I like the way conservative contributors to the debates on this site predictably criticise left-leaning contributors for being...predictable. And what about Leigh wanting facts, not opinion (what, here?)or Redneck saying that left-wing propaganda won't work. Well, obviously, Redneck, it's right-wing propaganda that does it for you. Good luck convincing the rest of us that the US and its partners were right to invade Iraq. Hardly anyone believes that anymore.

Loewenstein's article is a ne plus ultra example of monumental bias, bigotry, and hate against the US, for whose "political sins" he condemns and casts the latter into Hades. In his ideologically choleric article against the US, he has not one word about the great threat posed against the West by global terror and its state sponsors. He is cognitively purblind and cannot see that by casting the US into "Hades", which is the only nation in the world that can defeat global terror, he is in fact casting the whole Western world into the Hades of Islamofascist fanaticism.

Incidentally, his photo pellucidly reveals the arrogance of an intellectual poseur.

Go to my blog: NEMESIS http://congeorgekotzabasis

FH,

Martin asked you specific questions - OLO courtesy is to at least attempt to acknowledge them - even if you can't or won't answer.

Instead you are directing traffic to your webblog and evading the hot potatoes you cannot handle... but then again that's been your style all along.

Martin's questions again:

Fellow human can you find answers to the problem of mode of revelation in Islam? Can you really equate all the horrific sayings in the Koran with the Gospels? The Hadiths are triply horrific. What is in Islam that would prevent a pious young man having the courage of his faith to follow his religion to its logical conclusions? Islam's lived example is frighteningly anti human rights. Where are your words of explanation for non-muslims in here

Themistocles

I think the word you were grasping for was Pellucidity, from Pellucid which has two meanings
1. transparent, allowing all or most light to pass through
2. easy to understand or clear in meaning

Which definiton did you mean?

You state He is cognitively purblind and cannot see...

Purblind an offensive term meaning partly or completely unable to see.

Bad english if he is purblind he cannot see, so why state "and cannot see"

I think it is your post that shows the arrogance of an intellectual poseur.

If you are going to use big words get them right, or else stop being a w*nker - Good old Aussie term.

Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq hay,
Did I miss Something , didn’t any of you see the satellite footage of Russian Special forces moving something over to Syria, OOOps, P C again, Fairdinkum, what did he use on Iran, Powder Puffs buns? And what was that thing in Ritter’s Hand on TV for the UN, OOO , it must have been Saddam’s toy. His Love weapon. Lets not forget Saddam and Al-Qaeda, sorry that was not published in the Green Weekly.
We do not need any more Mad Mullahs, we have more than enough of our own Mad Leftists, same thing –Pathological Nincompoops. But they do not have control of the BUTTON yet.

Saddam and Terrorists, see here. Thousands of documents, but know one seems to have read them. YET, So start now.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

I wonder what will be in the Green Weekly next week. Yassa Arafat’s Love Affairs, well let me tell you- Women are not on top of the list.
I have heard the tape TIGA.

All.

Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq have?
None, as reported by the UN inspection team.

Did I miss something, didn’t any of you see the satellite footage of Russian Special forces moving something over to Syria.

If they were moving “something” it wasn’t weapons of mass destruction. Did the Russian Special Forces have their uniforms on? Most Special Forces would be indistinguishable from the locals.

What did he use on Iran, Powder Puffs buns?

No they used conventional weapons provided by the USA to fight the US enemy Iran. Funny Iran also used weapons from the USA left over from when the Shah was the good guy.

Saddam may have backed Palestinian terrorism against Israel, but he detested Al-Qaeda. He saw them as a threat to his secular state and hence his own power.

Al-Qaeda was strongly opposed to the secular regime of Saddam Hussein and bin Laden had offered use of his fighters' services to the Saudi throne, but the deployment of 'infidel' forces to Islamic sacred territory was seen as an act of treachery by bin Laden.

If George Bush senior had listened to his political advisors instead of his war advisors he could quite easily have had Al-Qaeda as allies as they were in the Russian-Afghan war.

Remember that Iran has a border with Pakistan, good guys with nuclear weapons? Iraq full of American troops, Afghanistan full of American troops. They have good reason to feel worried.

American foreign policy disasters going back decades are the cause of terrorism in our world, now we have President Rambo making things much worse.

Not to mention threats to assassinate the head of an elected govt. in South America by elected US politicians.

If you believe the crud on the link you provided, you poor brain cell must be in overdrive.

What kind of world would we have if America kept its big nose out of others business