I didn't mean to suggest that. I did mean to say that they both have much to account for, and that neither you nor george are willing to face up to the ethical/moral failings both nations are so clearly guilty of.

If you yourself read much of the Israeli press, you'll know that such indictments of Israeli government policy since 1967 are common in that national press and that there are serious constituencies of jews within Israel itself who are far less willing than you to excuse Israeli policies and the effects they have had not only on Palestinians, but negatively on Israel's security.

Israel is a free country, and its residents are free to criticize the country's policies. Just as in the USA, some of the criticism is valid, and some not. So what?

Israel has, of course, made mistakes. But who hasn't? But none of Israel's mistakes even slightly approach the magnitude of our mistakes relative to Nam and Iraq. Any honest appraisal would support this.

Yes, I see a difference in magnitude, the US footprint on the world so much larger, but not much to distinguish otherwise. Torture, for example.

A Massachusetts school superintendent lifted a district-wide campus ban against a father arrested while attempting to secure a promise from school officials to notify parents before teaching about homosexuality in his son's kindergarten class.

After nearly seven months, Lexington Superintendent of Schools Paul B. Ash will allow David Parker on school property without the threat of further arrest, but the district won't change its policy on notifying parents, said Article 8 Alliance, a state group that lobbied against same-sex marriage.

As WorldNetDaily reported, criminal trespassing charges against Parker were dropped in October. He faced prosecution after he spent a night in jail in April in the town of Lexington for refusing to leave a scheduled meeting with officials at Estabrook Elementary School.


The ban was a source of contention among Parker's supporters, who saw it as a punitive act of intimidation, since Parker had never demonstrated himself to be a danger to anyone, Article 8 said.

Article 8 said Ash met Nov. 15 with Parker and attorneys for both sides to discuss lifting the ban, but the superintendent gave no indication of his decision.

Saturday, Parker received a letter at his home from Ash saying that the ban was lifted.

But Article 8 said the move is certain to raise the anger of local homosexual activists, who formed an organization dedicated to opposing Parker and his efforts to get parental notification.

Moreover, the schools still refuse to notify Parker if they are discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, now in first grade.

On Sept. 21 Ash published a statement in the local newspaper informing the town he told teachers they have no obligation to notify parents on subjects of homosexual relationships, even in lower grades.

Article 8 said that to bypass the state parental notification law, Ash used a "decision" from the state Department of Education on another matter, and "re-interpreted it."

"To our knowledge, this order by Ash is the most arrogant, anti-parent act by any school system in the country regarding homosexuality and schoolchildren - essentially telling parents that they have no right to interfere with what the school decides to teach their kids about sexual morality," an Article 8 statement said.

The dispute began last spring when Parker's then-5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled, "Who's in a Family?" The optional reading material, which came in a "Diversity Book Bag," depicted at least two households led by homosexual partners.


David Parker's son brought home the book 'Who's in a Family?' in school's 'Diversity Book Bag' (Image: Article 8 Alliance)

The illustrated book says, "A family can be made up in many different ways" and includes this text:

"Laura and Kyle live with their two moms, Joyce and Emily, and a poodle named Daisy. It takes all four of them to give Daisy her bath."

Another illustrated page says:

"Robin's family is made up of her dad, Clifford, her dad's partner, Henry, and Robin's cat, Sassy. Clifford and Henry take turns making dinner for their family."

Parker complained to school officials, and at a scheduled meeting at Estabrook Elementary School April 27 with the principal and the town's director of education, he was told an agreement could be reached.

But after the superintendent intervened via telephone, Parker abruptly was told that unless he left the meeting he would be arrested.

Parker insisted that an agreement be reached before he left, and school officials called police, who handcuffed him and brought him to jail, where he spent the night.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see some still have more free speech rights then others. To think that a parent can't seek notification about a school subject is quite sad. If religion was the case of this article then you bet your bottom dollar that there would be a notification involved.